Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-25-1997eL MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AUGUST 25, 1997 The regular meeting of the Planning and Community Development Committee was held August 25, 1997 in the Council Work Area. Those members in attendance were as follows: MEMBERS PRESENT: Trish Borden, Jeanne Barber, and Rich Wagner STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Dick Deal, JeffDixon, Bill Mandeville, Bob Sokol, and Jennifer Francis ALSO PRESENT: Tom Mueller, Corps of Engineers; Patricia Graesser, Corps of Engineers; Jonathan Smith, Corps of Engineers; Bill Stevens, Landmark; Ernie Patty, Andover Co.; Gary Volchok; Len Elliot; Will Calhoun; Bruce Harpham; Peter Frame; Santiago Mercade; David Halinen; Mara Locken; Clinton Tullis; and John Raeder The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair Borden at 7:32 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. WSC0026-97 - Finkbeiner Development (continued from August 11, 1997) Chairman Borden opened the public heating. Senior Planner Sokol presented the staff report. The applicant has requested a sewer availability certificate and approval of a development agreement for the Martenson Plat located at 124th Ave SE & SE 295th. The request is consistent with Policy CE-3. Mr. Sokol briefly reviewed the findings of fact. He explained the staff recommends an addition to the standard development agreement be added regarding the section on Parks. Mr. Sokol stated it would allow the Bonneville Power easement to be dedicated to the City or the County. The changes would also require the owner to pay for site planning and/or make improvements to the dedicated easement property equal in dollar value to five percent of the King County assessed value as undeveloped land. Mr. Sokol also explained the lighting within the Bonneville Power easement must be sited and designed to minimize light and glare on adjacent residential properties and also provide for the safety of park users. Staff recommends approval of the development agreement. Councilmember Wagner asked about the five percent figure, whether other jurisdictions use the same figure, and whether the number is determined upon developed or undeveloped land. Mr. Sokol explained other jurisdictions use a similar process and Mr. Sokol said he would confirm with other jurisdictions the figure used is on undeveloped land. Mr. Deal explained the land will be used as a linear park and can be developed with soft and hard surface trails. Chairman Borden asked how this relates to concurrency. Mr. Sokol stated he will bring this information to the next Planning and Community Development Committee Meeting scheduled for September 8th. There was no public testimony. Councilmember Barber made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wagner to closed the public heating. Chairman Borden concurred. PAGE 1 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AUGUST 25. 1997 This item will be scheduled again on the September 8, 1997 Planning and Community Development Committee agenda. 2. Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) Chairman Borden introduced the Councilmembers and the Mayor, and then introduced Tom Mueller with the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Mueller introduced Patricia Graesser and Jonathan Smith, both with the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Smith began the presentation by giving an overview of SAMP, how it was developed and why they are recommending Alternative #8. He explained SAMP is a plan for the future of 2,400 acres of streams and wetlands. The central focus of SAMP is on 900 acres of "unprotected" valley wetlands. Mr. Smith explained where the Mill Creek SAMP is located and the wetland restoration plan. Mr. Smith stated SAMP was developed to protect higher quality wetlands, protect wetlands with high restoration potential and develop lower quality wetlands. He explained the reason alternative #8 was recommended was that it is among the top 3 alternatives for wetland restoration, it does the best job of financing the most wetland restoration and it maximizes the developable acreage consistent with wetland protection objectives. Mr. Smith said the next steps in the SAMP process is to consider public comments, finalize SAMP, have cities, county, and agencies sign a memorandum of understanding, then receive a permit from the Department of Army once approved by the District Engineer. This should be completed by late 1998. The next step in the process is to amend comprehensive plans and ordinances and establish mitigation banks. Chairman Borden asked whether there will be another time for public comment after this evening. Mr. Sokol explained there will be another hearing at a City Council meeting. Chairman Borden opened the public hearing at 7:59 p.m. Bill Stevens, Bellevue, WA Mr. Stevens with Landmark, Inc. who represents three property owners in Auburn, [Bristo Properties, Gentra, and Auburn Properties (Valley Drive In)]. They are requesting that the Corps of Engineers and the City of Auburn correct the proposed SAMP mapping. The corrections he is requesting are located at 4C, 2YY, and 4d. He stated these wetlands are located within the area designated by the Auburn Comprehensive Plan as Northeast Auburn Special Planning Area. Wetland 4C and 2YY are designated to be "Restored Wetland" and 4D is shown as "Developable Wetland". Their request is that the Wetlands 4C and 2YY be changed to "Developable Wetlands" and that 4D be changed to "Restored Wetland". Mr. Stevens stated the following reasons for this change: 1. Staff has been working with the property owners to form an LID for improvements south of 277th. The areas have been designated as Special Planning Areas and since last year have been considered as wetlands that will be filled and replaced with suitable wetlands. 