HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 07/05/1978 _ 7 2
Kent, Washington
July 5, 1978
The regular meeting of the Kent City Council which was continued to this date
by Mayor Hogan due to the lack of a quorum being present on July 3, 1978, was
called to order by Mayor Hogan at 8:00 o'clock p.m. Present: Mayor Hogan,
Councilpersons Carey, B. Johnson, Kitto, Masters and McCaughan, City Administra-
tor Street, City Attorney Mirk, Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director
Ulett, and Finance Director Winkle. Councilpersons Just and J. Johnson were not
in attendance at the meeting. Also present: Planning Commissioner Hamilton
and URS representative Abed. Approximately 60 people were in attendance at the
meeting.
MINUTES
KITTO MOVED that the minutes of the regular meeting of June 19, 1978 be approved
with the following correction:
"On Page 10, Williamson Rezone, paragraph three, which reads 'Mr. Rheinholdt,
attorney for Dr. Ranniger and the Williamsons. . . ' should be corrected to read:
'Mr. Rheinholdt, representative for Dr. Ranniger and the Williamsons. . . "'
B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried.
ZONING CODE
Zoning Code Amendment - Chapter 5, Sign Regulations. On May 24, 1978, the Plan-
ning Commission held a public hearing to consider amending various sections of
Chapter 5, Sign Regulations, of the Kent Zoning Code. The Planning Commission
recommends that Chapter 5, Sign Regulations, of the Kent Zoning Code be amended
as follows:
"SECTION 5. 3 PROHIBITED SIGNS
Add 6) Roof Signs
7) All lighted signs which are adjacent to and directed toward a residential
district and which detract from the welfare of the residential district.
8) Portable signs except temporary signs as permitted under Section 5.4.2."
"SECTION 5.4 ALL DISTRICTS - GENERAL RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
Amend 5) Directional Signs - ". . .approval of the Building Director and Planning
Director." to read ' . . . approval of the Building Director, Traffic Engi-
neer, and Planning Director."
Amend 11) Institutional Signs - ". . .The sign may be indirectly illuminated. " to
read, ". . .The sign may be illuminated. "
"SECTION 5.4.1 REAL ESTATE SIGNS
Amend 1) Residential Uses
a) ". . .One (1) real estate sign shall be permitted for each lot. . . " to
read, " . . .One (1) real estate sign shall be permitted for each
street frontage of a lot. "
b) " . . .One (1) real estate sign shall be permitted for each development. "
to read, ". . .One (1) real estate sign shall be permitted for each
street frontage of a development. "
"SECTION 5.4.2 TEMPORARY SIGNS
Amend 1) Temporary subdivision or apartment signs
a) delete "In addition, four (4) signs are permitted on major thorough-
fares to advertise and direct to the subdivision or apartment complex. "
b) "The area of said signs shall not exceed an aggregate area of one
hundred (100) square feet." to read, "The area of said signs shall
not exceed an area of twenty-five (25) square feet each."
f) ". . .as long as the property remains unsold or unleased. . ." to read,
". . .as long as the project remains unsold or unleased. . . "
Amend 3) Construction Signs
". . .The said sign shall be permitted during the period of construction. "
to read, "The said sign shall be permitted during the period of con-
struction and not exceed fifty (50) square feet total of all faces."
Amend 4) Grand openings and special events signs
". . .and not to exceed ten (10) days to read, " . . .not to exceed
thirty (30) days. "
"SECTION 5.5.1 SIGNS PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Amend 2) Identification Signs: Multi-Family dwellings.
". . .Each sign shall not exceed an area of twelve (12) square feet. . ."
to read, "Each sign shall not exceed an area of twenty-five (25)
square feet. . ."
"SECTION 5.5.2 SIGNS PERMITTED IN NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
- NCC
Eliminate in its entirety.
"SECTION 5.5. 3 SIGNS PERMITTED IN COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, GENERAL COMMERCIAL,
HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL, AND COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS
Add to Title, NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL.
Amend 1)a) Identification Signs: Occupancies.
" . . .three (3) additional types of signs." to read, "three (3) additional
signs."
Amend 1)a) (2) Three Additional Types of Signs. Eliminate entire subsection
and replace with:
"2) Three Additional Signs
Three additional signs shall be permitted subject to the following re-
strictions:
(a) The total area of all signs, graphics, or other advertising shall
not be more than 10% of the building facade to which they are
attached or displayed.
(b) On properties where a pole sign cannot be erected due to setback
requirements or building placement, a projecting sign may be allowed
in lieu of the permitted freestanding sign. Said projecting sign
may not exceed 15 square feet (outside dimension.)
"SECTION 5.5.4 SIGNS PERMITTED IN DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT - DC
Amend 1)a) Identification Signs.
Eliminate entire subsection and replace with new a) , b) , and c) :
a) Identification Signs, multi-tenant buildings
Each multi-tenant building may have one (1) identification wall
sign for the building's identification for each street frontage.
Said sign shall not exceed a total 5% of the facade to which it is
attached. Said sign shall not name or advertise the individual
tenants of the building. Aggregate sign shall apply.
b) Identification Signs, Occupancies
Each occupant of a multi-tenant building shall be permitted two
(2) wall signs. Said signs shall not exceed 10% of the facade
of the individual business unit. Aggregate sign area shall not
apply. No freestanding sign shall be permitted.
c) Identification Signs, Single Tenant Building
Each building may have one (1) freestanding sign for each street
frontage. Said sign may not exceed a height of thirty (30) feet.
The maximum sign area permitted for the freestanding sign is one
hundred (100) square feet for the total of all faces; no one face
shall exceed fifty (50) square feet.
Three additional signs shall be permitted. All signs are subject
to the aggregate sign area allowed. The total area of all signs,
[; M
or other types of signs shall not exceed 10% of the facade to which
they are attached or displayed.
"SECTION 5.5.5 SIGNS PERMITTED IN OFFICE DISTRICT.
Amend 2) Identification Signs: Buildings
". . .said sign shall not exceed an area of twenty (20) square feet. . ." to
read, ". . .said sign shall not exceed an area of five percent of the
facade to which it is attached. . ."
Add "Said signs shall not advertise or name individual tenants of the
building."
Amend 3) Occupancy
"A wall sign not exceeding six (6) square feet shall be permitted. . ."
to read, "Signs not exceeding a total of 5 per cent of the facade of
the business unit to which they are attached shall be permitted. . ."
4) Roof Sign
Eliminate in its entirety.
"SECTION 5.5.6 SIGNS PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS
Amend 1)b) Identification Signs: Occupancies
if . .The maximum size of the sign shall be twenty (20) percent of
the building facade. . . " to read, "The maximum size of the sign shall
be ten (10) percent of the building facade. . ."
1)c) Roof Sign
Delete in its entirety.
"SECTION 5.5.8 SIGNS PERMITTED IN SHOPPING CENTERS
1) Aggregate Sign Area
Amend to read "The aggregate sign area for each occupant of a shopping center
shall not exceed twenty (20) percent of the front facade of the
unit. Wall Signs are permitted on each exterior wall of the in-
dividual business unit. A minimum of thirty (30) square feet shall
be permitted for any occupancy. No combination of signs shall ex-
ceed ten (10) percent of the facade to which they are attached.
