HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 05/07/1991 • MARIE JENSEN
CITY CLERK
CITY OF
PLANNING COMMITTEE
1,vn'sr'�-'
AGENDA
MAY 7, 1991
THE �� �� N.G:.::FO.R;::MIYI:,::7 ::I
PLANNINGV MM1tg MEETING 0Ii991 IS SCHEDULED! FOR
THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS EAST RO
AM: USED To
220 FOURTH:.*A
V0,URT.:R0'PM 6k.ANT Cl2 I'HALE A7
Committee Members
Jon Johnson, Chair
Christi Houser
Leona Orr
AGENDA
1 Human Services Commission Update (L. Ball) INFORMATION
2. Public Notification of 200-300 Foot Radius ACTION ITEM
(F. Satterstrom)
3. Soos Creek Update (L. Anderson) ACTION ITEM
4. Hugh Leiper Proposal (J. Harris) INFORMATION
5. A Possible Name Change of Committee INFORMATION
(J. Johnson)
in
M Az%
220 4th AVE.SO., I KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895 TELEPHONE (206)859-3315/FAX#859-6572
trey of Rend
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
April 30, 1991
MEMO TO: JON JOHNSON, CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER
SUBJECT: PUBLIC NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
The Planning Committee has expressed some concern about the public
notification requirements relating to land use actions. At a
Planning Committee meeting in March, the staff was asked to compare
Kent' s requirements with those of other jurisdictions. The
following is the result of that investigation, along with our
recommendations for change.
Existing Public Notification Requirements
Proposed land use actions, such as rezones, subdivisions, and
conditional use permits,. require a public hearing by state law.
Cities and counties are all required to publish notice of such
hearings in a newspaper of general circulation in the area. But,
beyond this requirement, cities are given wide latitude to alert
the public to pending land use actions which may affect them.
Below is a matrix of what Kent's neighboring cities (and King
County) do to give public notice of proposed land use actions:
Publish Post Notice Mail Notice
Notice Site Board Notice Radius
Auburn Yes Yes No Yes 300 '
Des Moines Yes Yes Yes Yes 300 '
44ederal Way Yes Yes No* Yes 300 '
Kent Yes Yes Yes Yes 200-300 '
King County Yes Yes No Yes 3001 .
Renton Yes Yes No Yes 300 '
Tukwila Yes Yes No Yes 300 '
* - Federal Way requires only a small notice board, measuring 18"
by 30" . All other cities, with the exception of Des Moines, use a
smaller format (8" by ill' or 8" by 14"") for posting purposes.
Jon Johnson, Chair and Planning Committee Members
April 30, 1991
Page 2
Analysis of Requirements
There is much consistency among jurisdictions in public
notification, with the exception of public notice boards. All
cities surveyed require publishing notice, posting property, and
mailing notice to surrounding property owners. Where cities differ
is on the matter of notice boards. Kent and Des Moines are the
only cities surveyed that require a public notice board to be
posted on the subject site. In Kent, this practice has helped
enormously in reducing the complaints about inadequate
notification. The City of Des Moines reports similar results with
their notice boards.
Where Kent might improve is in the mailing radius to surrounding
properties. Some applications require a 200 ' radius, others
require a 300 ' radius. The standard radius of surveyed cities is
3001 . Auburn also allows for the Planning Department to determine
a larger radius on certain applications of broader interest.
Staff Recommendation
Existing public notification procedures for land use permits could
be improved by modifying the zoning code to 1) require a basic 300,
radius for mailing notice, and 2) grant the Planning Director the
discretion to assign a wider radius with respect to permit
applications having a significant impact on the neighborhood.
The Planning Department would welcome a directive from the Planning
Committee to begin the code amendment process to accomplish these
modifications.
FS/mp:a:pubnote
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
CITY OF
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM 9MCI M
April 30, 1991
MEMO TO: JON JOHNSON, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE
FROM: LAURI ANDERSON, SENIOR PLANNER
RE: SOOS CREEK COMMUNITY PLAN
King County has recently released the first draft of its' Executive
Proposed Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and Proposed
Zoning for the Soos Creek Planning Area. The Soos Creek Planning
Area extends east from Kent's city boundary past Big Soos Creek.
