Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 08/06/1984 i Kent, F,'ashington August 6 , 1984 Regular meeting of the Kent Cite Council was called to order at 7: 00 o 'clock p.m. by Mayor Hogan . Present: Councilmembers Bailey, Biterman, Johnson, Kelleher, Woods and T1,.hite, City Administrator Cushing, City Attorney DiJulio, Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom and Finance Director McCarthy. Council- member Leahy was not in attendance. Also present: Fire Chief Angelo and Police Chief Skewes. Approximately 150 people were in attendance at the meeting. CONSENT JOHNSON MOVED to approve the Consent Calendar j CALENDAR Items A through N, with the exception of Item F , which was removed at the request of Mayor Hogan, Items E, J and K which were removed at the request of Councilmember Biteman, and Item L which was removed at the request of Planning Director Harris . Tloods seconded. Motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5A) Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of July 16, 1984 as printed . STREETS LID 318 - North Central Avenue Improvements. The public hearing on the creation of LID 318 was continued from July 16 , 1984 to this date. The public hearing was reopened by Mayor Hocaan. It was noted that one letter had been received from Mr. Kranz in opposition to the formation of the LID. VHITE PROVED to make the letter part of the record , Woods seconded. Motion carried. There were no comments from the audience and JOHNSON MOVED to close the public hearing , Woods seconded . Motion carried. KELLEHER MOVED that Ordinance 2485 be adon_ ted creating LID 318 , Woods seconded . (lotion carried. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITF117 5F) REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF i1AYOR HOGAN Bill of Sale - Norpac I Division III . Mayor Hogan noted that this item was a Bill of Sale and that some of the work has not been completed but the City would like to release the bond that covers the items that have been completed. In accordance with the recommendation of the Public '^forks Director, KELLEHER MOVED to accept the Bill of Sale for Norpac I - 1 - August 6 , 1984 STREETS Division III street and utility improvements and release the cash bond and respective plat bond when the Public Works Director has determined that all work therein has been satisfactorily completed and/or bonded for and the respective maintenance has been given. ?-?oods seconded. Motion carried. STREET (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5C) VACATION Street Vacation Resolution. ADOPTION of Resolution No. 1025 setting a public hearing date for Septem- ber 4 , 1984 Council meeting to consider the petition of Burlington-Northern 'railroad and Mlannesmann- Tally for the vacation of a portion of 80th Place S . STREET (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5D) BANNERS Green River Community College Banners . APPROVAL of the request of Green River Community College to place banners in Kent for a maximum of ten days on the following dates: September 17 , 1984 November 19 , 1984 !-larch 18 , 1985 This matter was discussed at the workshop of July 23 , 1984 . STORM (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5G) SEWERS Storm Sewer Bill of Sale (Fourth Avenue Townhouses) ACCEPTANCE of the Bill of Sale for operation and maintenance for 180 . 2 feet of 12 inch C"4P storm sewer line, north of Crow Street. CITY (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5H) HALL Engineering Department Heating and Air Conditioning . AUTHORIZATION to proceed with heating and cooling revisions for the Engineering Department and APPROVAL of transferring $15, 300 from the S . 180th Street Improvement Project Fund to this fund , as rec_uested by the Public T,7orks Director and recommended by the Public Works Committee. 2 - i August 6 , 1984 HOUSING & 1985 Housing & Community Development Block Grant COMMUNITY Program_. A public hearing is scheduled for this DEVELOPME14T date to consider adoption of Kent' s 1985 Community Development Local Program policies. The draft23 . document was reviewed at the workshop of July mayor Fogan declared the public hearing open. It was noted that no correspondence had been received and there were no comments. KELLEHER MOVED to de close the public hearing, Woods seconded. Motion carried. KELLEHER MOVED to approve Kent' s 1985 Community Development Local Program Policy, Woods seconded. Motion carried. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITE1 5J) RF-MET) AT THE REQTTFGT OF COUNCILMEMBER BITEi4AN Letter of Intent to Apply for Housing & Community Block Grant Funds for Human Services . In response to questions from Councilmember Biteman, Bruce Creager of the Planning Department noted that in regard to human services, no special request was being made at this time and that the purpose of the agenda item was merely to show the City' s intent to apply for such funds without a specified jdollar amount or a use of the funds. BITErAN MOVED to authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of intent to King County Housing & Community Development to use 1985 Block Grant Funds for public (human) service funding, Woods seconded. P4otion carried. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5K) (REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER BITEMAN) Letter of Intent to Apply for Housing & Community Development Block Grant Planning & Administration Funding. Creager also explained to Councilmember Biteman that this item was also only a request with no special purpose or amount at this time. Accordingly, BITEPIAN PROVED to authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of intent to King County Housing & Community Development for use of 1985 Block Grant Funds for planning or program administration. woods seconded. Motion carried. PRELIMINARY (CONSENT CALENDAR ITE14 5L) PLAT (REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF PLANNING DIRECTOR HARRIS) Foster Industrial Park Preliminary Plat (SU-79-6) Extension Request. Harris clarified that they had i 3 - i I August 6, 1984 PRELIMINARY failed to include a proviso in this item concern- PLAT ing the condition that was contained in the staff report. He noted that the agenda item was for approval of the request of EEM Incorporated for a one-vear time extension on the Foster Industrial Park Preliminary Plat to August 13 , 1985. Harris pointed out that the following condition, contained in the staff report, should have been added: That after August 18 , 1985 it should state. . . "Subject to the following conditions : That applicant reimburse the Public Works Department for its nro-rata share of the costs incurred in the formation of LID 315. This pro-rata share is $11, 806 . 