Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 01/06/1969 Kent , Washington January 6 , 1969 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 3 :15 p.m. Present : Mayor Thornton , Councilmen : Lee , Masters , Pozzi and Woodworth, City Attorney Bereiter , City Administrator Street and City Engineer Sherwood. Councilmen : Armstrong and Baffaro arrived at 4 : 30 p.m. , Councilman Barnier arrived at 5 :10 p.m. Minutes of the last meeting were approved as printed and accepted by motion . STREETS Off-Street Parking. Mr. Bob Hansen , 23036 loth Ave. S . , Des Moines , noted that he owns a building on the NE corner of Gowe & Railroad which he plans to raze and then con- struct a new building. Ile asked if he would then have to provide parking facilities for the new building, since he had not provided any for the existing structure. The City Attorney noted that under the off-street parking ordinance , a new building would have to provide parking space. He advised Mr. Hansen that if he felt his situation was unique , he should apply to the Board of Adjustment for a variance. Vacation . Ordinance 1567 , vacating Waterman Avenue was read by the City Attorney. The City Engineer noted that the applicant had specifically requested that easement reservations not be maintained by the City and that the engineering department concurred. The City Engineer reco- mmended that Section 2 of the ordinance covering this sub- ject be deleted. Pozzi moved for passage of the ordinance, deleting Section 2 , Woodworth seconded , motion carried. Pozzi commended the street department for their outstand- ing job during the recent snow conditions. WATER LID 256. Ordinance 1566 , confirming the final assessment roll for LID 256 was read by the City Attorney. Lee moved for passage of the ordinance , Masters seconded , motion carried. Lee reported that on December 30th, the majority of the council met to review the water source study and that addi- tional meetings will be held. BUILDING City Hall Site. Mr. Street noted that new appraisals have been received and that the city' s offer to one of the pro- perty owners is being considered. He stated further that the city is interested in the entire block, or none of it . LIGHTING Masters stated that Puget Power has investigated the light- ing situation in the alley south of Meeker between Central and Railroad Ave. and have opined that the request for an overhead light is more of a personal matter rather than a street light- ing problem and suggested that the property owner handle the matter and a letter be sent to him explaining the situation . It was noted that in approximately six weeks , the Puget Sound Power & Light Co. will have completed a survey which will attempt to prioritize lighting requirements. POLICE & Resolution 617, approving the expenditure of $490.00 received FIRE in excess of that anticipated in the 1968 budget , for the pur- pose of purchasing 14 alarm units for the police department , was read by the City Attorney. Woodworth moved to adopt the resolution, Masters seconded , motion carried. Dog Leash Law. Woodworth noted that the committee has met again regarding the proposed dog leash law and are holding that matter over, since at this time the city does not have proper facilitiesto cover the additional handling of dogs which the law would necessitate. He further opined that the city must consider construction of a dog pound. I FINANCE ' Delinquent Bills . Pozzi moved that the delinquent bills that are uncollectable through normal methods be sent the Credit Service Bureau for collection in accordance with the proposal of Mr. Klein , dated April 24, 1968 , Woodworth seconded . Under discussion , the City Attorney stated the State Auditors Department had approved this procedure. Motion carried. ZONING Mead. The public hearing was opened on the application submitted by Herb Mead for a rezone from M-A to M-1. It was noted that the Planning Commission recommends approval. There were no comments or objections from the floor and the hearing was closed by motion . Wood- worth moved to approve the rezone and for the City Attorney to be directed to prepare the covering ordi- nance . Lee seconded , motion carried. Nesland et al. The public hearing was opened on the application submitted by Nesland et al, for a rezone from R-4 and R-3 to C-3. There were no comments or objections and the hearing was closed by motion . It was noted that .the Planning Commission recommended denial. Woodworth moved to support the Planning Commission ' s recommendation to deny the rezone, Masters seconded , motion carried. Benaroya. Woodworth moved that the hearing on the application submitted by Mr. Benaroya for a rezone from R-3 to C-3 be continued to February 3 , Masters seconded , motion carried. R & L Construction . Ordinance 15711 approving .the R&L Construction rezone from R-1 to R-3 was read by the City Attorney. Mr. Street noted that the petitioners have submitted a quit claim deed and a letter dated December 17th agreeing to not seek a building permit until the proper arrangements have been made for sani- tary