If there is an attached canopy or overhang a ten (10) square foot
sign may be attached to said canopy or overhang in addition to the
other permitted signs. Such sign shall be at least eight (8) feet
above any pedestrian walkway.
"SECTION 5.8.1 PERMITS
Amend 3)c) "Four copies of a dimensional drawing. . ." to read, "Three copies
of a dimensional drawing. . . "
"SECTION 5.8.4 ABATEMENT OF NON-CONFORMING SIGNS
Amend Title to read, "ABATEMENT OF ILLEGAL SIGNS"
Also Amend ". . .Said property owner shall first be served with a notice to abate
the nuisance. . ." to read, ". . .Said property owner shall first be
served with a notice to abate the nuisance, except in the case of
portable signs. Illegal portable signs may be immediately removed
by the City and the owner given notice that the sign will be des-
troyed if not claimed within ten (10) days. . ."
The public hearing to consider the proposed amendment was opened by the Mayor.
There were no comments from the audience or the Council and no correspondence
has been received. CAREY MOVED that the hearing be closed, McCaughan seconded.
Motion carried.
McCAUGHAN MOVED that Chapter 5, Sign Regulations, of the Kent Zoning Code be
amended as recommended by the Planning Commission and set forth above, Carey
seconded. Motion carried.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Amendment. On May 23, 1978, the Planning
Commission held a public hearing to consider amending the Kent Comprehensive
Plan land use designation for that area generally lying between the Green
River and the West Valley Highway, and between James Street and South 228th
Street. The Planning Commission recommendation was that all of the area lying
easterly of the open sapce designation along the Green River to the S.L.
Savidge property, including the MHP zoned property, and excluding the GC
zoned property, be designated as Residential. A public hearing was held at
the last Council meeting on June 19, 1978 to consider the Planning Commission
recommendations, and at that time the hearing was continued until this
meeting to allow the Council time to review the Environmental Impact Statement.
The continued public hearing was opened by the Mayor. Harris pointed out the
area under consideration. In response to Masters' question as to whether any
screening or buffering area would be required between the M-1 zoned area and the
. MRM zoned area, Harris noted that this would not be a requirement under the
Comprehensive Plan but would probably be done at the time of development and
could be worked out at that time as a part of the construction plans. There
were no further questions or comments from the audience and no correspondence
has been received. McCAUGHAN MOVED that the hearing be closed, Carey seconded.
Motion carried.
McCAUGHAN MOVED that the Comprehensive Plan be amended as proposed by the
Planning Commission, B. Johnson seconded. Harris pointed out for the Council
that the Planning Commission did not specifically recommend multi-family zoning
for the area and questioned the Council's intent in this regard. MASTERS MOVED
TO AMEND the motion to indicate that the Comprehensive Plan designate the area
in question as Multi-Family Zoning. McCaughan seconded. The amendment carried.
The motion as amended carried.
HEALTH & SANITATION
LID 287 - 94th Place S. Sewers (S. 218th - S. 212th) . It was noted that the
Council met with several individuals involved with the proposed LID 287 at the
work session held June 26, 1978. At that meeting, only one written protest had
been received and the protestant was not at the meeting. The City Engineer
reviewed the manner of assessment and while some individuals suggested that no
sewer was needed, the explanation given cleared the problems of misunderstanding.
It was noted by the Clerk that an additional letter protesting the proposed LID
had been received after the date of the meeting on June 26. The letter from
Bernard and Irene A. Barry protesting the sewer assessment against their pro-
perty was read and MASTERS MOVED to accept the letter, McCaughan seconded.
Motion carried. It is recommended that the Attorney be directed to prepare
the necessary ordinance creating the LID as presented by the City Engineer.
Accordingly, KITTO MOVED that the City Attorney be directed to prepare an ordi-
nance creating LID 287, Carey seconded. Motion carried.
Fire Station #6 Side Sewer. Frank Coluccio Construction Company has completed
the side sewer installation for Fire Station #6, 1,100 feet south of S. 212th
Street on the West Valley Highway. In accordance with the recommendations of
the Engineering Department, CAREY MOVED that the Frank Coluccio Company contract
for the side sewer at Fire Station #6 be accepted as complete and after receipt
of the necessary releases from the State the retainage be released. McCaughan
seconded. Motion carried.
Upper Mill Creek Detention Basin. Bids were received on June 26, 1978 on the
Upper Mill Creek Detention Basin project. Three bids were received as follows:
Bidder Amount, Including Tax
Pacific Construction, Inc. $150,617.81
City Transfer 176,551.85
R. W. Scott 187,236.78
It was noted that all three bids received were below the engineer's estimate,
which was $187,430.71. B. JOHNSON MOVED that the lowest and best bid of Pacific
Construction Co. , Inc. in the amount of $150,617.81 be accepted, Carey seconded.
It was determined for McCaughan that Federal Revenue Sharing funds of approxi-
mately $400,000 had been set aside for this project, a portion of which has
been used for right of way acquisition, but that sufficient funds were still
available. Motion carried.
y"Y,
r
STREETS
LID 281 - 104th Avenue S.E. Street Improvement. The contract of Pacific Paving
for the 104th Ave. S.E. street improvement project is now complete and the total
costs have been tabulated. CAREY MOVED that a hearing be scheduled for August 7,
1978 for the final assessment roll on LID 281, B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried.
Waller Request - Cedar Street Improvement. Thomas Waller has requested to open'
Cedar Street from Prospect Avenue easterly with less than a full improvement.
The Public Works Department and the Public Works Committee recommend that the
request be denied. CAREY MOVED that the said recommendation be accepted,
McCaughan seconded. Motion carried.
Reith Road Haul Agreement No. GC 4698. Following the second public hearing on
the proposed use of Reith Road as a haul route for construction material from
the Reith Road to SR 516, it is recommended that the Mayor be authorized to
sign the necessary agreement with the Department of Highways. CAREY MOVED that
the Mayor be authorized to sign Agreement No. GC 4698 with the State of Washing-
ton Department of Highways, B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried.
Orillia Road. Improvement. A letter was read from D. R. Horey, County Road Engi-
neer, King County Department of Public Works, responding to an inquiry from Mr.
Ulett as to the County's plans to repair the failing section on the Orillia Road
north of South 212th Street. Mr. Horey's letter noted that it was expected that
corrective action could be undertaken by early Fall of this year. MASTERS MOVED
that the letter be made a part of the record, Carey seconded. Motion carried.
LID Request - Ranniger & Williamson. Requests for formation of an LID have been
received for the widening of James Street to five lanes from 100th Avenue S.E.
to 102nd Avenue S.E. and for the improvement of 102nd Avenue S.E. from James
Street north. The Engineering Department does not believe the request for the
traffic signal is justified and 102nd Avenue S.E. is not a street south of James
Street and therefore cannot be improved.
STREET VACATIONS
S. 206th Street - Penton, Inc. The City Attorney introduced Resolution No. 846
setting the public hearing for the vacation of a portion of S. 206th Street for
August 21, 1978. KITTO MOVED for the adoption of Resolution No. 846, Carey
seconded. Motion carried.
