HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 12/02/1968 Kent , Washington
December 2, 1968
Regular meeting of the I{ent City Council was called to order at 8:00
p.m. Present : Mayor Thornton , Councilmen : Armstrong, Baffaro, Barnier ,
Lee, Masters, Pozzi and Woodworth, City .Attorney Bereiter, City Engineer
Sherwood and City Administrator Street
Minutes of the last meeting were approved as printed and accepted by
motion .
WATER LID 256 , East Valley Water Main . The public hearing
was opened on the final assessment roll for the pro-
posed East Valley Water Main project . Written pro-
tests were read from Mr. & Mrs. Robert Carroll, 'Harlan
Bull, Emon Ikuta, W. S. Hixson and Mr. & Mrs. Donald
Hedlund. A letter from Mr. Piha was read advising
that he had forwarded the notice to the Talley Corp. ,
new owners. It was pointed out that bids on the pro-
ject were submitted at the last meeting, but had not
been awarded. Walt Ramsey noted that the cost of the
improvement has not changed from the preliminary roll
figures . Harlan Bull pointed out that his property
was now adequately served and objected to the assess-
ment, Robert Carroll concurred with Bull, and noted
that this project would extend service outside the
city limits . Slerwood explained that the city is
picking up the cost of the mains outside the city for
which the owners will have to pay charges in lieu of
assessment . He pointed out that the cost of extending
the line beyond the city limits is in no way reflected
in the assessments to those inside the city. He
further stated that the property owners are paying for
a 12" main and the City is paying the difference in
cost between the 12" and 16". Woodworth moved to close
the hearing, after all who wished to speak had done so.
Lee seconded, motion carried. Woodworth moved 'to re-
fer the matter to a subcommittee to consider the pro-
tests and to report back to the Council as' a whole,
Baffaro seconded. Under discussion , the Mayor appointed
the Finance Committee to work with the Water Committee
on the matter. Motion carried. By motion , the City
Attorney was instructed to prepare the necessary ordinance.
Clark Springs. The following bids were read for the
Clark Springs Water Supply Main :
Austin Construction , Bellevue , $225 , 930.00
Venture Construction , Auburn , 245 ,000.00
Univ. Mech. Contractors, Seattle , 261 , 500.00
Lee moved that the low bid of Austin Construction Co.
be accepted , subject to EDA approval, Pozzi seconded ,
motion carried .
Tank Site. Ordinance 1555, authorizing the condemnation
of certain property for utilization as a water reservoir
site was read by the City Attorney. Lee moved for passage
of the ordinance, Barnier seconded, motion carried.
Lee moved to authorize Joe Street to negotiate with Keith
Riley, Appraiser regarding the method of payment, on a
firm price rather than charges by the day, Barnier seconded,
motion carried.
WATER & Pozzi moved to accept the water and sewer agreement from
SEWER Gregg Wilson , conveying to the City the sewer and water
AGREEMENT facilities at the Highland House apartment complex.
Barnier seconded , motion carried.
i
i
STREETS Traffic Control. Pozzi noted that after checking of
traffic flows , the street committee recommended that
parking. on Central Avenue from James to Titus and on
East Smith from Central to Jason be eliminated at all
times. Pozzi moved that the City Attorney be directed
to prepare an ordinance restricting said parking and
that upon passage of said ordinance , it shall be sub-
mitted to the State Highway Commission for approval,
Barnier seconded , motion carried.
The City Engineer recommended that the installation
of guard posts should be included in the signalizatiob
project at 240th and Pacific Hiway 99, requiring Change
Order #1 to be approved in the amount of $200. Pozzi
so moved, Barnier seconded , motion carried.
Call for Bids . Lee moved that a Call for Bids be
issued for street cleaning for 1969 and for bids to
be opened at 3 : 30 p.m. , Thursday, December 12 , 1968,
Barnier seconded , motion carried.
Barnier moved that a Call for Bids be issued for
street painting for 1969 , and for bids to- be opened
at 3 : 30 p.m. , Thursday, December 12, 1968 , Pozzi
seconded, motion carried.
It was noted that this past summer the Street Depart-
ment did a time and materials job for the Seattle
Engineering Department by rebuilding Frager Road in
the amount of $6, 516.86. Resolution 613 , authorizing
the Clerk to expend this amount from that received .in
excess of the amount anticipated in the 1968 budget ,
was read by the City Attorney. Pozzi moved to adopt
the resolution , Lee seconded, motion carried.