At the Planning Committee meeting on May 7 , staff will present an
overview of King County's proposal and get your reaction to it.
The City will soon need to take a formal position in support of, or
opposed to, the Plan, and we would like your preliminary feedback.
LA/mp:soosl
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
• • r
CITY of CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
April 30, 1991
dhy®II(G9P4�
MEMO TO: JON JOHNSON, CHAIR AND CHRISTI HOUSER AND LEONA ORR
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: IBC RESPONSE CONCERNING HUGH LIEPER' S PROPOSAL FOR
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT
On April 21 1991 Hugh Leiper gave a presentation to the Planning
Committee concerning Downtown Kent revitalization (see attached
letter) . The committee referred Mr. Leiper Isproposal to Internal
Budget Committee(IBC) for their review.
IBC met on April 17, 1991 to discuss a Fiscal Note, prepared by
Fiance Director Tony McCarthy, concerning the Leiper proposal (see
attached Fiscal Note) . The note recommended that the City not
put money into this proposal because of the up front cost and the
fact that the Law Department finds the joint venture aspects of the
project are not legal. The Internal Budget Committee concurred
with this Fiscal Note.
JPH/mp: a: leiper
Enclosures
PORTER,MARGARET / KENT70/PL - HPDesk print.
-------------------------------------------
Message* Dated: 04/30/91 at 1105 .
Subject: HUGH LEIPER PROPOSAL - FISCAL NOTE
Sender: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Contents: 3 .
TO: Margaret PORTER / KENT70/PL
Part 1.
TO: Margaret PORTER / KENT70/PL
Part 2 .
Part 3 .
MR. LEIPER OF AMERICAN COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIES INC IS PROPOSING A.
REVITALIZATION PROGRAM FOR DOWNTOWN KENT. MR. LEIPER IS SUGGESTING THAT
THE CITY USE ITS POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO CONDEMN ALL PROPERTY FROM
SMITH ST. TO GOWE AND FROM 1ST AVE. TO 4TH LESS THE NEW LIBRARY. UNDER
HIS PROPOSAL WITH THE PROPERTY CONDEMNED, THE CITY WOULD FORM A JOINT
VENTURE WITH AN INSURANCE COMPANY TO BUILD A $75 TO $85 MILLION DOLLAR
MALL STRUCTURE WITH A PERFORMING ARTS CENTER. IfM ASSUMING UNDER HIS
PROPOSAL THE CITY WOULD OWN THE LAND AND THE INSURANCE COMPANY WOULD OWN
THE MALL STRUCTURE.
WITH COST OF LAND AND BUILDING AT $40 PER SQUARE FOOT BASED ON THE IOOF
HALL PROPOSAL, THE COST TO ACQUIRE 5 CITY BLOCKS COULD BE ABOUT 12 MILLION
DOLLARS. AT LEAST ANOTHER 2% IS SUGGESTED TO BE ADDED FOR LEGAL COSTS OF
CONDEMNATION. ADDITIONAL CITY EXPENDITURES REQUESTED ARE $135, 000 FOR A
MARKET ANALYSIS, SURVEY AND APPRAISAL REPORTS PLUS $380, 000 OVER 5 YEARS
FOR THE SERVICES OF AMERICAN COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIES INC. THIS PROVIDES A
TOTAL CITY COST OF ABOUT 13 MILLION DOLLARS BEFORE ANY TAX REVENUE IS
GENERATED FOR THE CITY.
IN ADDITION TO THE EXPENSE OF THE PROJECT, THE LAW DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED
THAT THE JOINT VENTURE PROPOSAL IS ILLEGAL AND THAT THE CONDEMNATION PROPOSAL
MAY REQUIRE MORE EXTENSIVE LEGAL COSTS THAN NORMAL. BECAUSE OF THIS AND THE
AMOUNT OF UP FRONT FINANCING COSTS REQUIRED, THE IBC RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY
NOT PUT MONEY INTO THE PROPOSAL AS PRESENTLY STRUCTURED. THE CITY DOES HAVE
EDC FUNDS OF APPROXIMATELY $110, 000 THAT CAN BE USED TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT IF A SAFER LEGAL PACKAGE THAT INVOLVES NO CITY OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY
WAS PROPOSED.
