Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-08-25 Committee of the Whole MinutesAugust 25, 1981 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS REPORTS Mayor Council Members Others: Wendy Morgan withdraws as candidate for Council position #3. NEW BUSINESS Prop. Res. fixing time when petition will be heard on vacation of a street. Prop. Ord. vacating a portion of S. 168th St. that lies easterly of 53rd Ave. So. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL comma lam, OF THE WHOLE MEETING MINUTES Chairman Hill called the Committee of the Whole Meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. L. C. BOHRER, MABEL J. HARRIS, GEORGE D. HILL, J. REID JOHANSON, DORIS E. PHELPS. Nothing to report at this tine. City Hall Council Chambers Councilman Johanson reported he would be on vacation for the next two weeks. Councilman Phelps reported that the Finance and Personnel Committee will meet on Thursday. Wendy Morgan, a candidate in the Tukwila City Council primary for Position No. 3, said it has become necessary for her to withdraw her name from the ballot. She has just become aware of a require- ment that career service employees must take a leave of absence from their job if they run for public office. She said it would be inappropriate to take a leave of absence from her job. She said she could not remove her name from the ballot, but she was placing an ad in the paper explaining the situation. Ns. Morgan said she would continue to serve on the Board of Adjustment and as a volunteer in other community programs. Chairman Hill expressed regret that it was necessary for MS. Morgan to withdraw. He thanked her for the public service she is rendering. Chairman Hill said six property owners have petitioned the City for street vacation of a portion of 54th Avenue South lying between South 166th Street and South 168th Street. The action recommended is to pass a resolution setting October 6, 1981 as the date to hear the petition. Chairman Hill said he would oppose the cutting down of trees on 54th to enhance a view as the trees act as a buffer to the noise from the freeway. Councilman Harris said it seems there is a utility corridor running along 54th. Chairman Hill said a street can be vacated and the utility easement retained. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said he was not sure what easement documents would be necessary. Carl Carlson, Deputy City Attorney, said Puget Power usually gets legal easements, but if there is not an easement then the City should assure that Puget Power gets an easement. Mr. Collins said 54th Avenue South involves the sewer right -of -way so it is necessary to set a time for a public hearing. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION Sir1'ING OC'T'OBER 6, 1981 AS THE DATE TO HEAR THE PETITION BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. Councilman Bohrer said he would like the minutes of the Park Commission Meeting where they made a recommendation on the street vacation to be in the agenda packet for the next meeting. *MO'T'ION CARRIED. Councilman Johanson said the above- discussed resolution and the proposed ordinance are related. In light of the discussion on the previous item he felt City should establish some kind of a right -of -way to be included in the release should the City decide to release the property. Carl Carlson, Deputy City Attorney, said if there were not a formal easement on the property that Puget Power might have one now by adverse possession. They have been on there for more than ten years. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL commIaTEE OF THE WHOTTF MEETING August 25, 1981 Page 2 NEW BUSINESS Prop. Ord. vacating a protion of S. 168th St. that lies easterly of 53rd Ave. So. contd. Rev. Developer's Agreement Res. accepting 4 Developer's Agreements. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said he thought there was a question about the vacation being very close to the southern edge of the right -of -way and the easement may require that additional property be purchased from the property owners them- selves. Richard McCann, Perkins Law Firm, 1900 Washington Building, Seattle 98101, said he represented Puget Power and Light. He said he was not familiar with the specific terms of the Tukwila/ Puget franchise, but in most of the franchises the City is obli- gated at any time it vacates public right -of -way over which that franchise runs to reserve an easement to protect the power and utility facilities within the franchised area. Easements and facilities outside the franchised area as usual practice are covered by separate independent private easements. There should not be a gap, although contact with the power company would indicate whether or not that exists. If the City will check the terms of its franchise it will find that it is obligated to reserve an easement upon vacation. Councilman Phelps said it makes sense to identify the area of the easement that is going to be reserved for Puget Power because the City officials will need to know where construction can take place on private property and where it cannot encroach upon an easement area. We need to have the record for the protection of the City and be sure it is recorded. Councilman. Bohrer asked if we are considering a vacation that will cost the City money? Councilman Hill said no, it would not cost the City. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said the concern is that the size of the cable that is within the right -of -way is considerable. He said his understanding is that a power cable of that size would have an easement of about 25'. Mr. McCann said he did not know the width of the easement without referring to the document. Councilman Harris said this discussion started because someone wanted to build a garage on the north side so perhaps the solution would be to sell 35 40' and retain the other portion. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF SOUTH 168TH STREET THAT LIES EASTERLY OF 53RD AVENUE SOUTH BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 REGULAR COUNCIL PELTING. Councilman Harris asked that the dollar amount be filled in on Section 3 of the proposed ordinance. *MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Hill said the City Attorney was requested to review the four developer's agreements and be sure they would be willing to participate in sidewalks through an L.I.D. at a later date. The City Council reviewed this previously and found it might be possible that there would be four or five developers in a row and it might be beneficial to the City to have the sidewalk put in at time of development rather than wait for an L.I.D. Once the study is completed to establish the grade, the developers could put in the sidewalks at that time rather than a later date. The City Attorney was going to report on this. Carl Carlson, Deputy City Attorney, said Mr. Hard did not talk to him about the request. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said there is the proposed resolution setting forth the developer's agreements. The City Attorney has provided the alternative in the form of two types of agreements; one being participation in a future L.I.D., and the other being an ordinance relating to sidewalk construction. The agreement for future construction is to allow the City to get the work done by a certain date. It is in rought draft form and will need some revision. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMLTr1'EE OF THE WHOLE MEETING August 25, 1981 Page 3 NEW BUSINESS Contd. Rev. Developer's Agreement Res. accepting 4 Developer's Agreements contd. RECESS 8:20 8:34 P.M. 3,37 Chairman Hill said everyone felt the City did not have enough teeth in this. If you had nine tenths of the block agreeable to a sidewalk it could be stalled due to one piece of property. At the present there are several developers who would make Interurban complete with two- thirds of the sidewalks. Councilman Bohrer said the agreement covers a period of three years. Why is a limit needed on the date of the agreement. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT THE COMMT'1 OF THE WHOLE MEETING RECESS FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. The Committee of the Whole Meeting was called back to order by Chairman Hill, with Council Members present as previously listed. Carl Carlson, Deputy City Attorney, said the developer's agreement for future construction is a draft and will need revision. With reference to the deadline for information to be submitted to the owner, if the City failed to provide information by the date stated the property owner could receive damages. The agreement does not specify any remedy if a deadline is not met. The Council could put in a clause regarding a missed deadline. In the absence of the clause saying what would happen would be up to the courts to decide. Chairman Hill said it is the Council intent that when they sign the agreement for future construction it become clear that the City knows what is going to be done but the City does not know when. It seems as soon as the City has the grades and alinements for the streets, the developers can start constructing sidewalks. Council should have an agreement that says at what time the sidewalks should go in. Councilman Harris said she preferred the developer's agreement for future construction of the sidewalks and when it should be done. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said his understanding is that Council can decide how long they want to give the developers to put in the sidewalk, Council can say three years or it could be eight or ten years, it could be put in the agreement in that manner. It could say that by that time we will provide the street description information to the developer. It does not say the notice to proceed has to be in this time frame. There is not any time set forth on when the City sends out the notice to proceed. Sometime before the deadline the City will be required to set specifics. Councilman Bohrer asked why we should have to set a date when the City will provide specifics? He suggested that Condition 1 on Page 1 of the developer's agreement for future construction be deleted. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said Council would want to give these instructions to staff as to how long they have to provide the specifics to the developer. That phrase does not need to be there, but for sane reason Mr. Hard has put it in. Councilman Harris said part of the reason it is there is because we have not received the details of the study to give to someone so they can start to build the sidewalk. Once we have them we can give them the specifics. Councilman Bohrer said it does not say when they are available, as soon as we get the study we are going to ask for the sidewalk to be built. Why do we have to have the date in there? It says the City shall provide the specifics in Condition 2 on Page 2. MOVE BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY BOHRER, THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FOUR DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENTS BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE NEXT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE METING ON SEPTEMBER 8, 1981. MOTION CARRIED. TUEWILA CITY COUNCIL COJ M['1'1'1 E OF THE WROTE NEPTING August 25, 1981 Page 4 NEW BUSINESS Contd. P &L Co. Rezone Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said the proposed ordinances reclassify certain lands from R -3 to C -1 and amends the compre- hensive plan map. In the Council packets there are copies of the proposed ordinances, staff reports, Planning Commission minutes, and the City Attorney's comments. Councilman Bohrer said he would like to know if the documents reflect the agreements that were discussed before the Planning Commission relative to the specific benefits to the neighbors. Mr. Collins said the City Attorney had the documents and worked with the applicant's attorney, 11r. McCann. They incorporated them into the documents. It was his understanding that they reviewed all of the conditions and have concluded them as they saw fit. MLr. Richard McCann, attorney for applicants, 1900 Washington Building, Seattle, said he was representing the P &L CoRpany. They would like to present to Council a description of the project. It will be helpful as to whether or not the concerns of the neighbors have been met. Mr. Omer Mithun, Mithun and Associates, said he was architect for the project. He presented slides showing the project and stating the Phase II is a sister building to the xerox building, but a little smaller. All of the activity will be on the south side of the building, away from the residences. The glass area will be cut slightly for energy conservation. It is professional office space for daytime use. He said they were working with the neighbors as to how the landscaping should be designed. They have worked with the neighbors and all of their requests have been incorporated into the project. Councilman Phelps said she noted that the petitions that have been signed are dated 1979, so