Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-14-1997 Special Council Mtg CITY Of AUBURN SPECIAL MEETING Of THE AUBURN CITY COUNCIL April 14, 1997 7:00 PM Minutes The Special Meeting of the Auburn City Council convened at 7:00 p.m., Monday, April 14, 1997 in the Council Work Area at Auburn City Hall. Those in attendance included Mayor Booth and the following members of the City Council: Rich Wager, Trish Borden, Jeanne Barber, Fred Poe, Gene Cerino, and Stacey Brothers. Councilmember Sue Singer could not attend the meeting. Staff members present included Public Works Director Frank Currie, Parks and Recreation Director Dick Deal, Finance Director Diane L. Supler, Assistant Planning Director Lynn Rued, Senior Planner Bob Sokol, City Engineer Dennis Dowdy, Utilities Engineer Dwight Holobaugh, and Deputy City Clerk Dani Daskam. Several property owners and other interested persons were in attendance. 1. Introduction Mayor Booth explained the purpose of the meeting is to review and discuss the City's position with regard to the Stewart annexation and other proposed annexations within the City's potential annexation area. Senior Planner Sokol presented the staff report utilizing maps depicting the Agricultural District designated by King County south of 277th Street. He explained that recently King County officials have expressed concern with the City of Auburn's commitment to the County's Agricultural Production District (APD) and Farmland Preservation Program. The issue has been raised in response to the proposed annexation of the Stewart property and the City's adoption of the Potential Annexation Area. King County has not recognized the City's Potential Annexation Area because of their concerns with the APD and farmland preservation within the City's potential annexation area. 2. Lower Green River Agricultural Production District - King County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Mr. Sokol explained that King County established the Lower Green River APD in 1985. The APD covers approximately 1,200 acres. Within the APD are several parcels which King County has purchased the development rights to through its Farmland Preservation Program. The City's potential annexation area is roughly bordered by Highway 167 on the east, South 277th Street on the north, and 55th Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Auburn City Council April 14, 1997 Page 2 Avenue South on the west. Approximately 270 acres of the City's potential annexation area lies within the APD. King County's Comprehensive Plan views farming within the APD as an important scenic and commercial resource that should be preserved. Preservation of the agricultural use is accomplished through King County zoning which allows one dwelling unit per 10 acres. 3. Auburn Comprehensive Plan The City's Comprehensive Plan supports the County agricultural program but does not include an equivalent designation to the King County APD. The APD areas within the City's potential annexation area reflect a rural residential designation which allows one dwelling unit per four acres. Additionally, the City's Comprehensive Plan contains several policies which generally support the County APD, farmland, and open space. 4. Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) The Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) is an inter-jurisdictional planning process that the City participates in with the cities of Kent and Federal Way, King County, Department of Ecology, federal Environmental Protection Agency, Muckleshoot Tribe, and Army Corps of Engineers. The goal of the SAMP is to promote environmental protection of Mill Creek while at the same time allowing for economic development in the Mill Creek basin. The SAMP identifies the wetlands most appropriate for protection and those areas more appropriate for economic development. The current draft of the SAMP identifies wetlands most appropriate for protection as those closest to Mill Creek and the outlying wetlands as most appropriate for development. A frustration of the SAMP process for both City and King County planning staff is that the APD lands cannot be used for wetland mitigation. Since in many instances, the APD lands are used for raising dairy cattle, such agricultural uses have also been identified as some of the key polluters of Mill Creek. Mr. Sokol explained that the APD does not allow use of the land for wetland mitigation. A rezone would need to occur to allow the use for those properties whose developments rights have not already been purchased. A brief exchange occurred between members of the audience and Mayor Booth. It was explained that by allowing wetland mitigation, a value can be created for the land. Also, development rights purchased for the APD require that the property remain in an agricultural use. The APD zone allows development of one dwelling unit per 10 acres or use of the land for farming. Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Auburn City Council April 14, 1997 Page 3 5. Stewart Annexation Status Mr. Sokol advised King County has invoked the jurisdiction of the Boundary Review Board for the Stewart annexation proposal. He anticipates that the County and City will jointly request a delay in the hearing before the Board to allow an opportunity to come to an agreement on the issues surrounding the APD and the City's potential annexation area. 6. Existing Environmental Constraints for Development Mr. Sokol pointed out there are some significant environmental constraints for development in the area. Of the 270 acres, the development rights of approximately 91 acres have been purchased by King County. Of the remaining land within the potential annexation area, a large majority of the land is within the 100 year flood plain and would be costly or nearly impossible to develop. Other development constraints include the City's 140-foot buffer along Mill Creek, steep contours, and wetlands. The Stewart annexation is unique compared to the remainder of the APD. The Stewart property lies on the southern end of the APD, and some of the eastern portion of the property lies within the 100 year flood plain. 