90 . This amount is to be paid within 30 days after City Council approval of the requested one year time extension. If not paid within said 30 days, the granting of the time extension shall be voided. " Harris noted that this was the basis for the recommendation for approval. KELLEHER MOVED to accept Consent Calendar Item 5L as amended, 'Woods seconded. Motion carried. PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR ITE-M 5I) RECREATION Glenn Nelson Restroom Project. AUTHORIZATION to pay the overrun of $911. 37 from Federal Revenue Sharing Funds on this project as recommended by the Finance Department. On July 2 , 1984 the City Council accepted the Glenn Nelson Restroom Project as complete. Green River Bike Trail Underpass. Bids for the Green River Bike Trail Underpass were opened August 1, 1984. Two bids were received. W.B.E. A A A & E Enterprises Asphalting Estimate Base Bid: East side of Meeker St. Bridge $18,875 $29,250 $22.604 Alternate 1: West side of S. 212th St. Bridge 14,818 25,760 23.990 Alternate 2: East side of S. 212th St. Bridge 22,101 26,740 35,515 Total $55,794 $81.750 $82,109 4 — August 6, 1984 PARKS & Bailey noted that he would like Helen Adams to RECREATION advise the Council should they have any questions relative to the bid and the request for additional funds out of the reserve. Bailey clarified for Biteman that in order to complete the entire project at this time, it would be necessary to use Federal Revenue Sharing Funds, pointing out, however, that a portion of the funds was for a contingency fund. If this money is not used, it will then be returned to the Federal Revenue Sharing Fund. Ms. Adams clarified for .Mr. Biteman that this was a project that qualified for Federal Revenue Sharing Funds. There was no further discussion and BAILEY MOVED that a contract in the amount of $55,794 covering the base bid and Alternates 1 and 2 be awarded to W.B.E. Enterprises for the Green River Bicycle Underpass project and that $17,440 in Revenue Sharing Funds be added to the project account. Woods seconded. Motion carried. EQUIPMENT Fuel Card System. Three bids were received on RENTAL July 26 for a Card-Controlled Fuel System and Fuel Pumps System for the Equipment Rental Divi- sion. Upon the recommendation of the Public Works Department, BAILEY MOVED to accept the low bid of Northwest Pump & Equipment at $29, 657. 24 . White seconded. Biteman stated that the new system was a long time overdue. Potion carried. PERSONNEL (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5E) (REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER BITEMAN) Reclassifications. It was noted that there was an additionai hafidout to go along with the reclassification issue from City Attorney DiJulio. DiJulio clarified that one position had been included in the reclassification which he wished to delete and bring back to the Council at another time. Biteman noted that in light of the City Attorney' s request and because of other matters which had been brought to his attention, that the matter be handled at the next workshop. In response to questions from Bailey and Cushing, he noted that he did not wish to discuss the matter at this time. He further clarified for the "flavor that he wanted more 5 - i i i August 6, 1984 PERSONNEL information on the reclassification process . Cushing noted that the reclassifications were retroactive, that they had been pending for some time and that there were a number of people who had some expectations of receiving these reclassifications. Biteman refused to discuss the issue at the meeting and asked that it be brought back to the council. In accordance with his request, BITEMAN "COVED to discuss the matter at a workshop session, Kelleher seconded. Motion carried. ZONING CODE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEI4 5N) Amending Ordinance. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 2486 approving the summary publication thereof, changing the Highway Commercial classification to General classification. This was approved at the July 16 public hearing. COMPREHENSIVE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5M) PLAN Agricultural Preservation Comprehensive Plan Amendment. ADOPTION of Resolution No. 1026 adopting the Agricultural Preservation Compre- hensive Plan Amendment approved at the Council meeting of July 16, 1984 . REGULATORY Resolution 1023 adorted on July 2, 1984 set this REVIEW date for the annual public hearing to consider PROCESS citizen input on the City' s regulatory processes. Proper legal notice has been given by the City Clerk. The public hearing was opened by Mayor Hogan. Copies of letters from Paul Morford and from City Attorney DiJulio were filed for the record. The Mayor noted that both the Chamber of Commerce and Seattle Master Builders have requested that the ordinance requiring automatic sprinkler systems for buildings with a min- imum of 6, 000 square feet be increased to a 12 , 000 sauare foot minimum. She pointed out that the ord- inance, passed in 1980, had received considerable in- put from the public at that time. Len Crow, Tom Sharp and parry Anderson spoke in favor of the change. Sharp suggested that the matter be discussed by a group composed of people from the Fire Department, Building Department, Council , builders 6 - I t ! ! August 6, 1984 REGULAand residents. Morgan Llewellyn noted that the REVIEW City' s City' s requirements increased the cost of building, ! PROCESS which were