LID 260, Off-Street Parkin. The public hearing was
opened on the proposed Off-Street Parking Local Improv-
ment District. Writeen protests were read from Mr.
Badgro, Mr. Ecklund , Mr. Christensen , Mr. Leeper, Mr.
Mattson , Gwinn Construction , Ken Jones , Attorney for
Stanley A. Taylor and A. P. Taylor, Albert Elden ,
Attorney for Stokely-Van Camp, Assistant City Engineer,
Joe Engeln explained that the total amount of the LID
is $684, 300.00 of which $534,000 is for land , $6000.00
for condemnation , $10,000.00 for demolition , $100,000.00
for construction and $34, 300,00 for lighting. The two
zones used in spreading the cost were explained: Zone 1
$1.16 per sq. ft . and Zone 2 - 630 per sq. ft . and each
was pointed out on a map. It was pointed out that Zone 1
now provided very little parking and thus was assessed at
a greater rate . - James Curran spoke from the audience,
pointing out that the Chamber of Commerce had worked out
details of the proposal in accordance with the John Graham
study, made two years ago. Mr. Donais, representing
Saint Anthony! s Parish, noted that their assessment is
$7500,00, although they have already provided a parking
lot , and stated that this LID would be of no additional
benefit to their property. After all who wished to speak
were recognized, Woodworth moved to close the hearing,
Masters seconded , motion carried. Pozzi moved to. instruct
the City Attorney to draft the ordinance creating the LID,
Woodworth seconded. Under discussion , Barnier opined that
the property owners who are not benefited by the
improvement should be removed from the assessment roll.
Armstrong clarified that the protests would be- tabulated,
and evaluated before the ordinance was drafted. Motion
carried , with Barnier voting nay.
James St . LID 257. A letter was read from Mr. Elden
Lamb , containing nine questions as follows , which were
then answered by John Cummins of Hill, Ingman & Chase :
1. Why did the city ask the Urban Arterial Board for
a 63 ft . , 4 lane arterial street with sidewalks and
then suddenly change the design to run from 72 ft . to
90 ft'. in places? This is enough land to make a five
to seven lane street with sidewalks .
Mr. Cummins replied that on September 12, 1967 , he pre-
pared an application to the Urban Arterial Board that
asked for 65 ft . , plus 5 ft . retention on either side ;
making a total of 75 ft. for the section from the West
Valley Highway to Clark Ave. and at the same time, for
a second section , from Clark Ave. to Benson Highway
was applied for that was 75 ft. with retention , which
made it 85 ft .
2. Why does the City Engineer now seek an 86 ft.
right of way at the East Hill Elementary School and
adjoining properties at 10003 SE 240th and 10005 SE
240th and at no other place on the street. We say
that discrimination and prejudice is being shown.
There is enough land for 6 lanes and sidewalks. An
agreement was made with the City Engineer and the
residents for no more. than 72 ft. It was also in
this agreement to take only six feet from each side.
Why then this sudden change to 20 feet on one side
and 6 on the other?
Mr. Cummins replied that originally the application
asked for 85 ft. width in the section from Clark to
the Benson Highway and now the 85 ft . width is only
asked for, for the section at the proposed signal
locations at 94th and at 100th. Lamb stated that
there was no fifth lane mentioned, only a 45 ft.
road plus five ft. on each side, plus the median .
Cummins replied that reference to the 72 ft . in the
newspaper was used as an example. The City Engineer
stated 72 ft . would be the standard right-of-way
width, but that naturally 5 lanes with signalized
channelization would take more space than 4 lanes.
As he recalled, part of the agreement was that the
plan would reduce the right of way to 72 ft. and in-
. stall the traffic signals . The engineering reasons
for widening is for channeli.zation and for providing
a lane for left turns at the signals. Cummins pointed
out that it is less expensive to acquire the unimproved
portions of the front property near the school and the
residences mentioned by Lamb , than to obtain the resi-
dences across the street.
3. How can the city make a street and intersection
at 100th Ave. S.E. and James St . when, at the present ,
the city has not acquired a street easement required
by law. The school has not granted a street easement
south, on the east side of the school to 244th. The
county has such an easement on . record where the city
does not .
Mr. Cummins replied that Dick Clark, Principal of the
East Hill Elementary School had contacted him and state
that she school would allow the city to gain property. by
either deed, gift or condemnation to widen the street
and the street south of the school will be extended in
the near future. Mr. Lamb stated that he attended the
school board meeting, and that they are holding up the
deed.. Mrs. Hogan , member of the School Board, stated
that they did receive a request from Mr. Lamb to hold
up the deed, as a suit was to be filed on the James St .
project. The school board subsequently learned no suit
had been filed , therefore they are having an appraisal
made of the property to determine the value.