2, The Port of Seattle has acquired 69 acres of land in this planning area. As part of the PAGE 2 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AUGUST 25. 1997 mitigation for filling 10 acres of wetlands for the third runway, the Port is going to construct a 30 acre wetland with a 10 acre buffer on this parcel. The Port plans to preserve this wetland shown on the SAMP map as 4D. 3. The Flood Control Overlay map shows 4C as a "local detention facility is planned for the north Auburn Area and it will encompass much of this wetland. The detention facility referred to is planned to be a "regional" storm water facility for treatment and storage of runoff from a 450 acre area of north Auburn in compliance with the City Storm Water Comprehensive Plan. The location of the storage and treatment ponds and the open channels to convey storm runoff to it will require the filling of much of wetland 4C. 4. These wetlands are a great distance away form Mill Creek. 5. There was not a consensus on how to treat these particular wetlands and could be changed in the future if logical and reasonable issues were raised. 6. Wetland 4C and 2YY were considered "Low" on the survey rating for restoration potential. Mr. Stevens stated he is also concerned with the length and the cost of the process. Mr. Stevens said they are very much in favor of the SAMP. Ernie Patty, Ellensburg, WA Mr. Patty stated he is a land owner and building owner. Mr. Patty stated he was part of the Citizens Advisory Committee from the very beginning in January of 1992. He stated the SAMP is meaningless. He stated he has concerns with how different types of wetlands on property were determined. He stated they were surveyed by windshield. They looked at vegetation and running water. He feels wetlands are necessary. In 1995 he wrote to the SAMP committee asking for his name to be taken off the list, because he didn't believe in what they were doing. He stated that in the SAMP document it says they don't know how they're going to fund the project. He asked the committee to take an objective look at the SAMP. Ralph Mason, Enumclaw, WA Mr. Mason stated he is a property owner in the City of Auburn. He wrote a letter to the Corps of Engineers a week and a half ago. He stated he referenced the Mill Creek SAMP plan. After reviewing the principle goals of the SAMP he believes it is essential to include the State of Washington Attorney General recommended process for evaluation of proposed regulatory or administrative actions to avoid unconstitutional taking of private property, as provided for in RCW 36.78.370. He asked the committee and the Corps, if this recommended process for unconstitutional taking of property be incorporated into the SAMP. He requested the committee to review this and he would like an answer from the Corps. Peter Frame, Kirkland, WA Mr. Frame stated he represents a major property owner. He stated he agrees with Bill Stevens that SAMP needs to a better job of better identifying the wetlands. He said the maps don't really represent anything other than an indication of a process. He feels nobody really has any idea where the wetlands are and that needs to be step one. His property owners feel they have a good idea where their wetlands are because they had a PAGE 3 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AUGUST 25, 1997 certified wetland specialist come out to the property. They know where the wetlands are and what the quality is, and they are low quality wetlands. He said it is a wetland that need not be restored since 277th is going to cross right over the top of it. Mr. Frame addressed other members of the audience and stated wetlands have already been taken and there is no need to debate when they will be taken or should they be taken by the SAMP or is it constitutional. They are gone, the Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act has taken them and it's just a matter of identifying them. He stated we need to find a balance point to save the real wetlands. Mr. Frame does agree there is a need for this type of plan. Len Elliot, Auburn, WA Mr. Elliot stated he has lived in Auburn for 29 years. He explained he was on the SAMP Citizens Advisory Committee. He said it was formed to come to some sort of a compromise recognizing wetlands had to be saved. He stated it was two very hard years, they met twice a month, for several hours on their own time. He said he has no financial interest in this process. He feels they came to a very good agreement. He said it allowed certain lands to be developed with appropriate mitigation and others are vital wetlands. He is very confident in the work of the committee. He is pleased with the restoration plan which will indicate to property owners developable wetlands. He urges the committee to approve this plan. He said alternative #8 was not his first choice. Gary Volchok, Seattle WA Stated he works for CB Commercial and specializes in industrial land. He stated was issued one of the 6 wetland permits issued by the State of Washington. Mr. Volchok explained it took him 8 years to receive this permit. He stated it took $300,000 to get the permit. Mr. Volchok said he reviewed the SAMP documents and the economics of the SAMP do not work. He distributed a handout labeled Financial Analysis for a User (See attached). Mr. Volchok went through all six steps and included an example and explained how he came up with the figures. Mr. Volchok stated by the end of 1998 it will not be possible to build a 200,000 s.f. industrial building in King County, because you won't find a 10 acre parcel to build on. He said no one will spend money to develop