AMERICAN
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIES, INC.
Commercial Real Estate & Developer
PROPOSAL
Downtown Kent
Revitalization
It has been said , if you know where you have been , if you
know where you are, if you know where you should be , you may
arrive at the edge of Truth.
We most assuredly kno;•r where we have been regarding the
Downtown area , we most assuredly know where we are , but it
is very obviously, the Downtown Area doesn ' t know where it
should be .
If it is the true intent to have Downtown Kent be the focal
point of the community , with a prosperous and vital
business , then some very real new direction is necessary.
First let us analyze what it takes to make business
flourish.
1 . Location to be a drawing point for people to come and
partake of business function naturally.
2 . Business activity must be large enough to attract the
people of the Entire Community to be a focal point .
3 . There must be a variety of business with goods and
services that will fulfill the needs and attract people
to come and partake of business activities .
4 . The housing of the business must be attractive and
inviting for people to come and enjoy themselves while
they are Buying and Selling Something.
5 . Business must be understood , that Someone sells Something,
Someone Buys Something. that is the Business of the Free
Enterprise System. This means the availa'bility of all
kinds of Goods and Services for the people of the Entire
Community.
1819 S. Central Suite 116 Kent, WA 98032 (206) 852-4360
Let us review some of the community areas and see why they
work or don ' t work.
Northgate was built in 1950 opened in 1951 , this was long
before the freeways were even on the map. Northgate is the
granddaddy of all centers. Northgate was a success from day
one , because it is a true part and focal point of the
surrounding area . If you take away the freeway from
Northgate it would still survive as a business area .
Now suppose you take away the freeways from Southcenter, it
would die as a Business Center. That ' s the difference in
placing Business Centers in the true focal point of a
community.
Bellevue Square is example of placing a business center in
the true heart of the community. This center is the most
successful center there is in the U.S . of A. .
Downtown Kent has over the years proven to be the true heart
of the surrounding community.
Example , during Cornucopia Day ' s this activity draws
approximately 20, 000 people daily. This is a pure example of
Carnival Atmosphere attracting people . Saturday Market is
another example of Carnival Type Atmosphere attracting
people to a location . The location of Downtown Kent is and
should be the true heart of the Business Community it
serves .
But the activity of Cornucopia Day ' s and Saturday Market is
not enough to produce a Viable and Prosperous Downtown.
In order to attract large anchor stores it becomes necessary
to be able to produce one million square feet of business
space or they are not interested in coming. To produce one
million square feet it becomes necessary to produce a 2 and
3 level shopping mall , with 6 level parking facilities to
Accommodate at least 3 ,000 cars placed in convenient
locations to facilitate ease of traffic. Around this mall
produce some open space for a Real Park for people to enjoy
themselves . Then office buildings can be accommodated on the
periphery of the Park.
With the one million square feet , allot 40, 000 sq.ft . to a
center for the performing arts - Live Theater, Concerts , Art
Galleries for Northwest Artists . The cost for such a total
facility will be in the neighborhood of $75 - $85 Million
Dollars .
Now how can this be 'achieved? The City owns approximately a
of the amount of property necessary for such a project .
2
PROPOSAL AND COURSE OF ACTION
Commit a Revitalization Program for Downtown Kent on the
basis of a public-private urban renewal. With the City ' s
authority of Eminent Domain. The area in question is Smith
Street to Gowe and 1st Ave. to 4th Ave . less the New
Library.
Now for the best part of the program. At this point in time ,
there is one Insurance Company, perhaps two and even some
Pension Funds that are willing to discuss a joint venture
with the City of Kent.for such a project . Which means they
(The Insurance Company or Pension Funds whichever is chosen)
will invest with the City of Kent in the amount of $75 to
$85 Million Dollars for the entire project .
A complete total plan of Downtown Kent would be jointly
planned by the City of Kent and it ' s joint ventured owner .
Benefits For The City
1 . Pro-rata share of Sales Tax on construction of $75 to $85
Million Dollars or $712 ,500 .
