Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 12/16/1985 Kent, Washington December 16 , 1985 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Johnson. Present: Councilmembers Bailey, Biteman, Johnson, Kelleher, Leahy, White and Woods, City Administrator Cushing, City Attorney DiJulio, Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom and Finance Director McCarthy. Mayor Hogan was not in attendance. Also present: City Treasurer Drotz, Fire Chief Angelo, Acting Police Chief Byerly and Assistant City Admini- strator Webby. Approximately 60 people were in attendance at the meeting. PROCLAMATION A proclamation was read by Mayor Pro Tem Johnson declaring the week of December 15-21 , 1985 as National Drunk and Drug Driving Awareness Week. VISITORS Mayor Pro Tem Johnson welcomed Cub Scouts of the Webelo Den, Pack 506 , to the Council meeting. PERSONNEL City Treasurer. Resolution 1083 was read by Mayor Pro Tem Johnson, honoring City Treasurer Margaret Drotz on her retirement from City service to become effective December 31, 1985 . Ms . Drotz was commended for her integrity and devotion to duty since 1963 as City Treasurer and Supervisor of Utility Accounting. WOODS MOVED to adopt Resolution 108,E<?- White seconded and the motion carried. CONSENT KELLEHER MOVED to approve Consent Calendar Items CALENDAR A through Q, Biteman seconded. Motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5A) Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of December 2 , 1985 . HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5I ) SANITATION Seven Oaks Phase III Bill of Sale. ACCEPTANCE of the Bill of Sale and Warranty Agreement for on site sewer and water improvements consisting of approximately 3 , 785 feet of water main extension and approximaely 5 , 305 feet of sanitary sewer extension constructed in the vicinity of 118th Pl. S.E. and S.E. 260th Place for the plat of Seven Oaks, Division III , and RELEASE of the cash bond after expiration of the one year maintenance period. - 1 - December 16 , 1985 HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5P ) SANITATION Seven Oaks Phase II Bill of Sale. ACCEPTANCE of the Bill of Sale and Warranty Agreement for on site sewer and water improvements consisting of approximately 1 , 865 feet of water main extension and 1 , 865 feet of sanitary sewer extension con- structed in the vicinity of 119th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 257th for the plat of Seven Oaks, Division II, and RELEASE of cash bond after expiration of the one year maintenance period. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 50) S 228th Street and 64th Avenue S. Utility Extension Bill of Sale. ACCEPTANCE of the Bill of Sale and Warranty Agreement for approximately 680 feet of water main extension, approximately 2 , 512 feet of sanitary sewer extension, approximately 2 , 368 feet of street improvements, and approximately 2 , 050 feet of storm sewer improvements construction in the vicinity of S. 228th Street and 64th Avenue S. and release of cash bond after expiration of one year maintenance period. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5J) Des Moines Sewer District Comprehensive Plan. ADOPTION of Resolution No. 1085 approving Des Moines Sewer District Resolution 1985-17. WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5N) Deutsch Water Main Extension Bill of Sale. ACCEPTANCE of the Bill of Sale and Warranty Agreement for approximately 130 feet of water main extension constructed in the vicinity of 11625 S.E. 270th and RELEASE of the cash bond after expiration of the one year maintenance period. FIRE DEPARTMENT (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5D) Fire Station Lease. AUTHORIZATION for the Fire Department to call for bids to lease, (with pur- chase option), a building and land in the northern industrial area to be utilized as a fire station. POLICE DEPARTMENT ( CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5E) Drinking Driver Task Force Donation. ACCEPTANCE of a donation of $25 to the Task Force from the Lake Youngs P.T.A. Drinking Driver Task Force. WHITE MOVED to adopt Resolution No. 1086 relating to drinking and driving and commending the Kent Police Department, 2 - December 16 , 1985 POLICE DEPARTMENT the Drinking Driver Task Force and the Office of City Attorney for their continuing efforts to com- bat drinking and driving. Biteman seconded. Motion carried. PERSONNEL (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5F) Medical Insurance Programs Claims Administration Agreement. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign an agreement for medical/dental claims admini- stration with Network Management, Inc. The agree- ment, which is part of the City ' s new self-funded Employee Medical Program, was presented at Council workshop on December 9, 1985. Funding is provided within the medical insurance budget. KENT COMMONS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5G) Kent Commons Promotional Brochure. AUTHORIZATION to transfer up to $7 , 000 from the Kent Commons Energy Conservation Project Fund to the Kent Commons Operation Fund to cover the cost of 20 , 000 promotional brochures. This was approved by the Parks Committee on December 9 , 1985. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 510 Kent Commons Glass Backboards. AUTHORIZATION to transfer up to $4 , 641 . 66 from the West Fenwick Park Project Fund to the Kent Commons Operation Fund to purchase six glass backboards. This was approved by the Parks Committee on December 9, 1985. ARTS COMMISSION (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5K) City of Kent Arts Commission Sound Equipment. AUTHORIZATION for a budget change of $4 , 512 . 90 of unexpended funds from the 1985 Kent Arts Commis- sion Budget to purchase a new sound system for the Summer Music Series . This was approved by the Kent Arts Commission November 12, 1985 and by the Park Committee December 9 , 1985. CENTRAL SERVICES ( CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 511) Laser Print Rental Agreement. AUTHORIZATION to enter into an agreement with Laser Print for ninety day rental of our stuffing machine with the option to purchase, with all rental applying to purchase price of $10 , 000 at the end of ninety days. PARKS DEPARTMENT (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5L) Exchange of Property. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 2598 authorizing an exchange of certain property with the Andover Company in Southcenter Corporate Park to facilitate access and use of the Green River Corridor Trail as approved at the October 7 Council meeting. - 3 - December 16 , 1985 ANNEXATION (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5Q) Wilcox Annexation. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 2599 approving the Wilcox Annexation consisting of approximately five acres in the vicinity of S .E. 248th Street between 104th Avenue S. E. and 116th Avenue S. E. CITY OF KENT (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5C) ECONOMIC Kent Economic Development Corporation (Worldwide DEVELOPMENT Distributors, Inc. ADOPTION of Resolution No. 1084 CORPORATION approving the EDC Resolution 1985-41 authorizing the issuance and sale of industrial revenue bonds in the amount of $1 , 400 , 000 for Worldwide Distri- butors, Inc. T. J. Cycles Limited. T. J. Cycles Limited has applied for industrial development bond financing through the City of Kent Economic Development Corporation in the amount of $2 , 000, 000 for a new bicycle distribution facility in the City of Kent . In acordance with TEFRA regulations, a public hearing before the City Council is required, for which proper public notice has been given. The public hearing was opened by Mayor Pro Tem Johnson. No correspondence was received and there was no comment from the audience. BAILEY MOVED that the public hearing be closed, Woods seconded. Motion carried. LEAHY MOVED to adopt Resolution No. 1083 approving EDC Resolution No. 1985-40 authorizing the issu- ance and sale of bonds in the amount of $2 , 000 , 000. Bailey seconded. Motion carried. BUDGET 1986 Budget Ordinance. A public hearing on the 1986 City Budget including Federal Revenue Sharing Funds was conducted at the November 18 regular Council meeting . Following that meeting, workshops were held on Novmber 25 and December 9 at which time Council proposed the inclusion of a number of Budget adjustments. WOODS MOVED to adopt Ordinance No. 2600 adopting the City ' s 1986 Budget including the 1986 budget adjustments. Leahy seconded. Motion carried. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5B) Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through December 19, 1985 after auditing by the Finance Committee at its meeting at 4 : 00 p.m. on December 31 , 1985. 4 - i December 16 , 1985 COUNCIL Councilmember Leahy. Bailey noted that this was the last meeting for outgoing Councilmember Leahy and expressed appreciation for his services on the Council during the past four years. Council Workshop Meetings. After some discussion, the Council elected to have no workshop sessions for the remainder of the year. COUNCIL Parks Committee. Bailey noted that the dedication COMMITTEES of the new monument presented to the City by the City of Kaibara, Japan, would be held on Tuesday, December 17 , 1985 at Kaibara Park. UTILITY TAX Utility Tax Increase Ordinance. An ordinance INCREASE has been prepared providing for increasing the City ORDINANCE tax on utilities from 2 . 5 to 3 . 20 . JOHNSON MOVED that the proposed utility tax increase be post- poned indefinitely, noting that the County Council had this date delayed a decision on the proposed sales tax increase which would also impact the City. He also referred to the possibility of federal cutbacks which would severely impact the City ' s financial position. He suggested that these impacts should be analyzed further and the Council should have the opportunity to look at some other alternatives. White seconded the motion and offered a friendly amendment to Johnson' s motion. He MOVED that in lieu of looking at tax increases he would like the Council to look at service decreases . He suggested that the staff be directed to study proposals for 2% and 5% cuts and to report the results to the Council. Johnson concurred with the