because it is too expensive. He stated we are losing 30,000 jobs due to wetlands that could be created that are now not being able to be created because of all the wetland. He said this is causing others to look elsewhere than Auburn to create jobs. Will Calhoun, Kent, WA Mr. Calhoun stated he is a retired building contractor and owns land in Auburn and buildings in Auburn. In 1989, Mr. Calhoun purchased 26 acres of platted land to develop located on the West Valley Highway. He stated he built a 60,000 s.f. building on one parcel and paid LID charges and taxes. He stated the Mill Creek flows through the eastern part of their property and caused a wetland, at one time this was limited to approximately 1/3 of the property. Mr. Calhoun said time has converted the remainder of the property into so called wetlands. The once developable portion of the property has PAGE 4 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AUGUST 25, 1997 become wetlands by their definition due to added outflow of the storm sewer water line as well. The infrastructure system design was approved by the City of Auburn as part of the overall development plan for the LID for the entire area. On several occasions they have brought a plan to the city showing and alternative. But the city has turned down the proposal due to the Corps jurisdiction over the land. He stated if these were natural wetlands he could understand but he feels they were man made due to stormwater runoff and it seems a bit much for one property owner to bear the burden. He said he wants to work with the Corps and the City to create win/win situation, but they have not received any encouragement from their efforts. If a reasonable solution cannot be worked out, they will have no alternative but to seek damages through the court system. Clinton Tullis, Renton Mr. Tullis stated he owns property near 277th. He stated his real estate office was located there for 20 years. He explained for 32 years he was a farmer and he knows what wetlands are. Mr. Tullis explained his knowledge of farming. Mr. Tullis said he had spoken with someone with the Corps of Engineers approximately six years ago regarding wetlands. He explained how the water runs off his property and what causes sour lands. He stated the river used to flood and give the land more nutrients. He stated he likes that the SAMP states it will refurbish the water. He said his land is not wet. He believes they have not taken soil samples. Bruce Harpham, Federal Way. Mr. Harpham stated he has been a resident of South King County for 30 years. He said we should look at the functions and values of wetlands. He stated there were streams that used to be year around, with salmon runs. He said the streams and fish are gone because the wetlands have been destroyed. He feels the future should be able to enjoy a healthy environment. He stated there is damage that is done and the clock cannot be turned back. He said development is necessary, but develop in a smart way. He stated he lives here because of the environment. He would like to work together to solve some of the problems. He feels we should allow development and save some of the resources. He said he feels SAMP is an important way of working together and learn from our mistakes. He said he prefers Alternative #5 but was willing to live with Alternative #8. Mike Kohr, Aubum, WA Mr. Kohr stated he feels no one is against wetlands, but he feels owners should be compensated. He stated he can't believe anyone is for the SAMP at all. He feels the owners of property prior to 1985 should be given some exemption and consideration. He said he would like to see a statement in the SAMP for owners of property before this time. Santiago Mercade, Kent, WA Mr. Mercade said he considers himself very environmental. He stated he feels that people that own land right now are not being taken into consideration. He stated he looked through the SAMP document for information regarding compensation. He feels PAGE 5 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AUGUST 25, 1997 there is not a real proposal to provide compensation. He states he cannot sell the land because of wetlands. He feels the Corps of Engineers doesn't know where the wetlands are located. He stated people who owned the land before wetlands should be compensated accordingly. Ralph Mason Mr. Mason asked whether the property owner will be compensated for the property that is considered a wetland. He stated if wetlands are a necessity then let's have them but don't penalize the people who own the land. Will the property owner be compensated? Chairman Borden asked Mr. Smith to address the issue of compensation. Mr. Smith said the property owners will be compensated but it is not clear how much. Mr. Mason asked for the committee to consider whether the SAMP provide compensation to property owners without any conditions. David Halinen, Bellevue, WA Mr. Halinen represents Gary Merlino a property owner along Mill Creek. The property was purchased in the 1970's. He said there were no concerns expressed in the 1970's regarding wetlands when the property was purchase. Mr. Halinen stated he feels that if the numbers were different it might be something the property owners would consider. Mr. Halinen stated the SAMP doesn't work at all. He stated it is unfair that a small number of property owners are being asked to bear the financial burden. He said we don't think the SAMP has accomplished what we hoped it would. He feels the SAMP is a very expensive mitigation program. Mara Locken, Kent, WA Ms. Locken stated she has lived in the Kent/Auburn Valley all her life. She said her parents purchased a 10 acre farm in 1969. They bought it as an investment. She explained that she bought the property and took