2 . 40,000 sq. ft. of space within the Mall Structure to be
allotted for the Performing Arts without a cost to the
City.
3 . Creation of 300 to 400 new jobs .
4 . Pro-rata share of Real Property Taxes of $75 to $85
Million Dollar value per year or $236 , 250 .
5 . Pro-rata share of. Sales Tax of Goods Sold at
Approximately $200 Million Dollars per year or
$1 , 900 ,000 .
6 . Revitalization of Downtown accomplished .
7 . Pro-rata share of profits from Joint Ownership of the
project .
8 . A viable & prosperous Downtown as a Real focal point
of the community .
Now how do you get from point A to Z?
1 . First it will take somewhere between 3 to 5 years to
produce such a project .
2 . There will be a need for the City to spend some money ' s
up front .
Addressing the problem of developing a center for
longevity, success and truly fulfilling the needs of the
community requires some discussion . If a center is developed
piecemeal , the individual small businesses & sometimes large
businesses can not totally be successful and prosper
economically. For example , the East Hill of Kent is so
totally fractured that businesses can not survive
successfully and fulfill the needs of the community.
If , again , it is the true intent to establish Downtown
Kent as the focal point of the community with successful
Businesses fulfilling the needs of the community then it
heeds to be totally planned as a complete- interrelated
Center , where each individual Business compliments one
another. this can only be done as a Mall , to be a successful
Center . Doing it piecemeal cannot possible produce a
successful Center of any longevity.
If each individual Business can be successful and
prosper well , the owners of the Center likewise prosper
well . So as you can see how very important it is for each
individual business to have the highest possible opportunity
to succeed and be prosperous . It just isn ' t possible to have
a successful Center, without the individual businesses being
successful .
Again the most important First Step decision that has
to be faced . Is it the true intent for Downtown Kent to be
the focal point and Business Center of the Community? This
decision by it ' s very nature must embody the thought and
goal for not only for now, but for the next 50 to 100 years ,
that is why it is so important .
Addressing the real problem of existing vest rights and
asset values , of each existing individual Business and owner
of existing improvements with the thought in mind of
Private/Public Urban Renewal , with the power of Eminent
Domain by the City of Kent being a partner with an Insurance
Company or Pension Fund , which by the way is not a mortgage,
but is direct ownership.
First approach to this problem is an M.A. I . Appraisal on
each parcel of property for the project . The Assignment to
be given and directed to the Appraiser is to totally
delineate all the rights and values of each individual
Lessee ' s and Lessor ' s whatever their rights maybe . From that
report each individual Lessee and Lessor will be a
negotiated settlement . Naturally if any of the existing
Lessee ' s desiring space in the New Center they will have
first right of option for space in the New Center.
Now before any of the above is commenced , the 1st step
is to have a Market Analysis completed by a top rated, first
class Market Analyst . I have in mind at this time Arthur
Anderson & Co . (Nationally Known accountants ) , they have a
very extensive Real Estate Service Group that specializes in
Market Analysis and Appraising . This is the group I would
intend to use . I have used them extensively when I was with
the Brunswick Corp. and later used them when I was with
First Mortgage Co. of Seattle , in financing of Noll
Manufacturing Co. of Richmond , California in their
acquisition of Wallace Manufacturing Co. of Kent , which
later became Northwest Metal Products Co. , this was in the
60 ' s .
Attached is a copy of a portion of Arthur Andersen &
Co . brochure describing some of the points of their Real
Estate Service Group.
( 4 )
A Survey & Topography will be required before the
Appraisal is ordered , so as to delineate any and all
problems related to the land to be assembled .
Up Front Cost By The City
Market Analysis $ 40,000
Survey & Topography 45 ,000
Appraisal Reports 50 ,000
Estimated-Total Costs $135 ,000
The above Market Analysis , . Survey & Topography and
Appraisal Reports will be necessary and required before the
Insurance Company or Pension Fund will commit to such a
project .
(Neither the Insurance Company nor the Pension Fund
will want to become involved with any of the City 's
politics . )
( 5 )
The following is a list of Priority of Events .