they are not recent. Mr. Collins, Planning Director, said Councilman Bohrer requested the petitions be made available for this meeting. All of the conditions are included in the property agreement, also an agree- ment has been signed by John Richards. The building has not been moved but it has been lowered. There are citizens in the audience who signed the letter. They can speak for themselves if their concerns have not been satisfied. Mr. John Richards, 15320 64th Avenue South, Tukwila, said the citizens have got together and talked about this project as a community on one occasion and there have been two public hearings where various aspects have been discussed. The document that he had to look at was part of what the Council has a total package. He said he had concerns as to how it is worded and whether or not it addresses the concern of the neighborhood. The neighborhood is not opposed to the development provided that their concerns are addressed and carried forth and executed in the development. At this point a formal ordinance is being made that will become the enforcement document and the instructions to the developer, to the City staff, enforcing the rezone and the development itself. It is important that the communication be carried through and be stated in the wording of the document that Council is considering. In the first part of the document, which would be the second page in Section 3 where the Council makes the conclusions and conditions relating to and restricting the subject real property there are two conditions: the first says the City and the petitioner shall execute a property and use development agreement substantiall: the same as the agreement attached to the ordinance as Exhibit C. He said he, as an impacted neighbor, and he believe the rest of the neighborhood, probably would agree that the word "substantially' is rather frightening. Earlier in the meeting at the beginning the Council was talking about an agreement they were trying to reach on an LID and the word "substantive changes" came up about crossing is and dotting i's. He believed they have the same fear. He would like to see a document that Council will take action on that is complete, that it does not have words like "substan- tially" which infer that changes can be made at a staff level or TUKI')ILA CITY COUNCIL COPMIZ'tIEh OF THE WHOT E MEETING August 25, 1981 Page 5 NEW BUSINESS Contd. P &L Co. Rezone Comprehensive Plan Amendment contd. or some other level after the community has given agreement to the development. What the citizens would like to see is that Exhibit C be executed prior to the public hearing and prior to Council taking action on rezone of the property and that Exhibit C be in its final form so the comitunity can look at it and agree as to whether or not it communicates the community's concerns. The other thing that would probably fall into this section, but is not covered, is the concern the neighborhood has as to what happens to the rezone and developer's agreement after the new zoning code is adopted which, according to his understanding, will put the property P -0 or office use and they are concerned that the development occur the way it has been presented and those restrictions, or that agreement, that has been arrived at carries forth even after the new zoning code has been adopted. The rezone of that specific piece of property to C -1, taking it from residential use to commercial use, is appropriate only because of the mitigating effort that the developer is supposed to do which is to keep his traffic out of the residential area and use Southcenter Boulevard as an access and it is important that this happen. Also, the size of the structure at 32,000 square feet in one spot is a substantial difference than what a residential of tri- plexes or four plexes spread throughout would be. It is a trade -off with the community as to whether we want to have one large structure or end up with a lot of residential structures spread throughout. We won't have four or five 32,000 square foot buildings plunked on the property. From a bulk standpoint there is a large difference between a C -1 operation which is a 32,000 square foot two -story building and a residential operation which is a series of two or three thousand square foot buildings spread across the property. They are concerned that what they have been told will happen actually is executed. They would like to see Exhibit C in its final form and, second, that they have some kind of assurance, whether the City Attorney writes a letter to the neighborhood or whatever, but some kind of written record that this developer's agreement will in fact be in effect after the new zoning code has been adopted. He said he sat on the Planning Commission for four or five years and during the rewrite of the zoning code and that specific problem came up what happens to all of the contract rezones in the City when the new zoning code is adopted? Are they null and void or do they continue in effect? The attorney never did respond to the Commission and as a neighbor having a potential rezone with a developer's agreement he would like to know. It is a fair question and response is appropriate. Many of the concerns of the 15 that were in the letter he was a party to signing were addressed in the meeting that was held with the developers. Compromises were made. They were not jumping with joy at what happened, but they realize that they have a project they would like to execute as well as the neighbor's concerns and at the end of the meeting a compromise solution was reached. However, getting back to the form of the ordinance, they are concerned that the content specifically be in it so the person who is responsible for administrating the building permit and controlling the actual development knows what they are up against. A large part of their concerns were delgated to the B.A.R. that those concerns will be taken care of at the time of B.A.R. Therefore, it was asked that the neighborhood be notified when the BAR approval was going to occur so they could come to the meeting and speak. That is not contained anywhere in the document as being a requirement of the rezone. The Planning Director has said they will take care of that as a matter of the Depart- ment doing it. In the four or five years he was on the Commission he did not remember that type of notification as a matter of policy. That is why it is asked that it become a part of the record and made a requirement so the neighborhood will be notified and be able to come to the meeting