amendment and Bailey seconded. Bailey noted that he had not been in favor of utility taxes and encouraged the Council to look at all the alternatives and the various services offered by the City. He also suggested that the social agencies supported by the City, also look at their lo?.g range plans for considera- tion of possibly having to limit their services to those who are residents of the City. He noted that other cities are now taking similar action. He also suggested that the Council lead the way by not implementing the salary increases for the terms starting in January, a:i.I further, that the Council cut their salaries from $300 to $250 per month. He noted that he felt the additional $100 per month for the Council President was - 5 - December 16, 1985 UTILITY TAX justified. He clarified that this would amount INCREASE to approximately 17% cut and further suggested ORDINANCE that the Mayor ' s salary also be cut 17% . This would result in a total savings of approximately $10 , 000. Upon White ' s question, Bailey noted that he would like this also to be made a part of Johnson' s motion. Leahy seconded Bailey' s proposed amendment. Bailey ' s proposed amendment failed, with all voting against it except Bailey. White referred to Bailey' s suggestion that social service agencies take a look at the people being served and suggested tha` all departments in the City should do likewise. He noted that some departments serve more people who live out-<ide the City than those who live inside the City. Upon Cushing ' s question, it was determined that information on the 2% and 5% cuts should be avail- able to the Council before the last meeting in January, if possible. Biteman noted that he had asked for information on implementat i-n-i of per- sonnel additions during the year and noted he would like to have thi!; information as part of that report. Woods noted that she would support the proposal but wished to remind the Council and the citizens of Kent that it is very likely that cuts in service would be an ongoing problem. Future budgets may be forced with finding ways to increase revenue as well as making cuts. She also pointed out that approximately 80% of the City ' s costs was in salaries and suggested that this would not be an easy problem to solve. She also asked that the business leaders in the City should be deter- mining the level of service desired because m, ny of the salaries were in the Police and Fire Departments. Woods referred to =he fact that the City covered a large area and the service pro- vided by these departments was in fact unique. She also noted that the City was look- ing at an increase in services to be provided, and that the question to be asked was what kind of service was wanted from the various depart- ments . She stated that it was her opinion that the public employees provided very good service for the .?mount of money used to operate the City. Bob O ' Brien, 1311 Seattle Street, suggested that the City should perhaps go to outside agencies to provide the services such as police and fire. 6 - December 16, 1985 UTILITY TAX He pointed out that available funds will decrease INCREASE and that the Council, rather than proposing a tax, ORDINANCE should be looking toward other possible alterna- tives . Johnson pointed out that the City had at one time considered the possibility of a joint Police/Fire Department but it was determined that this was not feasible, nor was there a private agency able to provide that service. He also noted that many projects were done in-house to save money. Bailey clarified that it was not the intent of the Council to cut staff or cut the salaries of those employees providing the services. Joe Street, 849 Tilden, suggested that Mr. White ' s motion was very specific ind pointed out that the City should look at the services ::hat are provided to people who live outside the City. He also noted that much of the money that is going to King County is not coming back to the City in services . He agreed that a Contingency Fund was necessary for emergencies , but suggested that this money should not be raised by taxing those who reside inside the City, to support out of City programs. He suggested that the City should seek reimbursement from King County in services. Tom Sharp also concurred with the Council ' s pro- posed action. A letter from the Chamber of Commerce opposing an increase to utilties taxes was distributed to the Council and was filed for the record. There were no comments and on a roll call vote, the motion as amended by White, carried unanimously. AFFORDABLE Principal Planner Jim Hansen noted that a public HOUSING meeting date should be established at a West Hill location to discuss the Affordable Housing program. It was determined that this public meeting would be held on January 27 and that the regular work- shop would be held in conjunction with this meeting, at Totem Junior High. It was suggested that the workshop agenda be kept light to allow suffi- cient time for the housing meeting. It was also suggested that the workshop could be limited to items of concern to West Hill residents. 