Priority of Events
1 . Total Commitment on part of the City of Kent to produce
such a project . (The City Property including streets to
be vacated represent about 4 of the amount of property
needed . )
2 . Produce Market Analysis by a National Authoritative
Analyst .
3 . Survey of Property including Topography, delineation
of all problems related to the land .
4. Appraisal of the individual parcels of land and
delineating all of the vest rights and values of present
Lessee ' s and Lessor ' s by a National Authoritative
Appraisers .
5 . Produce Agreement with Major Partner ( Insurance Company
or Pension Fund) .
6 . Negotiate settlements for al-1 present Lessee' s and
Lessor ' s .
7 . Selection of Architect & Engineering Group.
8 . Selection of Contractors .
9 . Selection of Developing Consultant .
10 . Plan the entire Center with total partnership, The City
of Kent and Insurance Co. or Pension Fund .
11 .Build Center.
12 .Negotiate Lessees .
This program will require complete and constant
orchestration of all the many interrelated parts .
American Commercial Industries , Inc. has the knowledge ,
the know how, the skills and necessary contacts to
orchestrate such a program and make it work. Our fee ' s for
this service will be $60,000 the 1st year, $70, 000 the 2nd
year, $80, 000 for the 3rd year and the 4th year and
thereafter as long as service is needed will be $90 , 000 per
year . Contract can be withdrawn at anytime by the City with
a 30 day written notice if it is not totally satisfied of
the progress or results produced .
Sincerely Submitted
American Commercial In ustries Inc.
Hugh C . Leiper qZ01
� J
Christopher B. Leipe ,o l
.CITY OF
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
April 16, 1991 4:45 PM
�T®II�9P®
Committee Members Present Other City Staff
Leona Orr Tony McCarthy
Jon Johnson, Chair Carol Morris
Christi Houser
Planning Staff Other Guests
Jim Harris
Margaret Porter
Carol Proud
Fred Satterstrom
PROPOSAL TO ANNEX AREA #1 (J. Harris)
Mr. Harris went over his memo which discusses the procedures that would
need to done to annex Area #1. The resolution that was adopted a couple of
years ago and the map that goes along with this resolution was explained to
the Committee members. The map describes the areas that were proposed to
be annexed by a number system - Area 1, 2 , and 3 . The Annexation Committee
of which Harris is chairman has been meeting for quite some time
concentrating on Area 11. The Committee decided to proceed to annex Area
#1.
Mr. Harris stated that a number of things need to be done before annexation
occurs. RCW 35A permits cities to annex unincorporated islands by adhering
to the following:
1. Council adopts a resolution stating its intent to annex.
2 . A public hearing is held; all property owners in the island are
notified.
3 . Notice of intent to annex is filed with the boundary review
board.
4 . Annexation is accomplished via an ordinance.
5. The annexation ordinance is subject to referendum for 45 days
after passage.
6. If. a referendum petition is filed, an election is held and the
annexation shall be deemed approved unless a majority of the
votes cast on the proposition oppose it.
The first priority is to invite citizens to the West Hill Fire Station to
discuss annexation and provide information. At this meeting, there would
1
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
APRIL 16, 1991
be a discussion of the advantages of annexing to the City of Kent and the
timelines as to when this would occur. The Annexation Committee is asking
for the Planning Committee to agree with this proposal.
Mr. Harris passed out a Fiscal Impact Summary Sheet giving the fiscal
impact of annexing the West Hill Area. The estimated revenues coming in
would be $42, 366 . The expenditures would be $38,017. A Comparison of
taxes was also presented. Compared with the County, there is a much
narrower advantage of only $53 .00 based on property taxes for a $100, 000
home in the City of Kent.
At the same time, Don Wickstrom is continuing to work on Area #3, which Don
has broken down into six subareas. Mr. Harris pointed out on a map in more
detail the area that Don Wickstrom is working on. Leona Orr reported that
this was discussed at the Public Works Committee on April 16. Since there
seems to be more of a negative financial impact, the Committee did not feel
comfortable making a recommendation but ask that this proposed annexation
be brought to the City Council on May 7 to let the City Council decide
whether or not to proceed with Area #3 .