passed on to the tenants. He suggested that the ordinance be repealed and each case be considered individually. Raul Ramos supported the change, noting that such a change would favor afford- able housing. Fie noted that other cities are using the 12, 000 square foot minimum. Stu Lear of Seattle Master Builders spoke in favor of the change, noting the impact on the cost of housing. Glen Votaw noted that the Chamber of Comm- erce had comments on several of the City' s processes: the Subdivision Code, the tree ordinance and the re- strictions on outdoor alarm devices. He questioned the urgency already expressed on the changes to the sprinkler ordinance. A letter from the Chamber of Corm Prce was filed for the record. j In response to Mayor Hogan' s question, Chief Angelo stated that there had been 1,012 apartment units built in Kent from 1980 through 1983. He noted that he favored review of the City' s regulatory processes and suggested that the s_rinkler ordinance issue be addressed after the Fire Plaster Plan is in place. He noted that he had been informed only this morning that an ordinance would be prepared for tonight's meeting and requested the opportunity to present the valid benefits of leaving the sprinkler ordinance as it is. Mayor Hogan noted that the purpose of the review process was for the Council to consider questions about various regulations and that it would seem appropriate to consider such items at a committee meeting and at a workshop meeting so that the public could attend. Sharp concurred, and reiterated his suggestion that discussion among interested parties should take place. He agreed with Angelo that there would be certain options in the Master Plan. Crow noted that the requirements for office buildings could be different from those for residence complex- es. After all who wished to speak had done so, Bailey MOVED to close the hearing. Biteman seconded and the motion carried. Biteman MOVED to change the minimum floor area requirement for automatic sprinklers from 6, 000 to 12, 000 square feet.Kelleher seconded. 7 - t August 6 , 1984 REGULATORY Bailey objected to such action as arbitrary on REVIEW the part of the Council. He stated that this PROCESS hearing was established to discuss and review the concerns of the community regarding the City' s existing regulations. He pointed out that the staff had been directed to formulate a Fire Master Plan, which was scheduled to be presented in October. The Plan would contain certain options and he stated that the Council should review the staff ' s presentation of the Plan before taking this pro- posed action. He pointed out that he was not un- sympathetic with the concerns voiced by the build- ers, but that action to change the regulations was inappropriate at this meeting. Biteman noted that the Fire Master Plan had been underway for several years and that it was a posi- tive factor . He pointed out that an analysis of any action taken tonight could be made when the Plan was presented for adoption. Biteman noted further that the building season for this area was short and that the evidence presented tonight would warrant action. Kelleher stated that the question was what sort of regulations should be used in the interim period while the evaluation is underway. He noted that Kent has the most restrictive sprinkler standards in the Northwest and that it would be appropriate to adopt the standard practices used by other communities while we develop our information. Kelleher noted that the Fire Master Plan and the Affordable Housing Studv underway in the Planning Department will both supply valuable information to the Council. Bailey suggested that the motion to change the reg- ulations be amended to allow time to discuss the matter at a workshop session. At White 's question, Chief Angelo noted that the Fire and Building Depart- ments were always receptive to inquiries and would supply information at any time. He pointed out that the Fire Master Plan would not make O.ecisions for the Council but would supply background infor- mation. Biteman stated that the . evidence presented to- night would indicate that Kent' s regulations should - 8 - i I August 6, 1984 REGULATORY be in keeping with those of the surrounding areas REVIEW and that the costs should be absorbed in other PROCESS ways rather than through charges to the tenants. Cushing noted that when these regulations were adopted in 1980 there was considerable discussion, and that it was a known fact that the regulations were more restrictive than in other communities. He supported Angelo ' s view that changing the regu- lations should be given the same kind of consider- ation and study which were given to the adoption of the original regulations. Bailey stated that he supported the idea of having hearings on the regulatory processes but that the Council would be acting capriciously if immediate action was taken, without a through study and in- vestigation of material presented at such a hearing. Biteman called for the question and DiJulio noted that Ordinance 2484 had been prepared which covered Biteman ' s proposed motion to change the minimum floor area requirement for automatic sprinklers from 6, 000 to 12, 000 square feet. All voted in favor of adopting Ordinance 2484 , except Bailey and the motion carried. Mayor Hogan noted that she would veto Ordinance 2484 as she thought the action was inappropriate at this time. She noted that many builders had already constucted more than 1 , 000 units in compliance with the 6, 000 square foot regulation. POLITICAL Don Mason spoke fium the audience noting that the SIGNS City' s ordinance does not allow posting of politi- cal signs more than 30 days prior to an election. He pointed out that Charles Doyle has had such signs posted and asked that the City enforce the ordinance. I FRED rsEYER Fred Meyer Properties RZ-83-3 Rezone REZONE A public hearing has been scheduled for this meet- APPEAL ing to consider an appeal frog! the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner denying a request by Fred Meyer Properties LTD, to reclassify 10. 8 acres from R-1-7 . 