7 - December 16, 1985 WEST HILL West Hill Comprehensive Plan. The Public Works COMPREHENSIVE and Planning Committee met on December 9, 1985 PLAN to consider a draft resolution directing the Planning Department to review land use and zon- ing designations adopted by the West Hill Compre- hensive Plan in May of 1984. KELLEHER MOVED to adopt Resolution No. 1087 directing the Plan- ning Department to conduct the necessary land use review in an expeditious manner and present a proposal for implementation of the West Hill Plan as recommended unanimously by the Public Works and Planning Committee. Biteman seconded. Bailey noted that he did not oppose the resolu- tion in its present form, but that he had some concerns. He referred to similar action which was taken two years ago in the Green River Study when certain properties west of the Green River were set aside, two of which were rendered vir- tually useless. He noted also that there was some question of the financial impact because the lands he referred to were not then and never will be suitable for agricultural use. He cau- tioned the Council that rezoning or zoning actions should not be a response to public reaction or input, but rather should be looked at on the basis of what they will do for the City. He expressed sympathy for the individuals on the West Hill but noted that one of the things that was not discussed by the Council and was rejected by the spokesperson of that particular group was to consider the possibility of the resi- dents forming an LID Park District. Bailey further pointed out that if the Planning Department and the Hearing Examiner review the action, then there was another step to be taken. He noted that there was no problem in upzoning on the West Hill or on the East Hill, in spite of objections by some residents of the areas involved. He referred to other parcels of property that were out of sync with regard to zoning. He pro- posed an amendment to the motion to read that the Planning Department also submit to the Hearing Examiner that consideration be given to bring other inproperly zoned lands into conformation. Kelleher noted that before he accepted Bailey ' s proposal as a friendly amendment he would like to outline the present plan. He noted that at the last meeting of the Public Works & Plan- ning Committee the fact that the City has other community plans which have not been fully imple- mented was discussed and that this is a relevant 8 - December 16 , 1985 WEST HILL point. He pointed out that at the time of the COMPREHENSIVE Committee meeting they were not sure of what PLAN the possible side impacts were of directing staff to move ahead with the immediate implement- ation of all of the other community plans. He clarified that the issue raised by Bailey was also raised at the committee meeting, and at that time the Planning Director was asked to make a report back to the Committee to outline some of the possible impacts of implementing all of the plans, perhaps on an automatic basis as they are adopted. Kelleher pointed out that the West Hill Plan is the only community plan which has looked at the full impact. Bailey concurred with the Committee ' s direction. Michael Rogers, 11111 NE 3rd Street, Bellevue, WA 98004 , addressed the Council as attorney for Hal Pettijohn and Mr. Pike, noting that the Council was aware that the Pettijohn-Pike property was the 7-acre parcel. He suggested that imple- mentation of the West Hill Plan at this time was directed by residents adjacent to the subject property. He pointed out that the property had been zoned for approximately 20 years as Commer- cial , and that the residents of the area bought their property knowing of the Commercial zoning. He agreed that the property has not been developed as yet but that the property owers now have such an opportunity. He noted he had been advised by his clients that the Plan indicates that his clients ' property is zoned for a park or is shown as park. He suggested that the City was follow- ing a very dangerous course of action and noted that he had been involved in property acquisitions within the City. He suggested that if the City was really thinking about implementing the Plan which shows the subject property as park, there were two ways to implement that Plan. . .buy the property and make it a park. The other alternative is to zone it Park, in which case the City will be buying that property for a park. He clarified that this designation was not a reasonable private use and that rezoning the property to conform with the plan will take away all reasonable private use of the property. Johnson clarified that it was his understanding that the motion before the Council merely directs the Planning Department to review land use and 9 - December 16, 1985 WEST HILL zoning designations adopted by the West Hill COMPREHENSIVE Comprehensive Plan and that the Council was there- PLAN fore not proposing to take any action at this meeting as to whether or not the property should be zoned Commercial, Park or whatever. He sug- gested that it was inappropriate at this time to discuss the zoning aspect of the property when a true public hearing regarding the zoning was not being conducted. He