S. 192nd Street - Uplands. The City Attorney introduced Resolution No. 847
setting the public hearing for August 21, 1978 to consider the vacation of
South 192nd Street. KITTO MOVED for the adoption of Resolution No. 847, Carey
seconded. Motion carried.
ANNEXATIONS AND ZONING
Uplands. It was noted that public hearings will be held to consider the zoning
of the Uplands Annexation on July 17, 1978 and August 21, 1978. The public
hearing on the Uplands Annexation will be held on August 21, 1978.
WATER
Kent Springs Water Supply Improvements - Pumps and Motors. Byron Jackson Pump
Division has completed the installation of two pumps and motors for Kent Springs
Wells, and the Engineering Department has recommended acceptance of the project.
KITTO MOVED that the contract of Byron Jackson Pump Division for two pumps and
motors for the Kent Springs contract be accepted as complete and after receipt
of the necessary releases from the State the retainage be released. Carey seconded.
Motion carried.
116th Avenue Water Main. Bids were received on June 29, 1978 for the construction
of the 116th Avenue Water Main, as follows:
Bidder Amount, Plus Tax
KAR-VEL Construction Co. $154,233.50
Robison Construction Co. 198,250.89
Richert's Sons 223,831.00
Frank Coluccio Construction 225,650.00
CAREY MOVED that the best bid of KAR-VEL Construction in the amount of $154,233.50,
plus tax, be accepted, B. Johnson seconded. Responding to questions from the
Council, Abed of URS noted that KAR-VEL was a local construction firm. Motion
carried.
The City
LID 286.
Attorney L_Ord ' nance No. 2103 ordering L__
-the improvcii,enL of a portion of the City by the
construction and Lc_,ta ;_ration of a water main
along a portion of 7WiI , Avenue South and
creating I,-L;-) MOVED that ordinance
No. 2103 cl .,:,oy seconded. Motion
carried_
lzoclaes� i:01: �J. that a
L_ was noted
lecC_er Sharon Ellis , 26524
'79Lh Avc'I-.L, r1li ti-ie formation of a
local ij-nInro\ for the Rose Avenk-i(,
water j_J_o. 13. VED that -the reqlit_30.
of ' k
5:c,L-r�_�d to the Publ L Ic Wors
Colcuilit'Ceo, ccrey Alotion carried.
Crestview T_,:c:c'C__-i Io- LID petitions have
been request-o(I _J)y served by this
of the existing
lines with ';II linoL, w'u,i fire hydrants.
Water Main 5sjost Coast Machine Tool' s.
The Engin,,:!c-r_' ng De- has received the B-1-11
Of Sale an(:i v;arraiii-_Y Acreement for approximately
315 -1ur of wuCcr constructed for
West Coast �,,',�chirie Too_Ls on West Valley Highway
800 feet north of S . 212L--h Street. McCAUGHAN
MOVED that tie City accept the Bill of Sale and
Warranty Agreement for t;:e water main extension
and that the cash bond be released after payment
of a:-iy outs CiiC_ bills against the project.
Carey second�-d. �,iotion carried.
Cecelia Hil.13 Pl«t. The sidewalks and monumenLa-
tion for the Cecelia Hills Plat have now been com-
pleted. The Bill of Sale and Warranty Agreeinerit
have previously been accepted. B. JOHNSON MOVED
that the City accept u-1-le sidewalks and monumenta-
tion and that the cash bond be released after
payment of any outstanding City bills against
the project. McCaucjaan seconded. Motion carried.
fl7 ighridge Plait _11'A - utility Extensions . The
Engineering Dcpar-men L Iias received the Bill of
Sale and War:_--antIv A,�ze.,_aient for improvements in
pla,_ - S4017;DiV
Highridge ;L. J_ - 1414 consisting of approxi-
i-tiately 1, 686 ' or B)" C. I . water mains ; approxim"it(,Ay
482 ' of 6" c. 1. wa -_t_or Li,iiiis; approximately 1,80313E
of 8" PVC sanitary sewer pipe ; and approximately
885 LF Class "B" asp'I-ial-c concrete street 22 feet
wide, toge-Llljej- w-it-11 sLorim sewers, sidewalks arid.
other appurtenances. X-IL"I'TO MOVED that the C.D-ly
accept the Bill of Sale and Warranty Agreement
for the improvements at .-Iighridge #4 and for the
cash bond to be r(?IOZA,;O(a after payment of any
outstanding City bins against the project.
Carey seconded. In response to McCaughan ' s ques-
tion, Ulett noted that all that was required in
the plat for sidewalks was the gravelled area
along the edge of the roads . McCaughan rioted
that the gravelled -,rea seems to have disappeared
d 1 0 or F _� C
in most are_�; an 4 que:; J onod wh th 0111( -()vk'-
I,,,iIIL could i)(- pul_
owners Lo ma_i.jiLa:I,ti a(, cl ql:,Ivelled 11: 1
for a wall,.way. imayor ',ioL-jan commented that side-
walks and curbs and dr&inage should have been
required at the time of development. Street
noted for McCaughai-, triaL the, Council has the
authority Lo cowmei.cL_: ui-' LID for widewdl%a
defeated could on0l, be dfeated if SVW olt more
of the propei_-.-It-y against such irii-
pro veriien L--- . ,�,tJlk- i "J (1(.1.
28
:'ARKS & Waiver of Gate Charge - Kent Memorial Park.
RECREATION The Kent School District' s request for waiver
of the 10/ gate charge has been referred to the
Park staff by 'the Board of Park Commissioners
to negotiate an agreement with school personnel.
A meeting will be held this Fall between the
School District and the Parks Department regard-
ing fee and charges for both parties.
Lake Fenwick Parking Lot. Richard Carothers
Associates has certified that City Transfer has
completed ti)e Lake ; enwick Parking Lot project
in accordance with :specifications. B. JOHNSON
MOVED that the contract with City Transfer for the Lake Fenwick Parking Lot project be accepted
as complete and the retainage be released after
receipt of the necessary releases from the State,
Carey seconded. Motion carried.
Kent Gazebo. A letter was read from Dean
Humphrey, Building Trades Instructor, Kent-
Meridian High School, thanking the City of.
Kent and the Chamber of Commerce for the
opportunity and help received in building
the gazebo. The letter also requested that
the $500 agreed upon for the construction of
the gazebo be sent to Kent-Meridian High School
in the name of the "Carl Humphrey Memorial Fund, "
which is a scholarship fund for deserving students
in the field of building trades . Mr. Humphrey
noted that the scholarship this year had gone
to Keith Steinke who helped with the gazebo
construction and will represent the community
and State at the National V. I.C.A. building
trades competition in Alabama to be held this
summer. MASTERS MOVED that the letter be
accepted and made a part of the record, B.
JOHNSON SECONDED. Motion carried. _
In accordance with the Council minutes of
October 17, 1977, the $500 payment will be
made by the Kent Chamber of Commerce. A copy
of Mr. Humphrey ' s letter has been sent to the
Chamber of Commerce.