and make sure the compromise that was arrived at is documented and executed. Therefore, he would ask that these specific instructions be made a part of the ordinance. In the Section on B.A.R. it instructed what the Board of Architectural Review (B.A.R.) is to review it says it is not limited to that. They discuss building height in subparagraph (a), they discuss some setbacks in subparagraph (c). As Mr. Mithun has just given a slide show there were TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COPM T1TEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING August 25, 1981 Page 6 NEW BUSINESS Contd. P &L Co. Rezone Comprehensive Plan Amendment contd. several documents submitted to the Planning Commission and to the neighborhood and they would like to be sure that the eleva- tion of 120' be established within the ordinance, either by reference to those documents or actually be stated that the building heights should not exceed two stories nor elevation 120' as depicted on the documentation submitted by the applicant. He asked if Exhibit B in subparagraph (b) does include all of the documentation? He said he was familiar in the Planning Commission that each page of a document was a separate exhibit and he wanted to be sure that Exhibit B did not isolate the documentation to the site plan and the elevation and the new section that depicted the elevation of 120' and set the relationship of the new structure to the surroudning neighborhood be a part of the documentation that the Planning Commission has instructed to address. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said Exhibit B is just the site plan. Building height is in (a). Mr. Richards, audience, said he thought it was important to the neighborhood that all of the documentation submitted by the developer at the second meeting which addressed the concerns of the neighborhood as submitted at the first Planning Commission meeting be better referred to and spelled out in the document. In the Developer's Agreement, which has reference to the B.A.R., there is reference to subparagraph (b) under Utilization of Site Development Plans. It says under (4) that site development plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Tukwila Planning Commission sitting as a Board of Architectural Review. Architectural Review will include but will not be limited to, and then there are three subparagraphs. In those three subparagraphs only one exhibit of the entire exhibit as presented by the developer was referenced. He said as far as building height is concerned the elevation of 120' which was given by the architect was a talked about elevation and was part of the negotiation between the developer and the neighbor- hood as to how high the building would be in relationship to the neighborhood. There is no reference to it in the ordinance that is going to grant them the rezone and the authority to proceed. The only exhibit of all of the exhibit that were given by the developer is Exhibit B which is referenced. It is appropriate that all of the exhibits be referenced. Councilman Phelps asked when the Planning Commission sits as a Board of ARchitectural Review do they review the entire project and their scope of review is not limited to just what may be spelled out in the property or developer's agreement? Mir. Collins said that is correct, in effect they could modify a, b, c, and d if they chose to do so. Councilman Phelps said she did not have any problem with the conerns listed being a part of the developer's agreement. It is more appropriate there than as part of the ordinance. The ordinance sits as a permanent document of the City whereas prop- erty or a developer's agreement may not be as permanent as the ordinance that is adopted amending the zoning code. Typically, developer's agreements are filed and remain a condition of certain properties regardless of what area rezones might do to the property. Carl Carlson, Deputy City Attorney, said developer's agreements are typically filed and are on record as burdening the property until they are satisfied. Councilman Phelps said a rezone would not negate the power of an individual property use and developer's agreement. Carl Carlson, Deputy City Attorney, asked Councilman Phelps is she was asking the impact of the new zoning code on the existing contract rezones? He said he could not respond to that question. He said he understood that is a pending question and it is complex. He could not predict what the result would be. Councilman Phelps asked if this constituted a contract rezone? Mr. Carlson said a developer's agreement is akin to a contract rezone. The impact of the new zoning code TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL commirrEL OF THE WHOT F MEETING August 25, 1981 Page 7 NEW BUSINESS Contd. P &L Co. Rezone Comprehensive Plan Amendment contd. on existing developer's agreements is a question that cannot be answered at this time. The developer's agreement is recorded and does burden the property. He said he could not respond without looking into it. Councilman Phelps said she guessed she did not understand the difference between a developer's agreement and a contract rezone. She said she has seen situations in the past where developer's agreements, upon satisfaction of any conditions with it, will automatically expire at the end of the satisfaction of those conditions. She was not sure that would be the case of a contract rezone. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said the difference between a contract rezone and the developer's agreement is complex. We are attempting to define and answer these questions. As of this date that research has not been completed. Mir. Richards, audience, said in any case the ordinance itself does in Section 3, subparagraph (a), refer specifically to the execution of a property use and developer's agreement, which is Exhibit C attached. First of all, he disagreed with the statement "substantially the same as Exhibit C." It should state exactly what the agreement is going to be before Council passes the rezone and second, that the property use and developer's agreement continue in effect after the new zoning code goes into effect. In the same way the Council fears changes to LID #30, so the neighborhood is in fear of what one person would consider as a "substantial change." The neighborhood may consider that a substantial change. Therefore, he would like to, and expects to see, that the Council have a completed document with the final wording in it when they make their decision. Councilman Bohrer said