2, Single Family Residential to CC, Community Commercial , located at the SE corner of James Street (SE 240th) and 100th Ave SE. - 9 - i I August 6, 1984 FRED P'IEYER City Attorney DiJulio gave a brief summary of the REZONE recent legislative changes to the Appearance of APPEAL Fairness Doctrine and then described the rules of procedure for the appeal process. The public hearing was opened by Mayor Hogan. A telegram was read from Thomas Higgs , supporting the decision of the Hearing Examiner. The telegram was then filed for the record. Jerry Baysinger representing Fred Meyer Properties introduced other members of his party:. Wayne Kittle- son, Steve Gill and Roy Whitman. Baysinger, noted that the three basic issues involved were these: 1) Does the proposal comply with Kent` s Comprehensive Plan and with the East Hill Plan? 2),•Jhat effect will the proposal have on the traffic in the area? 3) What effect will the proposal have on the East Hill Elementary School? Baysinger pointed out that the East Hill Plan has established a commercial node at James & Benson and that the Fred Meyer request represents a modest ex- pansion of this node. He stated that the plan con- tains a policy which states that the commercially zoned area should be expanded when 75% of the com- mercial land is developed. He stated that 80% is now commercially developed and that there are no parcels now zoned commercial which are large enough to accomodate this project. Baysinger noi.nted out that the plans call for saving 60 of the trees now on the site, landscaping, a storm water retention system, and that this project would use land unsuited for non-commercial development.He stated that the project is supported by the Plan policies. Mayne Kittleson, of CH2m, Transportation Engineer, addressed the traffic problems , noting that traffic eastbound on James stays to the center lanes because traffic must merge east of the intersection, near the Post Office, to one lane in each direction. He noted that the State has committed to widening the Benson Highway to two throucxh lanes in each direction, south of James Street , and that Fred Meyer LTD has agreed to participate in construction of a separate right turn pocket on the eastbound approach to the inter- section. 10 - I i i August 6 , 1984 I I:ittleson contended that these improvements FRED MEYER would result in a better level of service in the REZONE intersection than is currently the case. He stated APPEAL that another traffic signal at 102nd & James would not result in further back-up of traffic if the traffic signals were shortened and interconnected. He further stated that trips to the Fred Meyer Store would not be extra trips, but rather shopping trips which are already being made. Baysinger noted that he had met with school officials and that after the Hearing Examiner had made her recommendations , a new option was presented, under which the driveways on 100th Ave would be elimina- ted from the proposed project. Service would be from a full driveway at 102nd and a secondary driveway consisting of a "right-in" and "right-out" only. Jerry Winkle of the School District stated that the District had no problem with the project proposed. Baysinger stated that the store would provide permanent and seasonal jobs for 150 to 200 people, with an annulal payroll of $2 . 5 million. Local sales and property taxes for Kent would amount to $200 , 000 Per year. He requested that the rezone be approved. Upon Bailey ' s question , it was determined that the plans to mitigate the no near the school were worked out after the presentation before the Hearing Examiner and that the right turn diagrams were not presented to the Hearing Examiner, although the matter was discussed . Jerold Brannon referred to the June 19, 1984 from Jensen-Krause-Schoenleber, signed by Baysinger, listin ontiona , alternatives and proposals for g the project. He objected to the use of these words- stating that they are not definite commitments . L1Ln stated that whether the driveways on 100th are opened or closed is not a critical matter to the School District. Jean Foster expressed appreciation to the staff for information she had received. She submitted a letter opposing the rezone, which letter has been filed for the record. - 11 - i I August 6, 1984 FRED PEYER Jim Brian objected to the proposal for a third REZONE traffic light on James Street, stating that it APPEAL would increase the bottleneck problem already ex- isting. John Reburg opined that traffic from the proposed new store would add to the traffic jams at the inter- section. He also questioned the provision for safety of children boarding school buses. i Roberta Brown noted that people living on 100th Ave north of James already have a problem trying to gain access to James St. Fred Williams concurred with this and noted further that t�-.is portion of 100th Ave i�-; already a speed trap, with no sidewalks for the children. He also questioned the noise from the store and the result to residential values. Chris Puller stated that there is already a parking problem at the school, and that parents park along 100th Ave when attending a school activity, particular- ly after school hours. Jean Miller noted that the residents had shown by attendance at three hearings that they were opposed to this project. There were no further comments from the audience, and Woods MOVED to close the hearing. Johnson seconded and the motion carried. Bailey noted that he found no evidence that the Hear- ing Examiner had erred in her findings . He noted that "after the fact" information regarding after hours use of the school might be a subject to be remanded to the Examiner. Johnson stated that the issue was whether or not we should be expanding commercial activ- ity in this area and that the evidence presented to- night had not so indicated. He noted further that the Plan calls for a review when 75% of the commercially zoned area is developed and that since we have reached that point, the Planning Commission could be directed to undertake such a rrr..f ew. Biteman !