CLAIMS Gary C. Desmarais. A Claim has been filed against
the City by Gary C. Desmarais for an undetermined
amount. In accordance with the recommendation of
the City Attorney, KITTO MOVED that the claim of
Gary C. Desmarais be denied, Carey seconded. In
response to Masters ' question, Mirk noted that
the claim was for alleged damage to Mr. Desmarais '
automobile which was involved in a collision
during a traffic light malfunction. Motion
carried.
Steven R. Kester. A claim has been received from
Steven R. Kester in the amount of $44.80 for
alleged damage to his automobile. In accordance
with the recommendation of the City Administrator,
B. JOHNSON MOVED that the claim be accepted and
forwarded .to the Street Department, with their —
report to be given to the City Attorney. Carey
seconded. Motion carried.
ING & letter was read from Eugene
air D HUD 701 Fun�ds. A 'L�
el Wiegman, State Of Washington Planning & Com-
DEVEOPMENT munity Affairs Agency, regarding the City of
Kent's eligibility to apply for and receive
HUD 701 pass-through funds for the grant periods
beginning July L,. 11.978 and July 1, 1979.
MASTERS MOV:,'D tha-tt the records show that the
letter was received, .IcCaughan seconded. Motion
carried.
D i s a s t(.-�,r 1_i� � HUD 701 Funds .
A letter wa-s read LrGat �"'u4ene Wie(_-man, State
of Washington Planning & Community Affairs
Agency, noti`ying the Mayor that HUD 701 Funds
would not be provided to Neat for the coming
fiscal year. Tne, letter noted that six appli.-
cants had competed for the $30, 000 available
with requests $80, 567 .00 and that
only throe a,Oplicants were -,elected to receive
the grant awards. The letter rioted that the
selection committee:- had suggested that Kent
consider alternative funding sources in the
area of disaster mitigation planning. MASTERS
MOVED to accept the letter, Carey seconded.
Motion carried.
EQUAL RIGHTS A letter was read from Mayor Charles Royer
AM E'NDMENT regarding the stand taken by various Cities
and States, and orgianizations to boycott those
States which hixve failed to ratify the Federal
Equal Rights Niiendment- . Royer rioted that under
a recent policy directive employees of city of
Seattle depa. Lnients under the mayor will not
attend meetings in non-ratifying States except
in special circumstances and his letter asked
that Kent join in a similar policy.. MASTERS
MOVED that receipt of the let-ter be recorded,
McCaughan seconded. Motion carried.
S110'1zT PLAT Grube and Johnson. Receipt of a notice of appeal
APPEAL from the action of the Short Plat Committee to
the City Council was noted and read into the
record. In accordance with the recommendations
of the City 1,�,dministrator, McCAUGHAN MOVED to
accept the Notice of Appeal- and that a public
hearing on the appeal be set for August 7, 1978,
B. Johnson seconded. !,lotion carried.
1 U D G 1!,'f orc'iinance No. 2104 amending
the 1978 budget for transfers and adjustments
made to various bLidcjets during the first quar-
ter of 1978 was introduced by the City Attorney.
XITTO MOVED for the adoption of Ordinance No.
2104, Carey seconded. Motion carried.
Sewer Department On the Job Traininq Propozal.
A copy of a proposal submitted to the Finance
Committee by Mike Wel)',.)y proposing that the
City of Kent Sewer Departfrie-nt enter into a
contract with the King County Work Training
Program for the TXII-POSe of obtaining one (1)
On the Job Training position was furnished
to the Council.. In acc.o.ruanc(-:! wj.-th the reco-m-
mendation of the CiLy A(`.Im inn.straLorf B. 'YOHNSON
MOVED that the proposal be accepted, V-Vl 4 y'
seconded. In response to Masters ' , que Am,
Street noted that funds had been provid � 3.n
b"dVat for P41nry t i 1. 1.�)urpoaem f0,r.!th*' -rdon
vt 4 1*i0v ,
n q�i 414t, CB bo
his lhrq� �Iehb that It
1. 'C
%%ras anticip t :)Orson would become.
a full tilyle- Mok-_-ion carried.
'mar lL i,L janitorial '"', r`•T':i..f_te Street noted that the
firm pravicli-rub y ar�i services for the
City Hall had been changed effective July 1,
1978.
METRO Bus Route Change ;Piibl ic. Hear.inc. B. Johnson
questioned the hearing to be. held at -the work-
shop meeting on July I_0 reyg�arding the Metro
bus lines . Mayor i-i.og�.ln rioted that the, hearing
was necessary "-.o 1"eceive community input oI'i
the matter :tidt Str( t Pointed out that it
could be he •;i at a regular Council meeting.
E?[1�?I:LCWOz];: C;C)T_tiit'_ fee >_ 31 response -to McC�ughan � s
question, Ulet.t suggested that the next_ Public
Works Committee meeting be held on Wednesday, July 19.
P_ubl:2.c_tii" felty camql-ut..tee.. Plasters noted that
Pub:l...:i�c 'Sac c_"Ly (_"!o wit:tee._ would meet on
`lluebsday mornipcj, July 25, 1978 at 8: 15 a.m.
CONVHN`L IONS Street noted that he had attended the AWC
Convention and. the Northwest: Regional City
Management Seminar which he would report on
_at a later date.
CONDITIONAL Northwest Steel. Rolling Mills. on May 23, 1978,
USI, PERMIT the Planning Coiwiziss.ion granted a Conditional
APPEIt L, Use Exception for Northwest Steel Roiling Mills,
with the following conditions:
1) Deed 13 1/2 foot strip along south side of
S. 218th Street for future widening of said
street to 60 foot r_i(j ht of way.
2) Deed -the southerly half of a 55 ' radius
turn around at the westerly end of S . 218th --
Street.
3) Submit detail-cad storm drainage and storm
water pollution con't^rol plans to Engineer-
ing Department for review and approval.
4) Minimum width 20 ' r i-re Department access
roads will be required for the automobile
storage area.
5) Roads shall be oil mat or asphalt so as
to be able to support fire vehicles.
6) Watermain extension with fire hydrants is
. required for automobile storage area.
7) Substantial visual and auditory screening
shalt be established along the northern
and southern property lines,. and that por-
tion of the easteri'1, property line which
abuts 84th Ave. S . (fast Valley Highway) .
Substantial screening shall consist of at
least: a 101 high 100% sight--obscuring fence,
with a row of aeirt:i--mature Lombardy popla:r.-
trees, no more t.h a:,i 10 feet from center to
center. Si.ich. scrr,`enit-w ;i,a11 be irk place!
prior to tl'le 16,"1. AAICC.? of a. building perwit
for the proposed addition. .`Zoning Ctaae
landscaping requirements' may necessi.t.te
additional plantings ; these plantings may
be completed within one year of the Plan
. . l as. �7, pw xd• An ,
enC'e orC 7 C't_Y2t. Cn a rf5�9..i a l"�? down, they must
be re s t+J3:'<'_c.i `>:'i a ). ,a t �%,o V,reeR period or
MY/
CANDITIOZAL 8) The height of the sUacking shall be limited
uSE PERMIT . to 17 ' of crushed or uncrushed car bodies .