sewers , etc. Woodworth moved for passage of the ordinance , Pozzi seconded, motion carried. ANNEXATION Mead-Samuel. It was noted that the 10% petition has been received requesting annexation for approximately 135 acres located south of SE 248th, east of Benson Highway and north of SE 250th. Pozzi moved that the City Council will consider the annexation upon receipt of a 75% petition that includes a statement that the ' petitioners agree to accept a pro rata share of the outstanding bonded indebtedness . Woodworth seconded , motion carried. Rice. It was noted that the 10% petition has been received requesting annexation for approximately 191 acres located south of SE 224th, west of 116th Ave. S.E. , east of Oxford Addition , Hines Addition and Park Orchard Addition , and north of Lorentson and Sunray Annexation . Woodworth moved that the City Council will consider the annexation upon receipt of a 75% petition that includes a statement that the petitioners agree ' to accept a pro-rata share of the outstanding bonded indebtedness , Lee seconded , motion carried . PARKS & Resolution 616 , requesting IIUD participation in ac- RECREATION quisition of land to make up the Lake Fenwick Park, was read by the City Attorney. A letter from the Puget Sound Governmental Conference was read recom- mending that the project be funded by HUD. Pozzi moved to adopt the resolution , Lee seconded, motion carried. Ordinance 1568, creating a Board of Parks Commissioners and repealing Ordinance 1309, was read by the City Attorney. Woodworth moved for passage of the ordinance, Masters seconded , motion carried. Ordinance 1569, creating a Parks & Recreation Depart- ment was read by the City Attorney. Lee moved for passage of the ordinance , Masters seconded, motion carried. PERSONNEL Ordinance 1570, establishing a personnel policy for city employees was read by the City Attorney. Wood- worth moved for passage of the ordinance , Masters seconded , motion carried. Ordinance 1573 , establishing the method by which salaries of Officers , Department Heads and Employees of the City shall be determined was read by the City Attorney. Wood- worth moved for passage of the ordinance , Masters seconded , motion carried. Ordinance 1574 , abolishing the office of Municipal Accountant by repealing Ordinance 1314 , was read by the City Attorney. Lee moved for passage of the ordi- nance , Masters seconded, motion carried. Ordinance 1575 , establishing excusable absences for sick leave ' for city employees was read by the City Attorney. Woodworth moved for passage of the ordinance , Masters seconded , motion carried. An ordinance defining a full-time city employee with regard to eligibility for employee benefits , was held over on Woodworth' s motion , seconded by Pozzi, motion carried. Statewide Retirement System. At the next meeting, a resolution will be presented providing for the City to match contributions made by city employees to the Statewide Retirement System based upon the employee ' s full salary. OFFICE Ordinance 1572 , establishing the office hours of the HOURS City Clerk, City Treasurer , City Administrator, City Finance Department and City Parks Department , was read by the City Attorney. Pozzi moved for passage •of the ordinance , Woodworth seconded , motion carried. STREETS Off-Street Parking, LID 260. It was noted that the per- centage of all protests submitted on the off-street parking LID amounted to 17.9% and that the Chamber of Commerce has contacted the major protestors and believe that these problems can be resolved. Representatives of the Chamber of Commerce spoke in favor of the project . Pozzi noted that he would like to go on record as being in favor of this LID. Woodworth moved that the City Attorney prepare an ordinance forming an LID in accord- ance with the proposal presented at the preliminary meet- ing. Lee seconded , motion carried , unanimously. (Arm- strong and Baffaro did not vote as they just arrived. Bar.nier had not yet arrived ) . ZONING Keck Annexation -- Original _Zoning._ It was noted that at the public hearing on November 18, the Council had referred Tax Lots 175 , 185 , 214 , 226 , 114 , 65 and 47 of the Keck Annexation back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration . The Planning Commission had recommended that the aforementioned tax lots be zoned R-1, along with the remainder of the annexation . These portions have already been zoned R-3 : Keck, Monarch Investment , Ketchum, Beckler and Unsderfer. Pozzi moved to approve R-1 zoning, and for the City Attorney to be directed to prepare the necessary ordinance, Woodworth seconded. Considerable discussion ensued, in which Armstrong opined that the property along the Kent Kangley Road should be R-3 . Lee pointed out that the property owners have not requested R-3 and if they so desire , a rezone application could be filed . The City Engineer pointed out that this area was zoned S-R (Suburban Residential ) under county classifica- tions . Motion carried , with Armstrong voting nay. (Barrier arrived at this point and did not vote ) . STREETS LID 2611 S. 212th, Phase III It was noted that the public hearing on this proposed improvement was held at the last meeting and that- the Council had since met with property owners concerned , and have reached the following conclusions : 1. The original plan is not materially different from the final plan . 