`MOVED to remand the matter to the Hearing Ex- aminer and Bailey seconded. Biteman noted that page 7 of the Hearing Examiner ' s recommendation � - 12 - I August 6, 1984 FRED MEYEP. indicated that all natural vegetation would be REZONE removed and that 900 of the site would be covered APPEAL with impervious surfaces. Information supplied to- night indicated that 60 of the trees would be saved and this was reason to remand the matter. White opined that if the property was developed piece-meal we could have manv driveways accessing the James Street instead of the one access with a traffic control signal proposed by Fred Meyer LTD. Kelleher spoke against remanding the matter, stating that the applicants should request a change in the Comprehensive Plan, through the Planning Commiss- ion. He noted that in the recent Transportation Plan hearings it was evident that some plans must be made to expedite the Citv ' s east/west traffic. The proposed S 224th corridor was eliminated and the problem must be resolved with another arterial or down-zoning of property in the area. i Woods concurred, noting that the issue was not whether the Fred Meyer store would be an attractive addition to the area, but whether the proposal fits into the Comprehensive Plan. She agreed that re-examining !, the Plan or changes to the Plan could be considered. Upon White' s question, DiJulio clarified that the Council could modify the Examiner ' s recommendations, add or delete conditions or grant the rezone without conditions. The motion to remand the matter to the Hearing Exami- ner FAILED with Bailey, Woods and Biteman supporting it and Kelleher, White and Johnson opposing. Woods MOVED for the Council to accept the recommenda- tion of the Hearing Examiner and to deny the appeal. Johnson seconded. White noted that it had been stated that there was not another parcel currently zoned to accomodate this store, and opined that this operation would be an asset to the City. Upon the Mayor ' s question, Jim Hansen noted that the Planning Dept had found four sites, however some of these would require zone changes. 13 - August 6, 1984 FRED MEYER Kelleher suggested that this language be ADDED REZONE TO THE "iOTION: "and to direct the Planning Comm- APPEAL ission to review the Comprehensive Plan with re- gard to commercial zoning in the area of the in- tersection of SE 240th and 104th Ave SE" TFoods concurred. Johnson proposed an alternate amendment to the main motion: "to include the entire East Hill Plan rather than just this inter- section. The proposal failed for lack of a second. Woods ' motion, including Kelleher ' s addition CARRIED with Bailey and White ovposing. It was clarified for the audience that the Planning Commission would hold public hearings and would make a recommendation to the Council regarding whether the commercial zoning in the area of SE 240th and 104th Ave SE should be expanded. DiJulio noted that the Council ' s Findings and Conclusions on this public hearing would be presented at the next Council meeting and that copies would be provided to the Fred Meyer representatives. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5B) Approval of Bills . APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through August 3 after auditing by the Finance Committee at its meeting at 4 : 00 p.m. on August 15, 1984 . Parks Committee. Bailey noted that the Committee would meet at 9: 00 a.m. Tuesday morning. I 14 - i August 6 , 1984 AGRICULTURAL Agricultural Zoning Amendment. Continuation of ZONING the public hearing of July 16 , 1984 to this date AMENDMENT was authorized by the Council . The public hear- ing is for the. purpose of considering proposed Agriculture Zoning (A-1 ) for the west and south sides of the Green River. The continued public hearing was opened by Mayor Hogan. It was noted that correspondence had been re- ceived from the following: Haggard, Tousley & Brain Leslie Poon Craig Eckland Edgar Rombauer Ann Dews JOHNSON MOVED that the correspondence be made a part of the record, Biteman seconded. Motion carried. Glen Votaw of the Chamber of Commerce noted that he had previously submitted recommendations with respect to rezoning the proposed agricutural areas. He suggested, however, in light of the action taken previously at this meeting with regard to a rezone request, it might be better to leave the land use designations as they now are. i John O'Rourke, attorney for Kent Highlands, dis- tributed letters to the Mayor, Council and Clerk. He asked that the letter be made a part of the record, as well as the Kent Highlands Final EIS which was submitted two years ago. He also submitted the Draft EIS for the Kent Highlands for the record, as well as the City' s own Draft EIS which was mandated by the case of Wembley Enterprises that led to its preparation in con- nection with the AG hearing process . Referring to his client, he noted that there were three problems which were of concern: 1 ) After two years of the process, they were still unable to determine how much of the Kent Highlands pro- perty was to be included. - 15 - i i August 6 , 1984 AGRICULTURAL 2 ) The suitability of the land for ZONING agricultural usage. AMENDMENT 3 ) The issue of compensation for land. O' Rourke referred to the City' s own EIS and commented that it contained statements to indi- cate that a possible loss in land value as high as 28% could occur should the AG zoning take place. He urged the Council to take a closer look to determine whether the lands in question were really suited for agricultural use . Refer- ring specifically to the Kent Highlands property and a rezone request submitted during the past two years , which was denied, he noted that there was only one reference by staff members to agri- cultural uses for the Kent Highlands property, that being ten acres of property near Frager Road. He noted that this property is presently leased by Kent Highlands on a gift basis to an operator, noting that the individual in question had appeared at prior hearings and testified that he was unable to pay any rental for the use of the property. O'Rourke opined that there was