9) Noise and air poWnLion shall not exceed
the present level ana, must comply with the
Air pollution Control. Agency recommendations
as weil as the Noise Control ordinance.
10) The section of the applicant ' s property
zoned CM is not included in this conditional.
Use Perntt,
11) A review of Wis ctppAcation shall be
held annually.
An appeal to the granting of the permit has been,
filed on behalf of the Robison Investment Company,
owner of property and office space adjacent to the
property of Northwest Steel Rolling Mills , and
located at 21851 - 84th Avenue South, together
with petitions asking that the permit be denied.
The public hearing scheduled for this meeting on
the said appeal was opened by Mayor Hogan.
Planning Director Earris noted that all Council
members had received the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement and noted that the Final EIS
has now been prepared. copies of the Final EIS
were distributed to the Council and the audience
and a copy made a part of the official record .
Harris pointed out the location of the Northwost
Steel Mill operation site at 22011 84th Avenu- S .
and the surrounding land uses , and also referrn i,
to the plans for the proposed expansion of the
facility. He noted that the Conditional Use
Permit had been approved by the Planning Commis-
sion with the conditions as set out above, which
conditions are also a part of the Final Environ-
mental impact Statement. He noted that a number
of letters had been received from interested
agencies which were included in Appendix B of the
Final EIS containing Review comments . Harris
also pointed out that the Planning Department
and Building Department had held on-site noise
level readings and their findings were also a part
of the Final EIS and were to be made a part of
the record. In response to Mayor Hogan ' s ques-
tion, Harris noted that these findings were not
available at the time of the Planning Commission
hearing. Mirk further responded to Mayor Hogan 's
question by noting that this was not new informa-
tion. It was determined that the public hearing
was for the purpose of hearing the appeal, th,,'!
consideration and acceptance of correspondence
and petitions and to receive comments from inter-
ested citizens . Mirk further clarified that the
nature of the hearing was simply to determine
whether the Council concurred with 'the Planning
Commission decision to grant the permit or to
mane some modification to their decision or
take a different approach. Pe also noted that
no new information should be presented that was
not available to the Planning commission but
pointed out that reference to the noise problom
was not new information , since one of the condi-
tions of the Planning commission appidVal of the
appeal dealt specifically with noise pollution.
He stated that this conditiot required that the
noise cret aed by "0 new Oporntion not bo "0',
ton and
-MV A J.-)res.ent
L i L wan W,
Xran,
J I.evels to m a.
representin i* .0 O t 1�'% _'S At Steel Rolling Mills, rioted
.
t object to any of the
Vd,,J k that his c3 �f.�.nts d ;.d not
conditions IMposed by thd Planning Cbmmissi-On
but also reflerr(.,d to the 'hew information available
with regard to th(�, noise problem whi(ilh was
that his clients
to ai'swer o.bJections to the.-.Lir
1C.hat-, have been voiced up
to ci_r.-kr..Lfied for Mayor Hogan.
t.Irat.:. tL:J'Ic_ C, J_ hear ariy tc,,!st.hnony they
watrited W 'A, :xir, F)o:,I.nts that were
raised at th.e Llin oc' tho Pl-afltling COMMissiorl
hearing--!_h�d-_ thi 7 was not 3. n0w public hearing
but rather a III-ioar-Ing t-.,(D determine if there had
been just- cause- for the N.anning Co-aimission
rec,omrnenc:Aati_o.i'r. tic: also pointed out that those
matters 10y N.a.i ining comm.i.!:,,si.on.
were a. part of_ t-h(' rccol-d'.
sent.ing the, Robison C011I.Pany,
tioned w1hether this mount that there would not
be a public hear.i.Lng on the Final Environmental
Rnp,-ict Statement ancl Playor Hogan noted that the
only document. aVa4.1.able to the Planning Corm is.
at the of t__Ihoir hearing was the Draft
EIS ; a.Juso, t-hait the i�'i.naj_ EIS merely incorporates
-i that.
responses to the Draft EIS . Andrews stated t-
it was his understandirig, according to the State
EIS Policy Act, that any 'hea.r.ing should. also
deal. with the E-31S anci further commented
that receiving the document. at, the tiiije of the
hearing did not either the Council or the
public ample -tim(.--- to review it-.. Mirk pointed
.r(::� 4.S
out that the no requJI.Yement for a hearing
to be held on -the Final. E1,1i unless a pro,r:.)er pet:.i-
tion to do so is fil:--_,d or Harris determines that
one is nece-Ssary. !!,,' noted further that if such
* hearing is held, t.I_IE! COuric-:1.1 should be makin(_1
* Bete rrninE-dtion as to '`lie adequacy of the Fina .l.
EIS and t o answer any questions raised. Masters
coiwiiented that she felt the Final EIS was import-
ant to the issue also wished to have more time
to review 1-1 he, rcspon.ses contained therein. She
suggested that the F_`Lnal iF,-LS be discussed at some
other time Jbefore a decision was made by the Council,
as it did have sox-cie- II-,(-;!c-o_-_-i_nq on the Council. ' .-:-, ulti--
mate decision. �,agan concurred, but note(I
-that the Council. wa:-.: t..Oflight- holding �.-i pull.A .11- ..?ai:-.i_ng
he Lrig CCIITRIIALS�`.310n recominendat-ion i--o
ox i t p a.._IyI.4 Cp"i3 n
the permit witl-k con6J., ions, based on the infori;ia--
tion wilicil wao avail.-klile tc:o them at th,, t-Jmo, i-_)J:
their 'hear-i-nq-, ands t.hat the. Council Should now
be considerijig or not -these conditions
were adequate to control the operation, not Lo
review the fiiial EIS. 'v',_:Itto questioned the dif-
ference betacen this r-iearing and any other appeal
from a Planning Comallssiorj decision
and also
whether test.JATIony Pre,vit,)usly received at thAe Planning levei. could be heard at this
his
tifr-Ie. He noted that M_istE:-rs ' suggestion wit.1h,
respect to the Finai EI'S review was g-clod but
also felt t.b.a.t. i..f na%,i information was re(--,eJ. T(_d
m3 .ter shout , Fat this time te rred
back to -Lh( 'J_rt;rer f..1.:, t Collirwiss.'i-on . Mirk p(:,in'C..ed
out that with to the grai-)ting of .-I- Condi-
i - - -i - nincj .
tional Use Pe=._t, the. action of the Plan,
CoITdIII.ssi(.)n :*LS t'1()I- but i-.i final decision,
unless c-oiici..).rred that ,the, Counci.3_
could Ztsk jLor, iirfoi;wation if they wislied.
a I s 6 n r)4, 17 f" 1_:: 110 )...Iy.
c.
y
to k3.
Responding to Carcy. Harris noted that the
13SE PERMIT planning Comnission had reviewed the draft EIS
APPEAL and also heard testimony from those persons
attending the PC hcarinq- Harris explained
that the Final EIS merely takes the body of the
Draft EIS and co'llm)(:-nts :received
from interested ayancies . B. Johnson noted that
. she agreed with masters about having more time
to review the Finni Eis , especially since some
of t-j.je. teceived were critical and raised
specific quQstions . She suggested that those
persons in attendance at this hearing should be
given an opportuniLy to be heard, however.