2. The required drainage channel under the structure is much greater than was first given to the engi- neers to consider. 3 . The original plan did not include space for a railroad track spur to go south under the bridge over the East Valley Freeway. 4. Following the original meeting with property owners the consulting engineers were requested to make an estimate of the additional cost 00 the structure to provide space for a railroad spur. 5. Such a spur would serve approximately 135 acres of C-3 and M-1 zoned property at a cost of $175 ,000 to $200,000. 6 . The property owners to the south believe this cost should be a part of the project and addi- tional property not presently in the LID should be included to share this cost . 7. The property owners to the north believe that such cost should be paid by the property owners to the south only. 8. If such a spur is included and the cloverleaf is constructed to East Valley Freeway in the future, a structure over the spur would add $701000 to $100,000 to the cloverleaf costs. 9. The majority of the property owners seem to believe that the extension should be made . The problems the Council faces are : (a) to handle the East Hill traffic , this portion of 212th is necessary, (b) that inclusion of room for a rail- road spur is or is not a public necessity so that it should be a part of the project , (c ) if project is constructed without the room for the spur, approximately 135 acres of C-3 and M-1 property would not have rail services or facilities , (d) if the room for the spur is included , what guarantee does the council have that it will ever be utilized, (e) if the Council should believe that the spur should be included in the project and the district enlarged, it would be necessary to resubmit to UAB since it would no longer be the project approved by them, and the Attorney would have to review and try to determine an equitable assessment method . A letter from Jack A. Benaroya was read reaffirming their agreement that their rail line would be made available , even though the extension of rail service beyond their property would be of no economic benefit to them and reaffirming also their neutral position in regard to the additional cost of approximately $200,000 to raise the elevation of the proposed overpass to accommodate rail service to the properties south of So. 212th. The City Engineer noted that at the last meet- ing of the Council, Mr. Nash objected to the city' s decision to not provide a rail spur to continue south under So. 212th adjacent to the Freeway and also to the alignment being shifted slightly to the south, taking more of his property than of Benaroya' s. The City Engineer stated that such a spur would serve approxi- mately 135 acres of C-3 and M-1 zoned property at a cost of $175 ,000 to $200,000. James Curran , representing Mr. Nash and Mx. Andrews opined that the rail service was needed for potential users to the south. He stated that there was no question that in the planning of the Benaroya crossing, it was contemplated that it would be an aid to serve the property east of the East Valley Highway, both north and south of the Benaroya property and that the spur should be included in the application . Dennis Scott of HIC stated that the State has given us the right to have an overcrossing, but not for ramp connections to the Valley Freeway, noting that the i STREETS State Highway Department feels there has not been enough traffic study there , but if traffic pro- jections for the future warrant a ramp situation , they would consider it . Ramsey stated that such a study was already proposed . Scott said that the $200,'000 figure had nothing to do with the ramp situation , that it was the proposed additional cost to lengthen and raise the grade of the bridge. Upon Armstrong' s query, a Benaroya representative affirmed that they designed the warehouses so the spur could go around the NE corner of the SE warehouse going to the south, noting that this was projected for a rail spur to the south. Scott noted that the original Benaroya building proposal was extended 250 feet east of the present building location and was changed to allow for the proposed ramp. Masters stated she could not see how the road could be built , blocking off rail servide to developers to the south. Lee quoted a portion of the February 19th minutes in which the City Engineer stated he did not support any plan to serve the area south of 212th with rail. Lee noted that none of the Council objected to the engineer ' s statement at that time. Woodworth suggested that action be held until the next council meeting to allow the people to the south to state their needs on rail traffic . He further stated that the cost of the spur to the south should be paid by the owners on the south, stating that he felt it should not