insufficient evidence to indicate that agriculture was a profitable use of the property. With reference to the issue of compensation, O'Rourke referred to the July 16 , 1984 meeting at which Mr. Leahy had requested that the issue be removed as a consideration. O'Rourke pointed out that the County program does not have the funds available to compensate the property owners should their property be included in the farmlands preservation. He also referred specifically to the County' s ordinance which was adopted in late June or early July which sets out the amounts of monies available for land use acquisitions . BITEMAN MOVED to accept the documents presented by Mr. O'Rourke for the record, Kelleher seconded. Motion carried. Edgar Rombauer addressed the Council on behalf of Andrew Matelich, also referring to Councilmember Leahy ' s comments at the July 16 meeting with I - 16 - i August 6 , 1984 AGRICULTURAL regard to the issue of County funding. Rombauer ZONING noted that he had contacted Leroy Jones of the AMENDMENT division of the County that supervises the acquisi- tion of agricultural lands. He noted that Mr. Jones had supported the statement made by Mr. Rombauer. . .that the bond issue in question to raise the additional $35 , 000 , 000 was still in litigation and would not be determined in the courts for at least two years. Rombauer also pointed out that the property of Kent Highlands and that of Mr. Matelich were both classified as being totally unqualified for agricultural uses. Barry Margolese, 130 Lakeside Avenue, Seattle, addressed the Council on behalf of Embar-Kent Limited Partnership, owners of a 10-acre parcel of property. He described the location of the property as being immediately south of the Urbana property which is located between the Valley Freeway and the West Valley Highway, north of S. 277th, and south of the State Highway Depart- ment maintenance facility. He noted that the Embar-Kent property abuts that property on the south, with the east property line being the Valley Freeway, the north property line the south boundary of the Urbana prcperty and the south property line being S. 277th. Margolese noted that the property had been purchased in 1981 with the intent of one day using it for industrial development. He referred to the hearing on the Fred Meyer rezone, noting that it appeared the decision of the Council on denial of the rezone was basically related to the Comprehensive Plan, which apparently didn ' t permit the complete rezone of the property in question. Referring to the Embar-Kent property, he noted that it has in fact been designated as industrial on the Comprehensive Plan for approximately twenty years. However, he noted that recently the Planning Commission had examined the piece of property in question, deter- mined that it was not to be included in the entire agricultural redesignation, and then at the July 16 Council meeting, without any notice to the property owners , determined that it would be included in the comprehensive plan change from industrial to agri- cultural. He expresssed sincere objections to such inclusion. Margolese filed a letter for the record - 17 - August 6 , 1984 AGRICULTURAL on behalf of Embar-Kent Limited Partnership, ZONING from the law firm of Haggard, Tousley & Brain, AMENDMENT which letter requested that the action of the City Concil on July 16 regarding the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan be rescinded as to their client' s property. The basis for the request was pointed out as being the disregard of Embar-Kent Limited Partnership' s basic due process rights and in violation of the State Environmental Policy Act. The letter also referred to the lack of proper notice to the property owners as required. Margolese also noted that a similar letter had been sent on behalf of Urbana property owners. Margolese went on to refer to statements from Dan Smith, property owner in the area, who had testified at various Planning Commission hearings and who stated that in his best years of farming, he had lost approximately $15 , 000; that in his opinion neither his property, the Embar-Kent property nor the Urbana property had any agri- cultural significance whatsoever. Margolese asked that the initial comprehensive plan indi- cating these lands as manufacturing or industrial, placed on the lands several years ago, remain in force today. BITEMAN MOVED to make the letter from William Snell of Haggard, Tousley & Brain part of the record. White seconded. Motion carried. Mike Carpinito, property owner in the same area, also expressed concern over not being notified of action that was proposed to downzone his property to agriculture. He indicated that for months he had been of the opinion that his pro- perty was not included. He also expressed concern over the financial impact of downzoning the property. He asked that the Council give further consideration to keeping the property in its present zoning desigantion. Bob Hogan, Myers Group, 2600 Westin Building, Seattle, addressed the Council noting that he represented Kent Land Investors property, located about 4 mile north of S . 277th and west of the Valley Freeway. He also referred to the fact that this property was added by the Council 18 - i i i August 6 , 1984 AGRICULTURAL on July 16 as part of the Comprehensive Plan ZONING amendment and associated rezoning. He also AMENDMET expressed concern over the lack of notification over the impending action. Hogan also stated that after attending Planning Commission meet- ings and other Council meetings , they were satisfied that their client' s property would not be included, based on maps which were sent to property owners. He further suggested that since the amount of acreage was substantially increased, the maps should be changed to show this change, as well as a supplement to the Environmental Impact Statement. Mr. Hogan asked only that they be apprised of action that was impacting their property. He also filed a letter for the record setting forth their position on the actions which have occurred. BITEMAN MOVED to make the letter part of the