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