be a public expense . Masters disagreed. Baffaro was against building the road without the railroad facilities to the south, as he thought it might be needed in the future. Barnier supported Baffaro, stating that the crossing committed the area to industry. The City Engineer pointed out the proposed project on several sets of plans , the first. of which was thought to be the original , dated 9/22/67. This plan allowed a spur track crossing at East Valley Highway and did not contemplate traffic either south or north, but showed it could be used to allow service to the north. The next sketch, dated 1/18/68 , resulting from discussions between Benaroya and the City, was developed to show what building relocations were necessary to accommodate an inter- change at the Valley Freeway. A plan dated 2/5/68 showed the difference in the shape of the buildings to accommodate rail service to the south. Barnier stated that his vote in favor of the franchise in February was based on this last plan and that he would bot have voted in favor if he thought the bene- fits were for the Benaroya complex only. Cummins of HIC stated that a change in plan would re- quire a new application to UAB which could not be filed before April. The City Engineer stated that it was his understanding that the Council agreed that there would be no rail service to the south. He noted that the Planning Commission has considered the rail service to the east of East Valley Highway and their maps show no rail service south of 212th, but does provide for a loop north across 208th. Pozzi stated that at least three meetings have been held with the property owners and at no time did Mr. Nash state he wanted an underpass there. The Benaroya representative stated they had investigated the pro- perty to the south and determined that it was not economically feasible for them to extend . rail service to the south. Curran stated that the decision to not extend the bridge was made when Benaroya made the decision to not go to the south and opined .that the property owners would pay the cost to extend the rail to the south, but did not want to pay for the bridge. He noted that he would make his objections in writing. Pozzi stated that he concurred with Woodworth in that the owners should pay the costs and urged the Council to come to a decision on the matter by the next council meeting , so as not to place the UAB funds in jeopardy. Mayor Thornton opined that if the additional costs were to be included in the LID, a suit might be forthcoming. Masters moved to postpone any action to the next council meeting, Armstrong seconded: Barnier opined that this Phase III project is ' valuable because STREETS of its connection with the freeway, and was less valuable without said connection . Ramsey of I-IIC stated that the State Highway Department already has given the project priority without the freeway connection . Motion carried, with Lee , Pozzi and Wood- worth voting nay. HEALTH & Barnier noted that the sewer committee met and presented SANITATION the following policies to the Council for consideration : New Hookups - Properties within a distance of 200 feet - Property owners are to be given 60 days (written notice recommended ) from time sewer is made available. At that time, sewer charges will be in effect . Sewer Service Outside the City- Limits - 1 . City of Kent will recognize sphere of influence and will serve on first come , first serve basis up to capacity purchased by City of Kent from • Metro. 2. The extra costs of outside areas (increased sizing, etc . ) , will be borne by split rate and guarantee applied to these outside hookups . 3. Where city does not serve an outside area with -water, the sewer rate will be computed on a flat rate per unit basis . Masters moved. to instruct the City Attorney to draft the necessary resolution , Armstrong seconded. - Under discussion , Armstrong asked about the oversizing, Barnier stated that the city is relying on Metro ' s estimate for a 1000 acre area. Motion carried. Park Lease. Barnier submitted the following recommenda- tion regarding the lease of sewer property to the Park Department . 1. Lease with option to buy be granted on specified area (approximately 20 acres for 20 years ) . 2. Permit use of remaining parcels on year to year basis (no permanent structures to be constructed ) . Mr. Street noted• that he had checked with the bond counsel regarding the sewer bond indebtedness , aid found •this could be done. Woodworth moved that ,the City Attorney, Mayor , City Engineer, City Administrator, Sewer Committee and Park Department meet •to draft a lease to be approved by the Council, Masters seconded, motion carried. POLICE & Chief Foster noted that the Fire Department can no FIRE longer issue fire permits , unless the applicant has an air pollution permit . Armstrong moved to approve those city claims received up to the loth of January after approval by the Auditing Committee , Pozzi seconded , motion carried. MEETING ADJOURNED: 6 : 15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MAYOR Alex Thornton Marie Jens Mayor City Clerk I