Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-09-1980125 I co Iq Iq C9 a a I 1 AUBURN, WASHINGTON MONDAY J,UNE 9, 1980 The continued meeting of the City of Auburn Council convened at 8:00 p.m. in the City of Auburn Council Chambers. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS: Councilmembers Roegner, Craig, Hitchcock, Flechsig and Lea present. Councilmembers Kitchell and Larson excused. STAFF: Mayor Stan Kersey; Jack Bereiter, City Attorney; Len Chapman, Parks and Recreation Director; Jim Gibson, Police Chief; Coralee McConnehey, City Clerk; Pat Nevins, Public Works Director; George Schuler, Planning & Community Development Director. Mayor Kersey noted this continued meeting was for the purpose of a continued public hearing on the Citizens' Land Use Committee recommended changes to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Two letters were entered into the record. One from E. Clifford Webb, member of the Citizens' Advisory Committee, urging the Council to accept the recommendations of the Committee as the wishes of the majority of the hone owners and citizens of Auburn. The other letter from Abacus Marketing Associates, Inc., opposed the adoption of any change in the Land Use Plan that would penalize their planned relocation of Mill Creek in a planned development of their property. David Millard, Land Planning and Management, 22627 152nd S.E., Kent, addressed Item No. 1. He stated they felt a parkway, heavily landscaped, with cluster housing would provide the separate identity from Kent in a more feasible way. They thought the 5-acre large lot plan was not feasible because land in the valley was at a premium and these large lots would be poor planning, the Wembley Properties was approximately 3/4 miles away from the proposed King County Park, it doesn't control growth, large lots would not be as aesthetics Pleasing, think property would not perc, would cost around $125,000 and there would be eight times the tax resulting from suggested cluster development. Phillip Rogers, Community Builders, 1611 116th Ave. N.E., Bellevue, spoke about the Mill Creek proposal. He felt generally people buy property based on past comprehensive plans and asked the Council to bear in mind when they consider the recommendations. He Pointed out the 58 acres they own already had 9 acres reserved for the P-4 channel and if the Mill Creek proposal were approved it would mean an additional 6 acres leaving 48 usable acres. He said they felt it is a loss of value and poor use of land resources when the same thing could be accomplished on a case -by -case basis. He stated the 250 foot wide belt was arbitrary, wasteful and unduly penalized existing property owners. He added they agreed with the Planning Commission recommendation to accept concept and they suggest proposal be redrafted with (1) case -by -case review, (2) more practical and economical construction guidelines and (3) remove the requirement of creating public amenity as none now exists. Ken Balduff, 410 Western St. N.W., noted the Committee was comprised of citizens selected from the community. He felt the Comprehensive Plan was due to be updated as no one could tell in 1968 when the original plan was adopted what the future would bring. He said he considered the Committee recommendations as minimum recommendations and that the needs of the city must be addressed. He noted the concept of planning a city with a central area of high density and fanning out to lower density has acceptance of state planning agencies as well as does the 200 foot set back. He said the Rainier Audubon Society and the Citizens for Rezone were concerned about the future of Auburn and wondered if current planning would provide an environment for the youth of today to enjoy the City of Auburn for the next 30 to 40 years. He presented a petition supporting the recom- mendations of the Advisory Committee and supported residential atmosphere instead of a Tukwila industrihl atmosphere. He asked if the Council was not in favor of the Land Use Committee's recommendations, to give them more time for citizen input. Ralph Anderson, 14460 S.E. 368th Place, expressed concern about growth in Auburn and stated the City needed controlled or guided growth. He noted the Advisory Committee used 525 responses for their survey which he.felt was roughly ten:percent of the families represented. He said his area had not been surveyed. He noted that the concept in Item No. 1 should be consistent on th east, west and south and have a buffer zone all around the City. He also noted Federal and State encouragement to grow because of energy conservation, preservation of agarian lands and effective mass transit. He stated buffer zones had -1- 126 AUBURN, WASHINGTON MONDAY JUNE 9, 1980 failed in other cities. He felt the only way to maintain city identity was to have a strong nucleus, a good flow of traffic into that nucleus and good parking. Anderson recommended support of main nucleus by having light commercial zoning in the area which Item No. 11 of the Land Use Committee recommendations