MASTERS MOVED for a public hearing on the Final
EIS. McCaughan seconded. Masters clarified her
motion by noting that in fairness to the industry
involved and as a courtesy to those people who
Live in the area. ccunmcnts should be received
and the watLer of the Final EiS could be taken
under advisement until the next Council meeting.
McCaughan commenLW that a decision need not be
made at this meeting. Mayor Hogan questioned
whether or not the motion was appropriate since
the public hearing on the appeal had already
been opened. Harris clarified for Masters that
the Final EIS is usuaily an "in-house'' document
and while it is available for public scrutiny,
few citizens ever take the time to request to
review one. he noted that the Final EIS is com-
plete and will not be redone in any event. he
concurred with Mayor Logan ' s statement regarding
the hearing on the Robison Investment Company
appeal and opined that the Council should hear
testimony in that regard. Responding further to
Masters, he noted that it was appropriate for
the Council to make reference to both the appeal
and "the Final EIS, since part of the Final ETS
also deals with the noise impact. Carey suggested
that the Council hear the appeal and take the
Final EIS under advisement. MASTERS WITHDREW
THE MOTION, McCaughan the second. It was deter-
mined for Mr. Andrews that comments could be
received from interested citizens at the time
the Final EIS is brought back to the Council
for further review.
Gary Andrews addressed the Council and noted
that the Robison investment Company had initiated
the appeal not only to protect t t
their ineress
but also to answer questions for residents in
the area and how tjl� y would be affected by tho
proposed expansion plans of Northwest Steel.
Rolling Mills. He referred to the Kent Compro-
hensive plan and KenL Zoning Code and the w6nnn,:-
in whi.cl-i th(.-.,.y are upheld, Referring specifically
to the Planning Department Staff Report and
pertinent policy statements from the Comprehensivo
Plan, he quoted as follows:
"CIRCULATION, Goal 1- 01)jectivc- 1: Provide
adequate trafficway for both local and throtv;h
traffic, separating the systems when possible . "
l:Je suggested that this has not been done nor
it feasible to be done and noted further thak n ,
additional 50-100 trucks per day would be det&--
mental to the residents of area since East Vnllol,F
Uighway is a major thoroughfare.
Quoting furtber from the Planning Staff Report-
policy statements from the Comprehensive Plan ,
lot noteW."
'T e 1:
AL "ECONOMIC DEVEJ Goal. 1, Objecti v
P policy 4: Prc ,
location of heavy industry
-)wote
between the two major rail lines on the Valley
Floor. "
and
IIHUW,N ENVIPONMEIN:70 GOal 1, Objective 2:
policy 1: R(:,cVA-ire tlhat new construction and
improvemeriLs be designed and built so as to
enhance the k.'[Llality Of the neighborhood in
Which it. is located.
Policy 2: Su,?1.-.)ort and enforce regulations and
programs which miniudize visual blight. "
Ile expressed -the opinion that the location of
heavy industry was not between the two major
rail lines and that -L'he propose(] expansion of
ihatice
the Northwest- Stl.eol Rollil'lq Mill Would not et
the neighborhood but would instead detract from
all other businesses and residences in the area.
Ile maintained that the Comprehensive Plan was
adopted by the Council and should be upheld ley
them.
Referring to the history of the area as reported
in the Staff Report, 'tie noted that the property
was annexed to Kent in 1955 and zoned M-2, Heavy
industrial in 1.960. He stated that the Staff
Report also noted that a Conditional Use Permit
was approved for Northwest Steel Rolling Mills
in 1966 for their present operation, subject to
the following conditions:
111) Seven foot fence (cyclone) plantings of
greenery to be located adjacent to said
cyclone fence, in a manner which will. be .
slifficieilt in a reasonable amount of -time
to render the storage area sight obscured.
2) No storage closer. than 1-00 feet from
0 feet from existing
'thoroughfare or -3 30
residences be approved, subject to the
provision that there shall be no storage
undertaken closer than 320 feet from the
west margin of the East Valley Highway.
He rioted further that the history of the area
reported in the Staff report also noted that
the present facility was opened in 1967 and. a
second furnace added in 1.974. The property
was zoned M-3, General Industrial, with the
adoption of 3C.1he p.resent Zoning Code in 1.973.
Andrews suggested the conditional use Permit
now dander consideration, while possibly more
restrictive than the first, is only -the grant--
of an additional permit and should, there-
ing L
-iied. -ea was
fore, be det iie opined that the a.r
zoned in 11-973 specifically for Northwest Steel Rolling Mills, not the rest of the area, and
granting anot-lier Conditional Use Permit was
orily compounding the e-xisting problems. He
referred -to z;t_ateme.i,xt,.s from the Washington
Supreme Court. wlierein -it is said that a pro-
posed project' s potential for creating pres-
-� may properly
1,-i -nd vis(.
.sure to alter surroundirj
be .evaluated in a decision of this nature, andsug-
-
ge-sted these coiciia,i!A -. iould be considered in
i ts sT
the Council ': decision. Ile referred to the
�,act that one Condi t;j,Sinaj_ Use.. Perxnit had been
qur,-_stioned. what
Referring to the Scaff Recommendation regarding
uKk WSMIT Zoning Code standards for issuance of conditional
APPEAL use permits under Section 7. 3, Conditional Uses, .
Standards and Criteria for Grantinq a Conditional
Use Permit, he quoted as follows:
"A Conditional use Permit shall only be granted
after the Planning Commission has reviewed the
proposed use to determine if it complies with
the standardo and criteria listed below. A
Conditional Use Permit shall only be granted
if such finding is made (eight standards and
criteria statepents are listed) &
Referring specifically to certain of the eight
standards and criteria statements as set forth
in the Planning Department staff report, he
noted as- follows:
",l. The proposed use in the proposed location
will not be detrimental to other uses
legally existing or permitted outright in
the zoning district.
��Etment Findilla: The proposed
._p_ _
recycling operation may have a detrimental
impact on the old non-industrial uses in the
M-3 district. The primary impact would be
visual, unless significant screening is erected.
but the recycling
Noise may also be a problem,
,operation is not anticipated to be any noisier
than the present operation. The City of Kent
has recently adopted a Noise ordinance which
would govern the amount of noise emitted by
this operation. "
Andrews maintained that the present operation
is not meeting this particular standard, since
the proposed operation will be detrimental to
other uses in the area , and also differed from
the ' Planning Department Finding.
W. - The traffic generated by the proposed use
will not unduly burden the traffic circula-.
Lion system in the vicinity. "
Andrews again stated that the increased traffic
will burden the area unduly since the proposed
operation is expected to generate an additional
50"100 trucks per day.
W. The other performance characteristics of
the proposed use are: compatible with those,
of other uses in the neighborhood. ''
Andrews noted that the Planning Department Find-
ing,yas that he noise standards would reflect
the industrial zoning of the area rather than
the actual mixture of laud uses . He maintaine+.-,,
that the noise, truck traffic and air pollutio.n
are not compatible with other uses in the area.