also suggested that if someone wished to speak in opposition to directing the Planning Department to take the action called for by the resolution it would be more appropriate to make those types of comments. Rogers commented that the language of the resolu- tion calls for implementation of the City ' s West Hill Plan and referred again to his comments about there being only two ways to do this. He clarified that if this was what was to be done, then the City would be taking the designation of the property shown on the Plan, namely "Park" , and create some kind of zoning to name it accord- ingly or in the alternative, buy the property. Rogers noted that it was his intent to give the Council some background as to why he was object- ing and urging the Council not to pass the resolu- tion. He further noted that the Chamber of Com- merce seemed to share the opinion that a dangerous precedent could be established by the action being proposed. Rogers opined that it seemed to be the feeling of some of the Council and City staff that if the machinery for implementation of the plan was underway, then maybe it would result in a developer or a property owner backing away from a proposed project development. He pointed out that there are two ways to develop the property in question. As it is configured today, it is a 7-acre parcel purchased eight years ago at commercial value, and the property owner is now committed and must go ahead with the development. He suggested that if there was an alternative, the property owner would probably not propose this development but would instead work out a trade of some property with the City that would create significant buffers to really protect the adjacent residential development. He stated that his client was not in favor of par- ticipating in a "race to the permit counter" . 10 - December 16, 1985 WEST HILL He clarified that plans were well underway by COMPREHENSIVE the architectural firm engaged by Mr. Pettijohn PLAN He showed a plan which conforms to the zoning and stated that this plan really does not create the type of residential buffer that had originally been hoped for in discusions with the City. He stated that six months ago when it was determined that the property was to be developed it was contemplated that there would be wide buffer zones created in an exchange of property with the City. He pointed out again that if the resolution is passed at this meeting without delet- ing this property, that it is apparent that the "race to the permit counter" will start. He urged that the Council delete the Pettijohn-Pike property from the resolution if it is determined that it is necessary to go forward with the West Hill Plan implementation. Rogers pointed out that the Plan had just been adopted in 1984 and was the subject of careful, deliberate action which had involved months of hearings and meetings and input from the entire community. He urged that the resolution not be adopted and that the Planning staff be allowed to work with the property owner in the thoughtful development of the property. (Rogers did not file for the record copies of any plans displayed at the meeting. ) Upon White ' s question, Pettijohn stated that he had not received notice of any of the hearings on the West Hill Plan and that he had no prior knowledge that the property had been designated as a park. Kelleher referred to Mr. Rogers ' comments about the City having only two alternatives if the resolution were adopted, one being to purchase the site for a park and the other to zone the site as a park. He asked DiJulio if this was correct or if there was discretionary leeway for the Planning Department to make other proposals as well , and still stay within the law. DiJulio noted that in his opinion, these were not the only options open to the City. He noted that he was in complete agreement with Rogers that the City could buy the property or if it is zoned Park the City will also buy that property. He also noted that that advice was given to the Planning Commission two or more years ago. - 11 - December 16 , 1985 WEST HILL Rogers pointed out for Kelleher that if the City COMPREHENSIVE was really talking about changing the Comprehen- PLAN sive Plan that was adopted last year, then they should so state it, rather than saying it was proposed to implement the Plan. He suggested further that if, as Mr. DiJulio had stated, they were proposing to implement the Plan they would be buying the property. Kelleher directed questions to Harris, referring to a point raised by Mr. Rogers that if the resolution were adopted there is a threat that the development will not contain sufficient buffers, asking if there are other mechanisms available to the City to ensure adequate buffers. He also referred to the notification, specifi- cally with regard to Mr. Pettijohn, asking what the notification procedures were for community plans and whether or not proper notification procedures were followed during the process. Harris noted that the hearings were held several years ago and that he would have to research the records. Responding to Kelleher ' s first question, he noted that he had not yet seen a set