would deny. He said the area covered in Item No. 11 is prime land and he would like the right to develop. If he was denied the right to develop it he would be unable to find a buyer and it would become useless to the City. Developed it would bring multiple tax payers. Tom Barghausen, Cavness Engineers, representing several clients, spoke about Items No. 11 and 12. He expressed concern with the Mill Creek proposal and the cumulative effect of the regulations and other requirements. He felt the concept good, however, it wasn't being implemented with any degree of reasonableness. He said owners of the property were already being impacted by substantial fill and grade requirements to bring it above flood zone, a P-4 channel requirements, major L.I.D.'s, improvements in widening of the West Valley Highway in addition to all the normal development costs. He stated the P-4 require- ments alone would cost the owners a 16.4 percent loss of useable land. Another 8 acres would bring it up to 30% loss. Barghausen added the study was meant as a guide and to actually put it into effect would be extremely expensive. He urged the Council to pass legislation which provides the preservation and protection of the Mill Creek environment yet allow each individual property owner to arrive at his own compromise proposal. He presented a proposal which they felt showed how a compromise proposal could be arrived at in an economically and practically feasible manner. Mr. Barghausen addressed the Land Use Committee's recommendation to remove commercial and some multi -family zoning south of the Stuck River. He stated the area represented some 2000 acres with a potential of 2500 - 3000 residential units and the everyday needs of the residents must be provided near their homes. He felt the reasons behind the 1968 Comprehensive Land Use Plan haven't been changed. Traffic problems and energy consumption would be increased significantly by removal of the commercial areas. He felt the reasons stated by the Advisory Committee are misrepresentative because (1) removal of commercial zoning would not control growth - it would increase problems, (2) Item 18 asking where citizens would prefer new retail shopping received 31% saying downtown and 68% wanted regional shopping center, along major streets or in small neighborhood shopping centers (3) removal of commercial would not control traffic on Oravetz Road into Lake Tapps area because people would have to ' go further. His final statement was the phase concept was definitely outdated and urged the Council to reject it and specifically retain the commercial areas. Roland Crabtree, 205 S.W. 177th, Seattle, owner and developer of the Lakeland Hills property, spoke on Items No. 8 and 10. He stated they had planned parks, golf courses, family residental, commercial to provide housing needs, entertainment , shopping and some employment needs of families in southeast Auburn. He said planning for water system, drainage, traffic, sewers and storm drainage has had extensive study and permits and improvements as required by City and State agencies are being worked on. He noted the improvements made to the Stuck River and that drainage planswould provide for most of the water being retained on the property with very little entering the Stuck River. He recommended following the Planning Department's recommendations on Items 8 and 10 as they would like to be free to continue to develop. He also added he didn't feel another 200 foot setback would help the condition of the river. Charles Detsen, 162753 N.E. 85th, Redmond, attorney for Roland Crabtree, asked what would be measured as the 200 foot setback? He wondered if it would include the dike or just the thread of the stream? He also asked who owns the Stuck River channel? Detsen stated the title company and himself believe Mr. Crabtree owns the channel since it is not a navigable stream, the survey done in the 1800's had no meander line and the Parker Home- stead plat recorded in King County in 1891 shows the Stuck River running through lots 1 through 20. Eva Jerry, elder member of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, spoke asking to leave the rivers, trees and land as Mother Nature left it. She said she felt God set the Indians in this country and they were the first ones who lived here. Now there is no land left even on the reservation - just homes. She said she would like to see some of their Indian doings and they way they used to live come back. Dora Mae Crabtree, 205 S.W. 177th, Seattle, stated they felt that God had also led the whiteman to this land and that you couldn't stand still in this City or it would go back- wards. She stated we had to learn to get along together and to do this we have to accept one another's ways not say this is my way and this is your way and it cannot be any other way. Mrs. Crabtree said she knew the development would add to the City. -2- 127 AUBURN WASHINGTON MONDAY JUNE 9, 1980 Mildred Stewart, 4516 Auburn Way North, said she was a real old timer and could remember when the walks were wood and the population was 1100 people. She thought Auburn turned out really beautifully and she was really proud of it. She stated she felt nothing stands still everything moves on. Charolette Williams, P. 0. Box 932, representing the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe at 39015 172nd Avenue S.E., had been asked by the Tribal attorney and the Chairman of the Tribal Planning Commission, Donna Starr, to make a statement for the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. She stated a large portion of the land encompassed by the Advisory Committee's proposed Comprehensive Plan changes Nos. 5, 6 and 8 lie within the Muckleshoot Reservation. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe generally supported the Committee's efforts to control growth in Auburn and commended the Committee's proposed 200 foot setback to provide a natural area along the banks of the White, Stuck and Green Rivers. She added the Tribe believed the proposed plan was an improvement but that in its present form the City continued to fail to recognize the existence of the reservation and Tribe as a separate community. She said the Tribe had adopted zoning laws aimed at preserving the reservation as an area separate from the City where reservation residents have the opportunity to pursue a way of life dependent on the land and its resources and to maintain Indian culture and CO identity. The goals, however, have not been consistent with past City planning for the development of southeast Auburn in a manner indistinquishable from the remainder of the City. They felt the City should revised their plan to retain existing agricultural and forest land on the Enumclaw plateau and added the Enumclaw plateau was physically separated 0 from the remainder of Auburn and its edge which roughly coincided with "R" and the western Q boundary of the reservation and would be a logical boundary for urban development by the Q City. This would make the City's Comprehensive plan consistent with the Tribal, County goals and the wishes of those citizens surveyed. She asked the City to amend the Comprehen- sive Plan to recognize the Tribe's unique interest in reservation land use and adopt a policy similar to that adopted by King County deferring to Tribal regulation of land development within the reservation. Sharon Steiner, 2712 Pike St. S.E., president if the Rainier Audubon Society, spoke in favor of all of the Land Use Committee's proposals. She noted the Kent City Planning Department had approved a 200 foot setback along the Green River and studying the possibilit ' of a 1000 foot special interest corridor. She also pointed out in her travels along the river there were parts there was no public access and at times she felt she was in someone's back yard. She stated comments on Item No. 1 that it would affect only 207 of the border did not note this area is along Auburn Way North which had quite an visual impact. She said she felt the five acre lots would not be unsitely because it was pasture land. She urged the Council to make the City as beautiful as possible to live and walk and jog for the people who were here. David Millard, L.P.M., added to his previous comments and spoke about Items No. 2 and 8. He said they were not against the setback but they would like to see a setback that would be practical from the standpoint of development. He suggested 50 to 100 foot setback unless the developer is not going to develop it then it should be wider. He corrected Sharon Steiner's report the City of Kent had passed a 200 foot setback in that only the Planning Commission had recommended it. Millard presented some slides to the Council to illustrate the fexibility of the set back as they would like to see in Auburn. He noted Item No. 10 which would eliminate commercial and multi_family zoning in southeast Auburn was a total of about 2000 acres and multi -family would comprise only about 10% of it. Jim Hudson, 451 S.W. loth, Renton, Wembly Enterprises, addressed Item No. 1. He asked where the 200 foot setback comes from. He wondered if there were some written guidelines or legislative statutory reqirements. He stated they were not opposed to the 200 foot setback except the County owns a 150 foot strip which apparently the County thought was enough. He said they concurred with the Planning staff to deny the G-5 zone. They also felt if the 120 foot wide corridor was imposed on them then it should likewise be imposed on property owners on the south side of S. 277th. He corrected Sharon Steiner from the Audubon Society in that the Wembly property is located a half -mile east of Auburn Way North and the intersection of S. 277th and was in fact blocked from view by the four outdoor theater screens there now. Ruth Pletcher, 2710 Forest Ridge Drive, member of the Citizens Land Use Committee, spoke for the Committee. She stated while the survey had been called inadequate many developers were using it to uphold statistics for their points of view. The statement which had been made 60% of the people surveyed