4. Why is the City Engineer showing bias by refusing
to investigate the possibility of an alternate route
(228th or any other street ) . The City Engineer, after
a discussion with Mr. Moll , myself and Mr. Cummis of
HIC, refused to allow Mr. Cummins to take aerial photo-
graphs to show that there was a possible better route
to handle the traffic. The Consulting Engineer admitted
that James St. wasn 't suitable for an arterial because
of the safety hazard of eleven dead-end streets which
are mostly on steep grades and , also, the nearness of
about 20 garages or carports to the street , forcing
ow-hers to back out into uphill traffic with only about
i
12 feet from their garage to the street .
Cummins replied that some of the dead-end streets would
be connected. He reported that he had studied aerial
maps taken within the past two years , which indicated
that any other street which could be considered, had a
steeper grade than James St . He pointed out that measuring
from the. edge of the driving lane , only 2 garages are with-
in 12 feet , and pointed out that there is a 41/2 foot re-
tainage on each side , making a total of 13 ft . from the
face of the curb to the back of retainage (R/W) .
5, Why does the Engineer claim this street has been in
the plans of an arterial for the past several years? If
this is true why has he allowed permits to be issued for
three. apartment houses just north of the Kent Jr. High
and several building permits for homes just north of the
East Hill Elementary School, all being too close to the
street as it is now designed?
Mr. Cummins replied that James 'St . has been on the arterial
street plan for 6 or 7 years as a major arterial. He stated.
that when those apartments were put in they were set back
an additional 10 ft . for this purpose. The City Attorney
noted that we cannot legally deny anyone from building on
a proposed street right of way until we have acquired the
property by condemnation or negotiation.
6. Since James St . is on the city ' s plans for extension
west of the city, we would like to know just where the
street is going. It seems to us that there would be more
problems and expense involved in extending James . A bridge
wide enough to carry the traffic over Green River would have ,
to be constructed . Also, the street going directly west of
the city would have to climb another steep hill.. A con-
struction of this type would probably involve several
million dollars. Why not accept a better east-west route
to carry the Boeing traffic and allow James Street to
carry the residential traffic.
Sherwood replied that the city's present plan does not
provide for James St . going west of the river. The six
year plan provides for it to be extended only to Russell
Road, which is also an. arterial street on the six year
plan. Mr. Moll stated that James Street is a residential
district and about 85% of the residents are retired people.
7. Why did the appraisers go on the residents property
without first identifying themselves to the owners?
In
one incident a resident asked the appraiser why he was
taking pictures and- his answer was , "To see how pretty you
look."
Mr. Cummins replied that he talked to the appraisers and
they indicated that in most cases, they had talked to the
owners. He opined that the reference to the picture was
meant as a joke.
$. Why wasn 't the appraisal slip itemized to show how
much the resident was being paid per square foot and for
landscaping, etc?
Mr. Cummins stated that the appraisal. slip can be itemized
if the property owners request same, but that it is not
usually done this way. Mr. Pearson of 1116 James St . . stated
that his costly shrubs were worth much more than the $50 figure
mentioned by the appraisers. The City Attorney explained
that persons who felt the appraisals were not just , should contact
the engineer ' s office to make a counter-suggestion on the
amount. Mr. Dennis Scott of HIC clarified the right of way
agent ' s negotiations as in two portions : (1) one for right
of way acquisition and (2) for a construction easement only,
noting that the construction easement is to provide access
from the improvement to the property. Fie explained that the
blue flag markers indicated the right of way acquisition and
the red flags were the boundaries of the construction
easment only. Upon being queried as to policy regarding trees ,
shrubs , etc. , Mr. Scott explained that if a fence is involved,
it will be removed to the new right of way line . He further
explained that loss of trees , shrubs , etc. will be covered in
the appraisal and may then be moved by the owner if he so desires.
The City .Clerk then read a letter from Mr. Davis , Mr.
Thorsland, Mr. Powers and Mr. Schindeldecker, contain-
ing 6 specific objections to the west section of the
James St . improvement. Woodworth moved that both
letters be placed on file ,Barnier seconded, motion
carried, with Armstrong abstaining. Baffaro moved that
the council meet as a whole to review the rights of way
for James Street , Barnier seconded, motion carried, with
Lee and Pozzi voting nay and Armstrong abstaining.