"5 . Adequate bufkaring devices such as fencing,
landscaping or topographical characteristics
protect adjacenL properties from adverse
effects of the proposed use including adverse
visual or auditory affects.
Andrews pointad ouc WC the fencing to be creurm,
would not adequately scroon the proposed aperation
`slnne it is tin 10 Y
SiMS Ond Ldj 10 15, E"wL Valley Highway and
would provide no inj between the site anj
'J the property ow ied by his (21..,ents. lie made refer-
the proposed expansion would
once to the fact that. k.. i
allow for a.pproxcimate'll-y 10 acres of car bodies
- 17 it was his opinion
stacked to a height. of t. o f
that this standard set by the Zoning Code was not
being upheld .
4
"8. Any od-,-er considerations that may, be
j-app:r_Cipl:4 lad-to pa e "
-o r cula. s Andrews quol:-cd tne D paxtment f indings
as follows:
"Althouqh� th,-:! iwi-cicdicit.c a.rea surrounding Northwest
Steel Rolling Mil."Is -I-s zoned M-3 , M-2, sand CM, the
area contains a mixture of lanrl uses , includi.t-ig
several re-s.1de.ntial dwt. Ilinqs . Northwest Ste(,,21.
Rolling Mills is by far the largest, most, visible,
and most intensive -use in the area. if the steel
mill had not been hc:�re in 1-973, it is question-
able whether or not the NI--3 zoning would ever
have been cot-is-idered for IC-I'le area. The massive,
Northw(-:�st Si- el RoL ing Mills alreadv
size of -11. - .1
dominates adjacent uses; the proposed addition
will add to the inzxssiveness of the operation.
Considering -the Planning Department finding, the
initial rezone in 1973, and the granting of the
Conditional Use Permit now requested by Northwest
Steel Rolling 14ills, Andrews suggested that this
was "spot zoning" and quoted from portions of the
Supreme Court' s ruling on the subject as follows:
"Spot zoning has come to mean arbitrary and un-
reasonable action by which a smaller area is
singled out of a larger area or district and
specially zoned for a use classification totally
different from and inconsistent with the classi-
fication of surrounding land and not in accord-
ance with the Comprehensive Plan. Spot zoning
is a zoning for private gain, designed to favor
or benefit a particular individual or group and
not the welfare of the community as a whole.
The vice of spot zoning is its inevitable effect
of granting a discriminatory benefit to one or
a group of owners and to the detriment of their
neighbors without adeqtaat(.-- public advantage or
justification. Zoning merely for the benefit
of one or a few or for the disadvantage of some
and with no substa.ntial relationship to the
public health, safety, general, welfare, or morals
in conflict with either the Comprehensive Zoning
Plan or Orditiance is arbitrary and capricious and
unlawful. Therefore it is universally held that
the' spotzoning which singles out a parcel of
land within the limits of the use district and
marks it off into a separate district for the
benefit of the owrier and permits the use of that
parcel inconsistent with the use allowed in ttie
rest of the district is invalid if it is not in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and is
merely for private gain. " I
Andrews asked, therefore, that the Conditional
Ilse Permit be denied because it is in violation
of the Kent Caml,.)reh!,,ns.ive Plan adopted by the
Council in -ig for Conditional.. uses
ilic present zot'iin(
W OF
ether 0.1c,
1 Wil
noted that he was the owner of three
JJ residences in the area and voiced his objections
to any further expansion of -the Northwest Steel
Mill operation. He suggested that the company
had not fulfilled the conditions of the Condi-
tional Use permit previously granted to them.
He also referred to changes in zoning in the area
which have occurred and also to the problems of
air pollution, noise pollution and visual prob-
lems created by the Northwest Steel Rolling Mill.
operation.
Mer.K.U.1e_B1 s hop concurred with Purdy * s statements
reg<a.I d3..I1g --1-te conditions of the original Permit
issued to Northwest Steel Rolling Mills not having
been lived up to, including the requirements for
landscaping, fencing and noise control. He noted
that the entire valley was subjected to the smoke
and air pollution created by the operation.
Douq Ellis , owner of the Willo Vista Trailer
Village in the area, suggested that the Northwest
Steel Rolling Mill operation was out of place
and not designed for the area. He questioned
how it could be cons clered an asset to EMY
area in the Valley.
Charlie Waller stated that he was in full accord.
with all of the statements made by those persons
opposing the operation.
Mrs.-Mauritsen, owner of the Kent Nursery - locoted
in the area, noted that she had attended the
Planning Commission hearing and also noted her
agreement with the statements made by Mr. Andrews .
She stated that the air pollution caused by the
operation was harmful to the operation of her
business. She also referred to the noise problem
created and suggested that the City was not living
up to the Comprehensive Plan adopted. She
asked that the views of the residents of the
area be considered by Council.
Rdohaxd-LewJ_s. questioned whether the decision
was being made for one particular interest group
rather than the majority of the people residing
in the area.
Mrs. Tonelli noted that she had also attended
ih_e_ 0-i-a-G-1-n-g- Commission hearing and referred to
the fact that the residents of the area have
always paid their fair share to maintain the
area. She referred to assessments made for the
LID to improve the zost Valley Highway some years
ago and quoted figure.,; that in fact
assessments against the property of private
citizens was in fact larger than that cagy insL
the property owned by Northwest Steel Rolling
Mills . She also referred to the large volume
of traffic generated by the operation, while
most residents of the area were limited to one
or two vehicles. Regarding the fence to be
erected around the operation. she pointed out:
the fact that it was still possible to see
through these fonces and suggested that opera-
tions such as that proposed by Northwest Steel
Rolling Mills be confined inside a building.
a rooident of the orea . cancurro(l
with the statements made by Mr . Andrews. an(-
also referred W.Ahn' boise treated by the opera-
tion, questi"ncd w5ntnor it could be confined
to day time nppy , kVn only. She also asked
that the 5orAk
A I - tter was rc.. -) -, vrecl ond, Dorothy Meadow-
croft, 21740 - 134i AveiJuo PrOtesting the
-zoning for the expansion
granting of additional
of -the Northwest Steel Rolling Mill operation
because of its dCtr,-Ui,,e,,atal effect on properties
in the area J..or fi:it.ure dovelopment for foods,
lodging, faxcmind 1�0-id 1;,>ui3.dj:ngs that offer
services to t'�� 1,4ASTERS MOVED
that the letter be �nac_le a part of the record,
Carey seconded. 14jo-tion carried.
A letter was read from Toe carpinito, 2301.4
88th Avenue So. asking that the Council deny
Steel
the Conditional Use. Permit for Nor thwest 1.
ljoll.ing Mills and asking that the Council visit
the Sternoff Metals site before making its
decision on this mat-ter. MASTERS MOVED that
the letter be made a part of the record,
• McCaughan seconded. Motion carried.
A letter was read from Mr. and Mrs . August
Tonelli, 22234 - 84th Avenue So. , expressing
their opposition to the granting of the Condi-
tional Use Permit to Northwest Steel Rolling
Mills . Attached to the letter were petitions
signed by property owners and citizens of Kent.