favor increased population, she felt, had been "bent" -3- 128 AUBURN, WASHINGTON MONDAY JUNE 9 1980 to suit someone else's purpose. She said the actual statistic showed 56% of the people polled indicated some increased population. She pointed out that 60% of that figure favored the increase at a slower rate and only 3% asked that the City increase the population at a faster rate while 17% said keep it the same as it is now. She noted also the greatest number responding to the question of'lhad the City become more or less desirable to live in in the past five years`was 36% as undesirable. Ms. Flecher noted the survey was done at the beginning of their work and the number surveyed was no less than you would find in a Neilson rating. The fact that there was a survey was published in the newspaper, on the radio, people were in several shopping centers two Saturdays in a roll. She said they felt the survey certainly indicated some of the desires of the citizens in the community. She stated the question regarding 5 acre lots costing too much raised by Mr. Wensley could be answered by noting there are people in the City of Auburn who own and can afford 5 acre lots and the responsibility of the Committee was to provide land for more than just middle class people. She responded to Mr. Wensley's statement he felt there shouldn't be single family dwelling along the super highway stating his Proposal for multi -family wouldn't make it any safer for children. She said she agreed with Mr. Wensley's philosophy that the land owner has the right to develop his land as he pleased but it is not always pertinent. She also responded to the statement the phase development is inadequate with our population growth today stating this was precisely what the Committee was trying to ward off because of the surveys they have done the people in the community indicated this is what they do not want. She said in their survey 63% favored forest lands not being developed for housing or industry. Also, the survey indicated 73% favored using greenbelts to separate homes and industry and support wildlife. 61% favored retaining Auburn's community identity by open space and low density buffer zones. She wondered if some of the statements presented were meant to benefit the community or the developer? She noted also the 200 foot setback was taken from the Shoreline Management Act. In closing Ms. Fletcher noted the Committee did not represent a developer or real estate interest but did represent the 'citizens of Auburn. Trip Hart, 606 4th S.E., reiterated the comments of Mike Reynolds stating the Advisory Committee was striving for the livability of Auburn and the efficient use of Auburn's resources. He addressed four comments made by Mr. Wensley (1) it was unamerican to tell the land owner what to do, (2) 60% wanted Auburn to grow, (3) his land won't perc and (4) if Council did pass the recommendations of the Advisory Committee they would be taking the shirt off his daughter. He noted the developers had said they were not against the recommendations of the Advisory Committee but when applied to their particular property they express concern at the cumulative effect. Hart wondered if reference to possible losses meant expense loss or just lessening of profit? He asked the Council to consider submitting the question to the developers what their profit under one proposal was compared to another proposal. He added undeveloped property is not necessarily a loss as it could add to the beauty of the community. He wondered if it was really known if Wensley's land did perc. Hart stated the actual survey indicated most of the people wanted controlled growth and this is what the Advisory Committee was asking and this was an opportunity to look at the community as a whole in the organized package the Committee had presented. He said he felt the Council should not feel bound by the 200 foot setback and should feel it could go more if it wanted. He asked the Council be consistent and stated he felt it was the Council's duty to make the appropriate changes in the Comprehensive Plan so it can grow with the City. Jim Hudson, added to his comments previously noting a lot of people have been talking in Mr. Wensley's behalf without him actually being there. He said they did not concur with the statements they did not have concern with aesthetics or that under the proper circumstances the City should take or do more but not less on the setbacks. He said they felt a flexible plan on setbacks tied with a percentage of a person's ownership along the riverfront would be a more equitable test. It was moved by Craig, seconded by Hitchcock that the public hearing be closed. MOTION CARRIED It was moved by Hitchcock, seconded by Craig, to table discussion of the Citizen's Land Use Committee's recommended changes to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan until the next regular Council meeting of June 16, 1980. MOTION CARRIED There being no further business to come before the Council the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. -4-