of plans from the individuals, but that the first set of plans that had come through for SEPA had been returned for more details and that the owner had not yet reapplied. He pointed out that at the time the plans are brought back a review would be made of all the options, including going through the Environmental Protection Act, review of the impact, if any, on the neighborhood and proceed from that point, including compliance with all zoning regulations. DiJulio referred to the notification require- ments and stated that the statutory provisions with respect to notices for Comprehensive Plans are substantially different from zoning. In zoning matters, property within a designated distance from the area to be zoned is specifi- cally required to receive notice. In the case of comprehensive planning, general notice, publication, is the general mechanism used. Upon questions from Bailey and White, DiJulio clarified that there is no "Park" designation. He further noted that either it would be necessary to stay within the existing zoning designations - 12 - December 16, 1985 WEST HILL or create a new zone. In response to questions COMPREHENSIVE from Bailey, Harris noted that the existing zoning PLAN in that area is NCC (Neighborhood Commercial ) and the surrounding properties Single Family Resi- dential. Johnson again clarified that they were not pro- posing to take any zoning actions but were pro- posing to direct the Planning Department to review and make some proposals and asked that comments be directed to that end. Ed Nelson, 3525 Canterbury Lane, Kent, expressed support of the Council motion and opined that many of the residents of the Cambridge area were not aware of the commercial zoning. He also suggested that "Neighborhood Business" zoning does not imply a regional shopping center. He also noted that when the Cambridge Development was built, there were no shopping faciliies avail- able. He noted that a school for 150 students was planned almost across the street from the proposed shopping center site. He suggested that the City should explore the possibility of making this area a City/County park. Paul Morford noted that he was on the Planning Commission when the property was originally zoned, had lived in the Cambridge area when the zoning was being discussed, and that to the best of his knowledge no on from that area had come to the hearings to object to the proposed commercial zoning. Morford suggested that the resolution was setting the process in motion for downzoning the property. He questioned whether this was really what the City wanted to do. Johnson explained that the resolution expressed intent to direct review of implementation of the West Hill Plan as a part of the Kent Comprehensive Plan, and directing the Planning Department to present some proposals to the Council. He noted that the Hearing Examiner would be looking at the issue as well . Morford referred to experiences of his own where property he had purchased was designated for park use and he could not sell it. Eventually it was actually condemned for such use. He sug- - 13 - December 16 , 1985 WEST HILL gested that the City' s proposal would set a COMPREHENSIVE dangerous precedent for the City, as well as being PLAN morally and ethically wrong. Tom Sharp noted that he owned property inside the City of Kent and questioned implementing the West Hill Plan without implementing all of the plans at the same time unless there was some reason to react to a specific incident. Johnson commented that we had already done that by virtue of zoning land west and south of the Green River agricultural and that this was consistent with the Comprehen- sive Plan. He also referred to the Fred Meyer property and agreed that more of the entire Comprehensive Plan should be implemented. Bailey noted that, as Kelleher had stated, the Public Works and Planning Committee intend to pro- ceed with looking at the pieces of property that do not conform with the zoning in the various areas, but to do it in an orderly manner rather than burden the staff unduly, and therefore it would be done in segments . He expressed the hope that this would be done as expeditiously as pos- sible, due in part to the tremendous amount of development going on in the Valley. Upon questions from Ford Kiene regarding the pro- cess if this resolution is enacted, DiJulio clarified the processfor public hearings on rezones, noting that it would go from the Planning Depart- ment to the Hearing Examiner for public hearings and then on to the City Council for action or possibly for additional public hearings, and that the proper time for input would be at the time of the Hearing Examiner hearings. Gary Volchok suggested when the Planning Depart- ment is directed to review this in an expeditious manner that they be further directed to note that when an individual ' s zoning is changed by changing the Comprehensive Plan because the City feels this is the direction it should go, the issue could end up in court. He referred specifically to the Urbana situation and other valley properties which will become court cases. He cited the decreased value of properties which had been downzoned from commercial to agricultural. 