record, Woods seconded. Motion carried. In response to the Mayor' s question regarding the Council action on July 16 and whether or not it was in violation of SEPA guidelines, City Attorney DiJulio stated that in his opinion it was not. He pointed out that zoning and Comprehensive Planning were two distinct pro- cesses governed by different procedures. He noted that the Supreme Court last year identified the planning process as a non-action process , not subject to SEPA whereas the zoning action is, in fact, subject to strict SEPA compliance. He contended that no such action was being contem- plated at this time, and that there had been no proposal to rezone the subject property. There appeared to be a great deal of confusion on the part of the interested parties and Harris clarified that the intent of this hearing was for the continued hearing on the Agricultural Zoning Amendment—that the proposed amendment includes both the addition of an agricultural zoning district to the Zoning Code and the application of that district geographically. Harris also noted that the Council had been reminded of their action on July 16 when they extended the agricultural area proposed in the Comprehensive Plan to include the area between West Valley Highway and the Valley Freeway 19 - August 6 , 1984 AGRICULTURAL and north of South 277th to the Green River. ZONING DiJulio again explained that the notice require- AMENDMENT ments were different for a rezone as compared with the Comprehensive Plan. In response to j questions from Kelleher, DiJulio noted that it would be necessary to give the required notices for a rezone of the property. With regard to the July 16 Council meeting, Kelleher contended that the Council was merely adopting the staff ' s recommendation with regard to changing the Comprehensive Plan in the area. Referring to statements which had been made regarding the fact that the land between West Valley Highway and the Valley Freeway not being included in the staff recommendation, Satterstrom referred to Alternative 3 on Page 9 of the Plan- ning Amendments Staff Reports in the red book which did show the staff recommendation as j including that area. He also referred to the map which was published and which was sent to the property owners involved, noting that this was done in 1983 when the matter was first con- sidered by the Planning Commisison. Tom McCann addressed the Council on behalf of himself and three other property owners, express- ing concern over the value which has been placed j on farmlands during the past several years. At his request, BAILEY MOVED to make his letter a part of the record, Woods seconded. Motion carried. Greg Wingert, Mary Ellen Hamblin, 13025 - 138th Avenue S .E. , Renton, Lori Johnston of the Green River Study Group, and Mary Williams all spoke in favor of farmland preservation in the Valley. Isabel Donofrio addressed the Council and noted that it was not possible to make a living farming in the Valley. BAILEY MOVED to make her letter part of the record, Biteman seconded. Motion carried. i i 20 - i August 6, 1984 I AGRICULTURAL Jack Martz, 12630 S.E. 185th, Renton, referred to ZONING the many meetings which had taken place over the AMENDMENT years and also to newspaper editorials which pointed out the need for reimbursement to the individuals whose land would be placed in an agricultural i designation. Kelleher questioned Pis. Stoner of the Planning Commission regarding those lands which had been referred to as agricultural and she explained that the definition adopted by the Planning Com- mission was very broad; that it was not only soil based but also non-soil based. She noted that nurseries were one of the uses they were looking at in this designation. She clarified that because of the broadness of the definition, they were able to include areas of less than prime soil . Kelleher and Bailey also raised questions as to the issue of compensation which the Planning Com- mission had been asked to address but which they had failed to do. 11s . Stoner explained that it was clear from the information they had obtained from the agricultural office that landowners in Kent were very happy with the offers that were made by the County, that people were accepting j the offers, and for this reason the Planning Com- mission felt that the program was adequate. In response to Bailey' s questions about the possi- bility of the land values being 28% less as con- tended by 11r. O'Rourk_e, Satterstrom read a letter which he had received from Leroy Jones, Project Manager, King County Agriculture Program, in which he responded to Mr. Rombauer 's statements and attempted to clarify the County 's position with regard to the agricultural land preservation issue. BAILEY MOVED to make the letter part of the record, [Moods seconded. Motion carried. In response to further questions from Bailey, Satterstrom explained that the Council could take one of two actions . It could decide that it will let King County dictate the way in which it wants to go or the Citv could attempt to influence its own future through City land use policies. Bailey - 21 - i August 6,1984 AGRICULTURAL suggested that it might be inappropriate for the ZONING Council to take anv action until the reimburse- AMENDMENT ment plan was in fact presented and noted that this had not been done as yet. I There were no further comments and KELLEHER MOVED to close the public hearing as to those properties recommended to be zoned A-1 by the Planning Commission. [foods seconded. Motion carried with Bailey voting nay. For the sake of discussion, KELLEHER MOVED that the recommendation of the Planning Commission for agricultural zoning be accepted with the exception of those areas zoned MPH lying south of Kent-Des Moines Road and that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the ordinance rezoning the subject pro- perty. :woods seconded. In response to questions from Biteman as to the effect this would have, and at the Mayor ' s request, Satterstrom pointed out the areas of 14RM which were being excluded, noting that the Planning Commission recommendation