Cummins suggested that the property owners who had
questions about the right of way acquisition procedures
meet with the engineers and the right of way agents to
clarify the situation. This suggestion appeared to be
well received by those present . Cummins stated he would
arrange a meeting and would arrange for a notice to
appear in the newspaper.
HEALTH & ULID #1, Contract 3. Barnier moved that National
SANITATION Construction Co. , contractors on Contract 3 , ULID #1,
be •granted .a time extension of 30 days , subject to
EDA approval , providing that the contractor pay the
over-contract inspection time , Woodworth seconded.
Motion carried.
ULID #1, Contract 4. Barnier moved that Tonneson
Slead Construction be granted a time extension of 30
days , subject to EDA approval , providing that the
contractor pay the over-contract inspection time,
Lee seconded , motion carried
.Mrs.. Dunning referred to a request made in March for
an LID for sanitary sewers to serve properties on
Military Road near the North city limits. Barnier
stated that the request had been discussed and that
enginering problems as well as financial problems were
evident . Sherwood noted that the State Highway De-
partment policy is to not permit utilities in limited
access right-of-way, but they have not positively
ruled it out . Mr. Street and the City Enginerr will
prepare some cost figures to present to Mrs . Dunning
so that she may advise property owners concerned.
FINANCE Fencing - Sewer Dept . It was noted that when Metro
completed the work of fencing the north lagoon , there
remained a portion including the present dog pound
that was not fenced. To protect the City, this fencing
was installed at a cost of $1659.46. Pozzi moved that
the City Clerk be directed to transfer $1659.46 from
"5th Ave. Repair" to "Fencing North Sewer Lagoon" all
withi.n .the 1968 Capital Outlay budget of .the Sewer
Department , Barnier se.conded, motion carried.
Pozzi moved that the City Attorney be directed to
prepare an ordinance creating a "Cash Bond Fund" ,
Lee seconded, motion carried.
Pozzi moved that the City Clerk be directed to make
the following transfers :
City Clerk: From Capital Outlay to M&O $450
City Treas :" From Capital Outlay to Salaries $200
Barnier seconded, motion carried.
POLICE & Dog Leash Law. ' Woodworth noted that the Police & Fire
FIRE Committee is in the process of acquiring copies of
other cities ' dog .leash ordinances to be presented at
the next meeting.
I i
ZONING Brannon-Brown . The public hearing was opened on
the application submitted by Brannon-Brown for a
rezone from R-1 to R-3. Written protests were read
from Mr. Mauseth, Paul Carr, Brian Holmes , R. E.
McGillvary, Edgar Robinson and Dean Parkins. Objections
were based primarily on traffic problems , overcrowding
of schools and downgrading of an R-1 area. Robert Hall ,
representing the R&A Construction Co. noted that they
are proposing construction of 301 units of 1, 2 and 3
bedroom design , including a three acre park to be
dedicated to the City of Kent . lie noted that they pro-
pose to submit drawings , etc. to the Engineering Dept .
and will meet all codes of the City. He explained that
R-3 zoning allowed a higher density than they required and
they would be willing to submit a contract zoning pro-
posal. Ile further stated that R&A Construction could now,
under R-1, build 50 low cost homes. Woodworth stated that
this hearing is for R-3 and a request for contract zoning
should be submitted through the Planning Commission . Mr.
Chenard read two letters from the Planning Commission Co-
ordinating Committee signed by Harlan Bull, recommending
approval of this rezone . Mr. Bull noted that this was a
communication from the committee to the Planning Commission
members only and that there is no record of this recom-
mendation in the Planning Commission minutes. Koszarek
stated that the application was for R-1 to R-3 at the
Planning Commission hearing, and not contract zoning and
should be considered for R-3 only. Mr. Johnson presented a
petition signed by 851 property owners against the proposed
rezone . Also speaking against the proposed rezone were :
Mr. Kobalcheck, Mr. Fingerton , Mr. Nelson and Mr. Pistoresi.
There being no further comments , Barnier moved to close
the hearing, Lee seconded, motion carried. Barnier moved
that the petition be denied as incompatible with the type
of residential development in the area, Baffaro seconded.
Upon roll call vote, Barnier, Armstrong, Baffaro, Masters
and Woodworth voted aye. Lee and Pozzi voted nay. Motion
carried.
R & L Construction . The public hearing was opened on the
application submitted by R & L Construction for a rezone
. from R-1 to R-3. There were no comments or objections
from the floor and the hearing was closed by motion . It
was noted that the Planning Commission recommended R-3
provided a 10' strip was dedicated for access and that the
applicant support plans for sanitary sewer improvements.