14 - i December 16, 1985 WEST HILL He also suggested that any changes to comprehensive COMPREHENSIVE plans should be made on an organized basis, not PLAN at the time when a development is brought forward and permits applied for. He also referred to an item which Mr. Bailey had expressed concerns over during the Valley Studies; that of just compensation for down zoning, and pointed out that the public is often not aware that studies are in progress which could affect the use of their property. He concluded by noting that many of the people that he deals with are buying property with a view to development at some time in the future and are thus holding the property for future expansion or expansion of their business. If they leave the area they may return and find the zoning or the comprehensive plan has been changed without their knowledge. He suggested that the Planning Department be directed to take all of these facts into consideration when they are either implementing a plan or changing a plan. Ron Ricketts noted that the Chamber of Commerce letter suggests that down zoning should not occur without just compensation to the property owners . He particularly stressed the economic aspect of the proposal , noting that the City is looking for new business to come in and suggested that this could be a very negative message to those potential developers. BAILEY MOVED to make the letter from the Chamber of Commerce part of the record, Woods seconded. Motion carried. At the requestof Glen Votaw, Section 2 of the resolution was read into the record by Johnson as follows: Section 2. West Hill Zoning Review. 2.1 The Planning Department is directed to review the West Hill Plan, to conduct environmental and such other review as is necessary, and to present to the Hearing Examiner proposals for implementation of the West Hill Plan. 2.2 The Hearing Examiner shall conduct such hearings as are necessary and proper, and report to the City Council for its consideration and possible implementation, on the proposal of the Planning Department concerning the West Hill Plan. 15 - i December 16, 1985 WEST HILL 2.3 The review directed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 shall COMPREHENSIVE be pursued in an expeditious manner. PLAN 2.4 Vested development rights, if any, shall not be affected by the review directed herein. Greg Greenstreet, 22615 33rd Avenue S . , Kent, referred to the Chamber of Commerce letter stat- ing that economic growth would be discouraged, and noted that it was his understanding that the resolution did not discourage economic growth but was to bring such growth in line with the comprehensive plan which is for a prosperous and well-planned community. He suggested that the commercial spot zone did not fit in well with the community. He also referred to a petition against the commercial development which had been previously filed on December 2 noting that he now had 73 additional signatures to file. WOODS MOVED to accept the addition to the petition, Bailey seconded. Motion carried. Leahy noted that he was bothered when he saw differences between a comprehensive plan and the actual zoning on the property. He suggested that this was probably due to a mistake that was made several years ago when the West Hill Plan was formulated. He questioned whether the steps being contemplated at this time were necessary. He also stated that the Council was naive if they pretend that this proposed action was suggested for any other reason than to address the situation adjacent to the Glenn Nelson Park. He noted that inasmuch as there is no "park" zone, what are we really asking the Planning Department to do. He stated that he would not support this resolution. White noted that as a businessman, he normally would not support this type of action which is essentially a down-zone. He noted, however, that he felt that this was for the good of the community as a whole and he would therefore vote in favor. Biteman noted that during the West Hill studies it was admitted that there were not sufficient funds to give it the long range study that it deserved. He referred to the fat that the City had gone back three times to study the East Hill - 16 - i December 16 , 1985 WEST HILL Plan. For this reason and the community interest, e would support this resolution. COMPREHENSIVE he indicated h PLAN Bailey noted that he sympathized with those in the affected area if, in fact, the Hearing Examiner does change the zoning from Commercial to something else. He referred to the possible legal ramifications to this particular step and that the Council was not qualified to make such a decision. He pointed out that his belief in open space and parks are well known, but that he con- curred with Mr. Leahy. He suggested that no matter which way the Council votes, one party or the other will be unhappy. He stated that he would not support the motion. The motion to adopt Resolution 1087 carried, with Bailey and Leahy dissenting. ADJOURNMENT KELLEHER MOVED that the meeting be adjourned at 8 : 45 o' clock p.m. , Woods seconded. Motion carried. Marie Jensen, CMC City Clerk - 17 -