on the west side included about six acres south of the Kent-Des Moines toad within the City limits which is currently zoned MRM. Kelleher further responded to Biteman' s question by noting it is presently zoned MR14 and to change it to agricultural would be a down zone by virtue of reducing the level of intensity of development which is allowed on the property. He further clarified that by changing it to the A-1 zone all of the same land use intensities allowable presently under the RA zone would be retained. He noted that it was his intent to freeze the existing land use intensities in that subject area. Bailey raised auestions to Kelleher, noting that Kelleher had indicated earlier an interest in certain types of remunerations to the individuals whose land would not qualify as agricultural and whether he was now ruling them out by his motion with their j only recourse to be through the Superior Court. Kelleher clarified that his questions to Ids. Stoner had been an attempt to understand the Planning Commission ' s intent and that he had not meant to indicate that he supported compensation. He referred I i I 22 - i August 6, 1984 AGRICULTURAL to previous meetings in which he had stated that ZONING he had reservations about providing compensation AMENDMENT for zoning as opposed to the County' s program where development rights are received. He ex- plained that if the City were to compensate for zoning, there was a possibility the zoning could be changed later and the City would receive nothing for the money that had been paid. He also clarified that with respect to the other issue about the developability or the farmability of lands in that area, he was personally satisfied with Ms. Stoners comments that there were other forms of agricultural uses which can be used in that area, and in any event the allowable land uses under the proposal would not be changed from those which are allowed right now. Biteman expressed concern over the motion and asked if a friendly amendment would be acceptable. . . "And further, to permit land found ineligible for acceptance into the County agricultural preserva- tion program to request rezone on that basis. " Bailey seconded the amendment. Before responding to Biteman, Kelleher Questioned the City Attorney as to whether there was anvting to preclude any property owners from requesting rezones from the City at any time. DiJulio responded that this was a right which already exists and something the City could not prohibit. Kelleher then accepted Biteman' s motion as a friendly amendment. At the Mayor' s request, the motion was then re- stated as follows: To accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission for agricultural zoning with the exception of those areas zoned MRM lying south of Kent-Des Moines Road and directing the Attorney to prepare the ordinance rezoning the property, and further, to permit land found ineli- gible for acceptance into the County agricultural preservation program to request rezone on that basis. . .at their option. There was no further discussion on the amended motion and it carried unanimously. 1 KELLEHER MOVED that the public hearing be continued to a date to be later set by the Council upon notice to be lawfully given, for those properties north of S . 277th, west of State Route 167 , south - 23 - August 6 , 1984 AGRICULTURAL and west of the Green River, and within the westerly ZONING Kent City limits, and further direct the Planning AMENDMENT Department to consider and prepare environmental assessment for inclusion of said properties in a zone to be designated Agriculture General (A-G) . The purpose of the A-G zone is to provide appropri- ate locations for agriculturally related industrial usesuses in or near areas designated for long- rm agricultural use. Uses permitted shall be identical to uses permitted in the M-A zone. The Planning Department shall report back to the Council upon completion of the environmental assessment, at which time notice to affected properites of a Public hearing shall be given. Woods seconded. In response to the Mayor ' s question, DiJulio clarified that it was appropriate to close only a portion of the public hearing. Councilmember white asked that an addition be made to the motion to state. . . "further direct the Planning Commission to examine issues of compensation for those lands outside the County ' s program. " In response to Harris ' s questions about the Planning Department and the Planning Commission being directed to do two different things, it was determined to limit the motion to the original motion made by Kelleher. The motion was restated and in response to questions from Mayor Hogan and Councilmember Bailey as to what constituted an agriculturally related industrial use, Kelleher noted that it might be a cannery, but his intent was to do the same thing in the south end with the MA zone freezing the existing land use intensities as had been done on the west side with the RA zoning. By way of clarification as to what was intended by agriculturally related industrial uses, Satterstrom explained that the difference between the TMSA zone and the RA zone was that the k'!A zone allowed agriculturally related industries such as canneries, warehouses, storage and process- ing of agricultural products. He noted that this might range all the way from a cannery down to what the LDS farm has located out along Pest Valley Highway. There was no further discussion on the motion and the motion carried unanimously. WHITE MOVED to further direct the Planning Commission to examine Proposed options for compensation on - 24 - i August 6, 1984 AGRICULTURAL lands which we are zoning or designating as ZONING agriculture that are not covered in the King AMENDMENT County program. Biteman seconded. KELLEHER proposed a friendly amendment that one option the Planning Commission could look at is the "No Action" alternative as well and White con- curred. The motion as amended carried. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned to executive session at 11: 45 p.m. Betty Gray, CPS Deputy City Clerk i I i I - 25 - I