over payments. She said the property is zoned as a mitigated. She stated it is going to be so expensive that no one will be able to buy the property and she'll be stuck with discounted property that's been labeled as wetlands. She explained she fought her property taxes because of the wetlands. She said she would like to know how her property was determined as wetlands. She stated the property used to be farm land and because of other development the runoff goes onto her land. Mr. Volchok stated the best way to save wetlands is to get the City and Corps to do wetland mitigation banking and that is the only way it will work financially. Mr. Tullis said the Corps has kept him informed. Mr. Frame asked if Mr. Smith could comment on the compensatory ratio? Does the ratio vary. Mr. Smith stated the ratio is consistent throughout the basin and it is an average ratio. Mr. Frame suggested if there were 7 acres of developable land and 3 acres are wetlands there should be a different ratio for low quality and high quality wetlands. PAGE 6 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AUGUST 25. 1997 Mr. Stevens explained the three types of wetlands and ratios. Mr. Patty asked how did you come up with the functions and values assessments. Mr. Smith stated the explanation would require more preparation and graphics. Mr. Mueller explained the delineation manual is determined at the time of approval. Ms. Locken asked when someone wants to develop buildable wetlands and they have to buy mitigated property to develop does that property have to be within the boundaries of where they are going to develop. Mr. Smith explain the idea with SAMP was that the mitigation site would be somewhere within the Mill Creek Basin, but it doesn't have to be, but if you want to get quick and easy approval under the SAMP that is what would be set up. It does not preclude you from trying to put the mitigation somewhere else but you would have to apply for an individual permit through the regular permit process. Chairman Borden closed public hearing at 9:32 p.m. Five minute break. 3. Neighborhood Family Center Contract Mr. Mandeville presented information on the Neighborhood Family Center contract. He asked to postpone Council action until September 15th and explained why the delay was needed. Mr. Mandeville presented the ordinance showing the appropriations to partners and revisions to the contract document. He stated the international festival was successful, there were approximately 50 people in attendance. Mr. Mandeville said there is a need in the community for training on looking for a-job and writing a resume. He explained activities to focus on that need. He said there will also be conflict resolution service leaming workshops and other crime prevention programs. Chairman Borden asked how the City knows what the neighborhoods want. Mr. Mandeville explained staff is in contact with people in the neighborhood at different events, and other agencies in the area are helpful in giving information. This item will be on the Planning and Community Development Committee agenda for September 8, 1997. 4. Resolution 2870 - DSHS Basic Contract Mr. Deal presented information on the DSHS Basic Contract. He explained between ten and fifteen people benefit from the contract and the City is not charged a fee. PAGE 7 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AUGUST 25, 1997 Councilmember Wagner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Barber to approve the DSHS Basic Contract. Chairman Borden concurred. Presentation on Draft Interlocal Agreement with Port of Seattle on "I" Street Wetland Mitigation Mr. Krauss presented information on the Draft Interlocal Agreement with the Port of Seattle on 'T' Street Wetland Mitigation. Mr. Krauss explained staff has been in discussions with the Port of Seattle over their proposal to locate a wetland mitigation site for the "third runway" in Auburn. The Port of Seattle committed to the Auburn site in their EIS. The City believes the mitigation should have been located elsewhere in a rural area rather than on prime land for development. Mr. Krauss stated the agreement would accomplish the Port to pay its fair share of development costs through cash and land dedications. The value of cash and land being offered by the Port is approximately $1.2 million. The Port will design their project to become part of the Green River floodplain which will allow the development of other sites in the area that are currently impacted and new floodplain mapping will be at the Port's expense. Any and all litigation made against this agreement and any subsequent rezones or permits the Port will hold the City harmless. Mr. Krauss explained the City will agree to change the zoning ordinance to allow wetland mitigation and City approval of required permits and successful completion of appeal periods is required to achieve full pay out. Mr. Krauss stated the agreement is LID neutral. The Port of Seattle is in negotiations with King County regarding land for a trail corridor. King County is prepared to develop the trail and armor the creek. o Lea Hill Park Mr. Deal presented information regarding the Lea Hill Park. He explained Green River Community College is presently using the park Monday through Sunday, 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Green River Community College has been using the park for many years for a variety of functions and they would like to have ownership of the park. Mr. Deal stated this issue is between GRCC and King County as the park is outside current City limits and would like to revisit the issue when the property is annexed into the City. With no further items to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjoumed at 10:13 p.m. PAGE 8