7. Proposed City Position Mr. Sokol referred to a draft memorandum from Planning and Community Development Director Paul Krauss dated April 7, 1997 and contained in the Council agenda packet. The memorandum outlines the concepts for structuring an agreement with King County to resolve the APD and annexation issues as follows: · The City will agree to recognize the Agriculture Production District for those approximate 91 acres where development rights have not been purchased. · The Stewart parcel will be annexed to the city of Auburn and the City shall determine how the property will be developed, the Comprehensive Plan designation, and zoning. · King County will agree to purchase the development rights of parcels remaining in the City's potential annexation area between West Valley Highway and Highway 167 with open space funding rather than Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Auburn City Council April 14, 1997 Page 4 agricultural preservation funding. King County does not have funding available to purchase the development rights to other parcels at this time. Designation of the parcels along Mill Creek as open space will enable the property owners to realize value from the property by selling the property for wetland mitigation. Mr. Sokol noted that the wetlands along Mill Creek can be improved to help the wetlands function better. · City of Auburn will agree to maintain the rural Comprehensive Plan designation or open space designation for the remaining parcels within the potential annexation area where the development rights have been purchased. · King County will agree recognize the City's potential annexation boundaries. · King County will agree to re-assess or amend its Agricultural Preservation Program to allow for wetland mitigation. 8. Discussion In response to a question from Councilmember Borden, Mr. Sokol explained the current APD designation prohibits using the properb/for wetland mitigation. Designation for wetland mitigation would create value for the land to allow the property owner to realize its value and to meet King County and City goals of leaving the property as open space. Public Works Director Currie interjected that selling the property for wetland mitigation is subject to market pressure and dependent upon negotiations between the property owner and a developer. In response to questions from the audience, Mr. Sokol delineated the City's potential annexation area on a map. Mayor Booth added that the City has an agreement with the City of Kent for potential annexation area boundaries, but King County has not recognized the City's potential annexation area. Mr. Sokol estimated that annexation of the properties within the potential annexation area will occur over the next 20 years. In response to questions from Councilmember Wagner, Mr. Sokol advised that the City of Kent's potential annexation area extends south to 277th Street. King County has not recognized Kent's potential annexation area. Councilmember Wagner questioned the effect of the potential agreement between King County Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Auburn City Council April 14, 1997 Page 5 and City of Auburn on property owner rights. Mr. Sokol advised the property owners would be able to continue to farm their land. Councilmember Poe noted the owners of the Smith dairy property north of 277th Street have not sold their property rights to King County. He requested the City obtain information from the property owners along West Valley Highway on their perception of the development potential for their property and whether they have been asked to sell their development rights. Councilmember Poe expressed concern that there may be more land available for wetland mitigation than there is a requirement for wetland mitigation. He noted there is property in the area which can be developed. He indicated the issue requires further study by the City including the effect of zoning on property owner rights. Senior Planner Sokol commented that because of the 100 year flood plain, existing wetlands, and steep slopes,-, there is little development potential for property within the potential annexation area. Councilmember Brothers questioned the advantage of including undevelopable land within the City's potential annexation area. He suggested the City may accomplish more by leaving the property within the County if annexation is not economically beneficial to the City. Mr. Sokol responded that even though the area is not developed, there are services that may need to be provided to the area such as police and fire services. Also, it may be easier to implement SAMP if a developer in Auburn also constructs their wetland mitigation in Auburn. Councilmember Borden agreed with Councilmember Brothers' point regarding the inclusion of undevelopable land within the potential annexation area. Councilmember Cerino expressed his opposition to an agreement with King County which would prevent the property owners from potential development of their property. Mr. Sokol reviewed the status of the Stewart annexation. The City accepted the petition for annexation. King County subsequently invoked jurisdiction which requires a hearing before the Boundary Review Board. If King County agrees to the proposal outlined in Planning and Community Development Director Krauss's memorandum, King County will likely withdraw the request for a hearing on the Stewart annexation. Councilmember Poe expressed his support for the Stewart annexation, but expressed opposition to the proposed agreement with King County. He Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Auburn City Council April 14, 1997 Page 6 disagreed with the City entering into an agreement which effects property owners who have not had an opportunity to indicate their position to the City Council. Mayor Booth explained that he believes King County's intent is to resolve an overall policy determination among Kent, Auburn and King County. Senior Planner Sokol also added that protecting the open space and the agricultural land is also part of the countywide planning policies which the City adopted. Councilmember Barber expressed her support for the Stewart annexation. She acknowledged the Stewart annexation may be jeopardized if the City and County cannot come to an agreement. Mayor Booth explained that the County is concerned because King County has the Stewart property designated for a use which the City does not-.have within the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Brothers questioned whether the County would have invoked jurisdiction if the City had an agricultural land definition. Councilmember Borden suggested the City pursue an agricultural zoning designation that would accommodate property such as the Stewart parcel, and the City reconsider the potential annexation area. Councilmember Wagner indicated he is willing to consider some adjustments to the potential annexation area. He also expressed opposition to automatically annexing property to the City under a previous land use designation. He expressed support for obtaining comments from the property owners regarding potential land use designation. Mayor Booth concluded that the members of the City Council have conveyed some direction with regard to a potential agreement with King County related to potential annexation. Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Auburn City Council April 14, 1997 Page 7 9. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:52 p.m. Approved on the /~"'~ day of Y~I(~ ,1997. Charles A. Booth, Mayor Robin Wohlhueter, City Clerk 97M4-14.DOC