he would like to point out to staff and Mr. Richards that Council Procedures say before Council passes an ordinance they must have in their possession all signed documents that pertain to it. He wanted to see that happen. When he reads Section C and it says the petitioner "shall execute a document," that sentence and that phrase is not in concert with Council Procedures. The Council Procedures say Council will have documents signed before the ordinance is passed. Councilman Harris said all of these conditions and the documents from the neighbors ought to be part of the ordinance. A developer's agreement once it is completed then your part of it is accomplished. It does not say that anyone else that comes along can add to or take away or change. If it were in the ord- inance as a condition of the rezone it could not be done. MIr. Mithun, architect, said the things that have been done have been done wholeheartedly. They do not have any reservations. When the neighbors submitted their concerns there were several of the items in it that were not practical. After the meeting it was resolved to a list which was thought to be in the document. He would expect them to be referenced. The same with the final drawings. There is a copy of the section that Mr. Richards is talking about and he assumed that would be connected to any approval. The only question, and he did not have any holdbacks on anything that has been discussed, is the real question of absolutes. If this is going to the B.A.R. and you have said there will be no deviation in any detail from the drawings and so on that have been submitted, then you have tied their hands completely. He said he was happy and did not care about that. It seems that some discretion on the City part is not a wrong thing to do. He said he was not asking for any favors. Councilman Harris said that is not what she said. She said she had no qualms about the rezone if the concerns of the neighbors were part of the ordinance; then when it goes to B.A.R. they take it and use it as part of their discussion. Mr. Mithun said he wanted the record complete. Mr. Richards, audience, said one other thing that is of concern to the neighborhood is the access on 64th, whether or not TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING August 25, 1981 Page 8 NEW BUSINESS Contd. P&L Co. Rezone Comprehensive Plan Amendment contd. commercial use of that street is going to be allowed. When the City improved the street about two years ago they deliber- ately made it narrow with the understanding, or at least he was led to believe, that it was made narrow to restrict the use to a residential type of use. The fear the neighbors have is with the parking lot that abuts the street that has one access to it from the south, and with about 125 cars parked there, at five o'clock the people are going to come out and each will be wanting to get out. The only other access they are going to have is up their street. The Fire and Police Departments of the City have a penchant for pushing through rights -of -way to get second means of access for fire and police protection. It looks to him like they are being set up to have that pushed through because restricting use of that street is not part of the ordinance it is part of the developer's agreement. The developers are happy to restrict it and they have said they do not want access out there. He said he could see it coming that the street will be forced open. He could not see why it could not be put into the ordinance that it is not going to be opened to commercial use. It is not in the conditions of the rezone. It is in the developer's agrement. Councilman Harris asked if the neighborhood conditions could be referenced as part of the ordinance? Mr. Richards said that is what he would like to see. They have talked to the developers about their problems and the problems of the neighbor- hood. The neighbors have bent and the developers have bent and the end results have been the developer's agreement. He said he would like to discuss if subparagraph (b) of the developer's agreement on Section 4 is going to reference Exhibit B and talk about 20' setbacks why aren't the rest of the documentations talks about in there? The second point is if the City looks at the access on 64th Avenue South and South 153rd Street the same way the residents do why does the limiting of the access have to be in the developer's agreement? Why cannot it be a part of the rezone? Chairman Hill asked if the Developer's Agreement would be part of the rezone? It refers to it. MIr. Richards said there was a statement made earlier that as soon as the developers complied with the aspects of the developer's agreement he is off the hook. They do not want to see that. A lot of conditions are ongoing conditions non -use of the residential street is a ongoing condition. Pair. Nlithun said the developers have no desire for that street to go through into the residential street. The neighbors do not want it. It is possible for them to agree not to ask for it. It is not possible for them to tie the hands of some future Council of condemning or not being able to put a street where they want it. Carl Carlson, Deputy City Attorney, said according to the lan- guage of the document it is to be filed and certain of its provisions are to run with the land, meaning that they will continue to burden the land. Some of these things are not things that are satisfied at some point. For example, the condition that there be no entrance or exit between the property and 64th Avenue South has no termination point. That is an obliga- tion that the owners of the property, the developers, can impose on the property. That will continue to burden their property. Mr. Richards said he is not happy that the potential is there for the City, under pressure, to decide that they can open that street up. Once that street is opened up who is going to stand and tell who can drive on it and who cannot? Councilman Phelps said there are probably no guarantees for that kind of a condition because this City Council can pass such legislation and another Council can reverse that legislation. The only way to protect yourself would be to come to meetings TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WROTE MEETING August 25, 1981 Page 9 NEW BUSINESS Contd. P &L Co. Rezone Comprehensive Plan Amendment contd. like this and protest that action at sores future date. There is no way the passage of an ordinance would guarantee that street would never be pushed through. The developers_ agree that they will