Woodworth moved to approve the rezone and to instruct the
City Attorney to prepare an ordinance rezoning this pro-
perty R-3 upon receipt of the 10' strip to increase access
and an agreement on sanitary sewers , Barnier seconded,
Under discussion , the City Engineer noted that this area
is in the proposed Horseshoe Acres Sewer LID, but that it
could be deleted from the LID if the property owners wished
to expedite their project. The City Attorney stated that
he did not know how well prepared the petitioners are to
submit the instrument for the 10' strip and the agreement
for sanitary sewers and suggested that some time limitation
be set. Woodworth moved to amend the motion to provide that
if the aforementioned material is not received within 60
days , that the rezone be denied. Barnier seconded , amended
motion carried unanimously.
Pohl. Woodworth moved to continue the Pohl rezone hearing
to December 16, 1968, Barnier seconded, motion carried.
I
ZONING Initial Zoning - Sunray Annexation . The public hearing
was opened on the initial zoning of the Sunray Annexa-
tion . It was noted that the Planning Commission re-
commended R-1 zoning. There were no comments or object-
ions from the floor. Armstrong moved to close the hear-
ing, Masters seconded, motion carried. Lee moved to
instruct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance zoning
subject property R-1, Barnier seconded, motion carried.
Initial Zoning_- Samuel Annexation . The public hearing
was opened on the initial zoning of the Samuel Annexa-
tion . It was noted that the Planning Commission re-
commended C-3 zoning for the entire annexation . There
were no comments or objections from the floor. Wood-
worth moved to close the hearing, Barnier seconded,
motion carried. Woodworth moved for the City Attorney
to be directed to prepare an ordinance zoning this p -
perty C-3, Masters seconded, motion carried.
Initial Zoning - Goodnews Annexation . Ordinance 1554
was read by the City Attorney, approving initial zoning
of C-3 , R-3 and R-A for the Goodnews Annexation . Barnier
moved for passage of the ordinance , Masters seconded,
motion carried. *
Initial Zoning - Keck Annexation . Ordinance 1557,
zoning the Unsderfer and Beckler portions of the Keck
Annexation R-3 , was read by the City Attorney. Barnier
moved for passage of the ordinance, Pozzi seconded ,
motion carried.
LEASE It was noted that a lease has been prepared and is
acceptable for the engineer ' s annex space , owned by
Mr. Shoff, in the amount of $225 per month. Lee moved
that the Mayor be authorized to sign the lease for the
period October 1, 1968 to January 31 , 1970, Masters
seconded, motion carried.
CITY Baffaro noted that negotiations for securing property
HALL for the new City Hall have failed. Ordinance 1556 was
read by the City Attorney, authorizing the condemnation
of properties needed for the City' Hall. Baffaro moved
for- passage of the ordinance, Woodworth seconded, motion
carried, with Masters voting nay.
COUNOIL Pozzi moved that the City Attorney be instructed to
MEETINGS prepare an ordinance changing the time of the council•
meetings to 3 :00 p.m. on the first and third Monday of
each month, Lee seconded . Upon roll call vote , Pozzi ,
Masters and Lee voted aye, Barnier and Baffaro voted
nay. Motion carried. (Woodworth and Armstrong had
left just prior to this ) .
Baffaro moved and Barnier seconded that the vouchers
be approved and warrants drawn for the same. Motion
carried.
Interest Bearing Warrants
N. Kent Water
Salem Sand & Gravel Co. 15 , 362. 36
LID 253
Walter Renschler 9, 575.00
Red Samm Mining, Inc. 77, 679.67
Dames & Moore 1, 391.15
Walter Renschler 210.00
LID 257
James V. Borek & Marie Borek 625 .00
1966 Sewer Construction
Worth & Chatham 650.00
Interest Bearing Warrants
LID 255
Red Samm Mining, Inc. 38 , 318.45
ULI D #r 1
Murphy Bros . , Inc . 206 ,143.65
Tonneson-Slead 106 , 562.96
National Construction Co. 123 , 377.74
Constructors-PAMCO 159,647.49
Hill, Ingman & Chase 409.15
Hill, Ingman & Chase 23 ,892.03
Hill, Ingman & Chase 550.77
Hill ' Ing man & Chase 84.00
Hill , Ingman & Chase 298.49
MEETING ADJOURNED: 12 :05 A.M.
Y Respectfully submitted,
v MAY OR
Alex Thornton , Mayor Marie Jensen
I
i