Councilmember Leona Orr MOVED and Councilmember Christi Houser SECONDED the
motion to send this issue to the City Council on the consent calendar with
the Planning Committee's recommendation for the administrators on the
Annexation Committee to move forward on Area #1. Motion carried.
MOBILE HOME PARK CODE AMENDMENT (C. Proud)
Senior Planner Carol Proud passed out a memorandum to the Committee
members. She stated that the Planning Department received a regulatory
review request from a mobile home park owner asking to amend the siting
criteria for moving mobile homes onto individual lots in an existing park.
The section that is being asked to be revised is Section 1. 3 para. 3 which
states:
"Any units brought into an existing mobile home park; any mobile home
relocated on its own lot or onto any other lot; any additions to the
structure or structures present on any lot (e.g storage buildings,
canopies', decks, patios, fences, etc. ) must comply with this code as
well as all other applicable City codes and regulations.
Ms. Proud mentioned that King County is no longer issuing siting or
relocation permits for individual mobile home units in existing parks. As
specified in the City's Mobile Home Park Code (Section 1.4) , the duty has
been turned over to the Building Official. The Building Official has
denied relocation permits because the code does not permit relocating
individual mobile home units that cannot meet requirements and standards
for new parks. The size of newer units are typically wider and longer than
2
e
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
APRIL 16, 1991
what parks were originally designed to accommodate. Carol summed this up
by stating we have a nonconforming situation with no relief for mobile park
owners.
Ms. Proud said that this matter is being brought directly to the Planning
Committee's attention (rather than first to the Planning Commission) as a
result of Section 2 of the adopting ordinance No. 2077, which calls for the
City Council to hear amendments to the Mobile Home Park ordinance.
There has been inquiries from park managers, realtors,_ and tenants
regarding the proposed amendment(s) . Since all of these people have
definite views and opinions, these all will be included in the process.
Carol said that staff will prepare a written report and recommendation to
the Council that will include responses from the public and other city
departments. The Planning staff proposes to bring the matter to the City
Council for a public hearing subject to a time schedule of events as
follows:
Week of April 15 Meeting with King County Housing Authority. Bring
matter to City Council Planning Committee. Route
proposal to other City Departments for comment.
Week of April 29 Conduct meeting with Mobile Home Park Owners and
Managers Association.
. Week of May 6 Conduct meeting with Mobile Home Owners and Tenants
Association.
Week of May 20 Public Notice of request soliciting comments and date
of public hearing. Council set hearing date at May 21,
1991 meeting.
Week of May 27 Prepare staff recommendation to City Council.
Week of June 3 City Council public hearing at June 4, 1991 meeting.
Planning Manager Satterstrom expressed that King County is in the same boat
as the City in terms of when a mobile home moves out of a mobile home park,
then in relocating the new mobile home in that park it is very difficult.
They have minimum standards for distance between mobile homes in the
County.
Councilmember Leona Orr MOVED and Councilmember Christi Houser SECONDED it
to concur with the described process and direct the Planning Department to
proceed with the regulatory review. Motion carried.
3
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
APRIL 16, 1991
ADDED ITEMS
POSSIBILITY OF CHANGING PLANNING COMMITTEE'S NAME - (J. Johnson)
Planning Committee Chair Johnson stated that we have become more than just
a Planning Committee because we do Human Services and other things. It was
agreed that this item be discussed in more detail at the next Planning
Committee meeting of May 7 .
WALNUT PARK WITH A HOLE IN FENCE (L. Orr)
Councilmember Orr mentioned a problem with a hole in the fence. Trash is
being dumped as well. She understands our Zoning Code states that a
multifamily development next to a single family development has to be
fenced. The property owner would like the City to see that the hole in the
fence is fixed.
LETTERS SENT TO THE CITY ABOUT CLEARED TREES ON EAST HILL (J. Johnson)
Chair Johnson mentioned an incident on East Hill where trees had been
cleared from a piece of property zoned multifamily. A couple of residents
who lived next to the property have written letters to the Mayor
complaining about this issue. Mr. Harris stated he was aware of the issue.
It was on his "to do" list.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5: 17 p.m.
MP:C:PC0416.MIN
4