not push it through and it is part of the agreement. She said she did not want her previous remark misinterpreted about property or developer's agreements. What she said was that some property use or developer's agreements do expire when the conditions of them are satisfied. That is not always the case. She said she was comparing the developer's agreement with a contract rezone and she was not sure how the two differed. Changes in zoning and the opening of streets do not take place without public hearings. Mr. Collins said any agreement between the City and the property owners is subject to amendment between the City and the part to that agreement, which would be the owners. The only way the property owners can be guaranteed that things will not change is if somehow they become parties to this agreement. To the extent that is identified in Item 9 and 10 of the agree- ment, they are involved as much as any action that the City has taken on land use. Short of them being members of the contract, their franchise would be with the City. Mir. McCann, attorney, said the City Attorney has made the neighbors part of the agreement in Item 10. That is called a third party beneficiary. The concerns of the neighbors have been taken into consideration and protected. The developers have no objections to the document and they have made every attempt to put those matters before the Planning Commission and the Council. He said he had one other concern with reference to the 1979 petition which apparently is in the Council packet and which was not considered by the Planning Commission or made a part of the record. He asked that they receive a copy of it and ask whether or not that petition is being considered by the Council with respect to this application. Councilman Bohrer said it is part of the packet by his request. The specific issue that he has been wondering about is that Council is going to great lengths to protect what is now a single family area but may become an R -3 area by request. Mr. Collins said the existing zoning is R -3 and it is proposed to be R -3 in the new zoning code. The rezone request is to C -1. Councilman Bohrer said when the Council first got into this they were trying to protect single family residences not a potential R -3 development. In his own mind the provisions that are required are very different. He said he would like to know which subject is being addressed R -1 or R -3? Mr. Richards said R -1 and R -3 are both residential uses. If you go through the Comprehensive Land Use Plan the policy that covers land use plans addresses themselves to commercial uses accessing through residential uses. That is the difference. We are not talking about one density use against another density use. We are talking about a commercial use through a residential use. Councilman Bohrer said he agrees about the access part of it and he has some questions about some of the other provisions. Whether they are really necessary or appropriate. For example, do we have such a buffer between the City Hall and the residential area that is behind it or the one that is immediately west of City Hall, and the residential area that will be just behind that? Is there such a buffer required? Mr. Richards said the slope that goes back of the City Hall is the buffer. The slope that is back of the proposed building has been redone. Councilman Bohrer said there is no corresponding buffer just to the west of City Hall. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL commITTFS OF THE WHOLE MEETING August 25, 1981 Page 10 NEW BUSINESS Contd. P &L Co. Rezone Comprehensive Plan Amendment contd. Councilman Johanson said there was a buffer required in the development just north of City Hall and the property adjacent on the east side in the requirement of a fence, a screen, and setback. Mir. McCann, attorney, said with respect to the document that is dated November 8, 1979, and is a petition to the Planning Commission of the City to allow the existing zoning of R -3 on said properties below listed to remain R -3, he must object to the consideration of this document by the Council, considering this application for final amendment and rezone. The document does not identify which particular property, there is no indication that it is the same property that is being discussed here and secondly, this document was not part of the record in the proceedings of the Planning Commission in connection with the application. There is no indication from the people who have signed the document that they have any reference to the proposal that has not been presented to the Planning Commission and is now before the City Council. They may very well wish to retract this position if they had an opportunity to see the application. They do not believe it should be considered by the Council. Councilman Harris said she would speak for those people and if she remembered rightly some of them are in the audience and can correct her if she is wrong, this was written in response to the Planning Commission's intent to make that an R -J area. They asked to have it remain R -3. They felt it was already developed with the San Juan Apartments and they did not feel it should now be R -1, they would rather have it remain R -3. The Planning Commission had originally designated that area as R -1 and it was already R -3 and asked to remain R -3. Councilman Bohrer said the properties that are listed are precisely the same properties that are single family area immediately adjoining the area we are seeking a barrier for. Implication at present and what has been gone through up to this point is that we are buffering a single family area from a commercial area. That is what he has seen today. This says what we are buffering is a multi- family area from a commercial area. Councilman Hill asked if they should not receive the same consideration? Councilman Bohrer said that is the question. Councilman Phelps said she wondered if it were not a little late to be pursuing that becuase the developers and the property owners have already come to some terms of agreement for the development under their property use and developer's agreement and the comments have for the most part been incorporated along with the ordinance and are part of the agreement. They have come to terms as to what residential buffering means to them. Councilman Bohrer said he thought Council was going to great pains to reach an agreement with specific property owners and he understood their concern, but, if the property is then rezoned or continues its current zoning as R -3 and is to be developed multi family then in his opinion the same degree of buffering is not necessary. Some parts of the buffering are entirely approp- riate and some parts are not. That is the issue the Council should discuss. If it is the majority opinion of the Council that the two require the same buffering then the Council can proceed as they are; if that is not the case then there may be some reason to reconsider certain parts of the agreement that is before Council. He said he would like to get to another point that he felt should be dealt with tonight and which cannot be dealt with at regular Council meetings. It is partly related to the issue of contract rezone versus property developer's agreement. This Council can go through an ordinance and set the provisions of the ordinance and agree to the provisions of a developer's agreement if that i s what t-1ey choose to do. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL CON I11EE OF THE WHOLE MEETING August 25, 1981 Page 11 NEW BUSINESS Contd. P&L Co. Rezone Comprehensive Plan Amendment contd. The next step, however, is the implementation of that ordinance and that is not the Council's prerogative, it is the Adminis- tration's prerogative, and in his own mind there is more, if you will, lack of control in that process at present than there is in any part of the process Council is going through. It is that issue that the Council has to take up with the Mayor before Council can have any assurance to people we are dealing with. Whatever we choose to do with it, we want to know that the conditions of the ordinance will be implemented. He said when he looks at certain other developments in the City subject to similar agreements and performance in administering those agree- ments then it gives him great concern about being able to administer the provisions of this agreement, which in many respects are similar. It is that issue that he would like to take up with the Mayor when he is present because in time past he has said that a similar agreement is not enforceable, in his opinion, and indeed he has not enforced it. That issue is also a major one that the Council should address before they go forward with these particular actions that are before them. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE P &L COMPANY REZONE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT BE TABLED UNTIL THE CO1\24I'1'2E OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1981. Councilman Bohrer said the person who is enforcing it will be at a future meeting and it can be discussed with him to see if, in his opinion, he feels that the agreement that is being put together is enforceable. He said he thought that the property owners would like a commitment from Administration to go along with Council's commitment in passing an ordinance that can actually do what they want done. Chairman Hill said Item 10 says: "This agreement is made for the benefit of the City and for the benefit of owners of property within 300' of the property. Either the City or any such property owner may institute and prosecute any proceedings at law or in equity to enforce this agreement. If such action is brought by the City, owners agree to pay any costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the City arising out of such action." Councilman Bohrer said he had some concern about that phrase and was not sure what the implications are and he was not sure he would want the City to be bound by it. Brad Collins said the owner that would pay would be Mr. Lynch. Councilman Bohrer said then that needs to be clarified. Mr. Collins said he thought that was clarified in the document where it indicates that the owner refers to the P &L Company, but he would have to go back and reference that through the entire document. The other question, as the Department Head responsible for administering this and as a representative of the Administration he did not think it is fair to put off the decision on this particular issue regarding the relationship of the Mayor's enforcement of this. The Mayor is scheduled to be at the September 1 meeting, so he could not understand why it could not be posed to him at that time. Councilman Johanson said he appreciated the Administration's stand and his concern for the developer's rights to the property and their concerns. He, and every person living around that area, will be affected by zoning to create a commercial atmos- phere. He has to pay R -3 property taxes for an R -1 home which he has done for 20 years. The character of the neighborhood is R -1, although it has been classifed R -3 since 1959. It is the consensus of the neighborhood that it remain R -3. It is not fair they should pay higher property rates on their property either. If we go ahead and by common consent agree to a dis- agreement with the development, but in the future not have any reliable or real feel that it is going to remain that way, then who is it unfair to? He said he hears it from Administration all of the time, that property owners have rights and the City is being unfair to them. He asked if he did not have any TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMI OF THE WHOLE MEETING August 25, 1981 Wage 12 NEW BUSINESS Contd. P&L Co. Rezone Comprehensive Plan Amendment contd. Sign Code Revision Process Installation of Flap Gate by Tukwila Pond. *MOTION CARRIED, WITH PHELPS VOTING NO. rights as a resident or an existing resident to maintain some degree of quality. That is what is being discussed tonight. To what degree are we going to allow the quality to remain in a residential area regardless of whether it is R -3 or R -1. He said he saw no opposition. This is a commitment the people are making to a commercial development in a residential area. We want to pick at it enough to make it right. Councilman Phelps said the Community Affairs Committee has been meeting and discussing progress of the sign code amendments and revisions and they discussed goals and objectives of a revision. They have been somewhat formalized. They are looking for a consensus from the Committee of the Whole to pass on the intent of the goals to a technical committee in order to begin the actual review of the sign code. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said there has been a general consensus in Committee and the Planning staff that this is a good direction to take. It is fairly comprehensive in addressing the purposes that were identified. The intent is to discuss them with the Council to see if they are in agreement with the statements and if it will provide sufficient direction for a technical committee and staff to begin the draft. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT THE SIGN CODE REVISION PROCESS BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE SEPTEMBER 8, 1981 CONMI'1 OF THE WHOLE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Ted Uomoto, Public Works Director, said Mr. Smith of the Spring Ridge Investments, Ltd., owners of Tukwila Pond property, has requested City to install a one -way flow gate (flap gate) device to prevent City's storm water from the storm system from entering Tukwila Pond through reverse flow. The installation of a flap gate structure will permit flows out of the pond but would prevent backflow of water. The estimated cost would be $2,000 to $3,000. Mir. Keith Cinnamon, local representative, has stated his contractor is willing to pay for half the cost. The Public Works Committee has recam ended this matter be dis- cussed and approval be given to participate 50% in the cost. Mr. Uomoto said backflow into Tukwila Pond occurs when the City's storm system is incapable of conveying the storm run -off from the streets and parking areas surrounding the Andover Park East area north of the pond. Another condition which could cause backflow into the pond is when the Green River is high and local inflow into the main ditch along I -405 in Tukwila is at a high level. Councilman Harris said since Tukwila Pond has no spring source and flood water is the origin of it will it dry up if nothing is going into it? Mr. Uomoto said storm water has sustained the pond to a certain degree. Mr. Cinnamon, representing the Spring Ridge Investments Company, said they have 9.5 acres of land and wetlands. Tukwila Pond is an artifical lake and always will be. There were 24 acres under water. There was flood water running off the streets. An alternative would be to dike it. They are willing to pay 50% of the cost. They have a parcel of land that is being flooded by other people. Councilman Bohrer said part of the water that enters the pond is from the property itself and neighbor's property. It was once the local low point. Mr. Cinnamon said the railroad has its own drain. The commercial land all flows back the other way. The hotel flows the other way. There may be a small amount come over from the corner. The only water is flowing from the swamp center. Nothing has come off the hill since they built across the street. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMI'11r:t OF THE WHOLE MEETING August 25, 1981 Page 13 NEW BUSINESS Contd. Installation of Flap Gate by Tukwila Pond contd. J/c Councilman Bohrer asked if the City can spend money for the benefit of a property owner or an individual, yet the City has a responsibility that we do not impose on them. If we partici- pate is that legitimate City expense. Carl Carlson, Deputy City Attorney, said from what he has heard in the discussion, the City might have some responsibility and obligation. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT THE INSTALLATION OF FLAP GATE BY TUKWILA POND BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Proposals from Consultants for Water /Sewer Study. Councilman Johanson said this matter has been considered by the Public Works Committee. They have recommended Horton Dennis and Associates do the study for theCity. 1981 Street Repair Prcg ram, Recommendation from Public Works Dept. for Bid Award. Prop. Ord. amending 1981 Budget Ord. #1197 to appropriate unanti- cipated revenue. Budget Transfer Motion #81 -09) to purchase 3 revolvers for Police Dept. Councilman Hill said Horton Dennis could underbid on this be- cause they have been here and worked with the sewer and water rates and they are familiar with City's system. Councilman Phelps said the objective is to develop a 5, 10, 15, and 20 year comprehensive water and sewer improvement program as related to solution of immediate problems and meet future needs with projected developments and land -use changes. They should identify cost of projects and methods of financing. She hoped they address maintenance and age and environment and have future dates included in the study. Will they recommend a phase implementation? When study is completed and it comes to implementing the goals will it be something the City can do? COUNCILMAN JOHANSON LEFT THE MEETING AT 10:50 P.M. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said the Planning Department preferred another consultant. Horton Dennis had a working relationship with the City. R. W. Beck had involved forecasting and had preferred methods of identifying future changes in the system. The Planning Department was concerned with the fore- casting. In the final analysis you had to balance to see if they are worth the $10,000. It was a toss up. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE PROPOSALS FROM CONSULTANTS FOR WATER/SEWER STUDY BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Ted Uomoto, Public Works Director, said bids were opened on the street repair project on August 24, 1981. The apparent low bidder, Hi -Line Asphalt Paving Company, Inc., by letter claimed an error in calculation and requested withdrawal of their bid. The Public Works Department concurs with Horton Dennis evaluation that Lakeside Industries be awarded the contract for $39,372. The engineer's estimate was $48,800. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE BID AWARD FOR THE 1981 STREET REPAIR PROGRAM RE ON THE AGENDA OF THE SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Police Chief Lowery said the Police Department is short 7 revolvers. They have 20 revolvers and 27 commissioned officers. Last year the Police Department was given money for ammunition. They have been going into Seattle for training and have used less ammunition. The money is in training and they would like to transfer it to purchase the three revolvers. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE BUDGET TRANS±ER POTION BF ON THE AGENDA OF THE SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COPMIITEL OF THE WHOT E MEETING August 25, 1981 Page 14 Presentation by Police Dept. personnel on major requests prop. for 1982 budget. ADJOURNMENT 11:07 P.M. Chief Lowery said that due to the lateness of the hour the Council would probably like to postpone discussing the Police Department budget at this time. He said he was ready with his presentation whenever the Council would like it on the agenda. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED. George D. Hill, Chairman Nof'na. Booher, Recording Secretary