The petitions opposing the granting of the
Conditional Use Permit to Northwest Steel
Rolling Mills contained 332 signatures and
set forth -the following reasons for its denial.-.
"1. Incompatible with. Area Development. The
heavy industrial- use.-2 by Northwest Steel
Rolling Mills is incompatible and. incon-
sistent with the major trend and usage
of the area. The trend in this area is
for commercial and residential. growth and
development.
"2. visual. Pollution. Storage of these mater-ials
will be visually offensive and will detract
from the aesthetic value of the surrounding
areas. In our opinion, screening and fenc-
ing the area will not be a satisfactory
solution.
"3. . Noise Pollution. The noise se and general
disturbance assoc fated. with this heavy
industrial use will further. add to the
noise and smoke pollution of the present
facility. Additional. cortunercial and resi-
dential developinent is being curtailed
because of the present smoke and noise
pollution emitted by Northwest Steel
Rolling Mills . Any increased expansion
of the 14'.'acility of the Mills operation
surely will increase the frequency of
the noise and smoke pollution in the area .
It is objectionable even at present levels.
"4. Kiij loynLoSIL. At present there are 125 State
employees working ih the Public Assistance
office adjacent -to Northwest Steel Rolling
Mills. The nature of their work requires
a minimum noise level. The issuance of a
conditional use permit for the proposed
operation could well result in the reloca-
tion of these
"5. Traffic Cong�a_.s_tj_on . The proposed operation
will generate an increase of 50 to 100
heavy trucks 1per day. In an eight hour
Poriodi asi'd`e Prow the present load on 84th
South, the c.ould well expect at-i addi-
tional ti:-ur,k. laden with car bodies
to Pass evc'ry
0
6. Burden an Onj . onuroliing and policing
thii-AST ,Ay La ensure its compliance with
minimum noise and smoke pollution standards
could become costly to the City of Kent.
Aside from State enforcement, we would ask
if the City Council presently has the power
to enforce noise and smoke pollution stand-
ards? The present size and operation of
Northweot Steel Rolling Mills is objection-
able to property owners ; but, it is, at least,
manageable.
7 . Pro t Values . it is our opinion that
this heavy industrial usage by Northwest
Steel Rolling Mills will lower the property
values of all property owners near the area. "
McCAUGHAN MOVED that the letter from the Tonellis
and the petitions be accepted, Carey seconded.
Motion carried.
qim Curran addressed the Council on behalf of
his client, Northwest Steel Rolling mills . He
noted that the property owned by his client
had been in a heavy industrial zoned district
for many years. Referring to Mr. Andrews ' con-
teation that the zoning constituted "spot zoning, "
he pointed out the large areas in the vicinity
which are zoned for manufacturing and particularly
the area from the valley Freeway northerly to S.
212th, which is zoned M-3. He noted that while
Mr. Andrews ' comments regarding spot zoning were
appropriate they did not apply in this particular
case. He pointed out that Northwest Steel Rolling
mills were simply asking to expand their opera-
tion to a similar use that has been in existence
since 1967 . aeferring to the M-3 zoning, he noted
that all that was required was for his client to
comply With the criteria and standards set by the
Zoning Code and to present their plans to the
Council.
W . Lehn of Northwest Steel Rolling Mills explained
the proposed expanded operation, noting the loca-.
Lion of the various buildings on the site. Re
noted that at the present time the property to
the front of the existing building to 84th Ave.
s . is vacant land and that the Company had been
providing some fill material to the site over the
past few years . He pointed out, however, that
this is not part of the area included in the pro-
posed plans for expansion, and that the plans
were basically as presented to the Planning Com-
mission, although some of the buildings might be
located at a different site. He also indicated
that the new shredding equipment would be kept
as far. from 84th Avenue S , as possible to allow
for circulation of traffic. Mr. Lehn also noted
that his company had employed a noise consultant
who took noise level readings on the present,
equipment and also at the Sternoff Metals Plant
in Renton and it has been determined that the
shredder can be installed at the proposed site
and still be in compliance with the City of Yent
Noise ordinance.
Addressing the noise problems, Mr. Lehn noted
that noise readings had been taken at the site
and around the property lines and pointed out
that even under the noisiest conditions they
were still in compliance with the Kent Noise
ordinance. me refcarad to the fact that the
City of Kent hod aWo taken noise level read-
ings in Lhasa are oAd reached the same con-
clusion.
-)g()
01'11_,' )`11k1_1L,clili 11, Regarding I-lie of car bodies, the
J
area where. this was to be done was pointed
out by Mr. Lehn, who also noted that few
unsmashed car bodies would be received and
the I few that were would be put through the
shredder immediately. J_,ehn also explained
the difference Detween his company ' s opera-
tion and tl,-,,at of a scr;ap metal dealer by
noting that 1.4ihile a. scra.l.) metal dealer buys
scrap and it- for resa'Le at a. la.ter
h J S
da te, �')Ulcll<lses the scrap metal
to run through lChe shredder and through the
furnace. t:ie a1so noted that State law pro-
hibits the sale of automobile parts for sal-
vage by operations such as Northwest Steel ' s .
4
Mr. Lehn pointed out tale gravelled & oiled streets
to be put in as required by the City and for
Fire Departnter)t acdc..'-,ssibility, as well as a
paved area for truck tuxn-a.round, and noted
this would also help to alleviate the dust
problem in the area. An employee parking lot
is also proposed in the area.
Regarding the landscaping to be done, he noted
that this would bf.:a done in accordance with the
requirements of City of Kent Codes. He referred
to the Planning Coiraviission condition calling
for a 10 ' fence with wood slats and the plant-
ing of poplar trees, which lie estimated would
grow about 7 ' per year, and also pointed out
the location of the fence and trees .
At Mr. Curran ' s request, Mr. Lelin responded to
plans for handling the problem of water runoff
and storm drainage . lie noted that Nor t-1-i'v."est
Steel ' s plans 1-lad br,0,71. vcri.),-illy discussed
with the King County ii)epartment of Hydraulics
-iere would be some
and pointed out that -,..,.,hil.e t1
water runoff because of the area to be paved
this water would drain into a corner of the
property into a retention basin and then empty
into the drainage ditch on the West side of the
property.
Mr. Lelin resporided further to the objections
which have been raised concerning the increased
traffic to the area. Fle noted that figures have
been received from the City of Kent Traffic
Department regarding the daily average vehicular
traffic count on 84-th Avenue S . and that it was
about 1.5, 000 vehicles per day. Of that number,
approximately 7% were and concluded that
if 50 to 10 ) additional trucks were added per
day, the additional, traffic, as well as noise
created by such traffic, would be negligible.
Curran noted that the proposed plans for t.he
operation cal.led for a 10 ' fence and trees along
the perimeter of the property with the exception
of the driveway. Noting that visual pollution
seemed to be one o-.1- the major objections to the
operation, he opined that the Planning Commission
requirement in t 1. is regard seemed to be a reason-
able one. He also pointed out that Northwc-�st
Steel had no obiectiona .-; to t-his re(1ui)(.*_,w(-:!r0_-. Iii-id
that the screen would '11,)e eEfective, at least to
the area resident,�- Curran distributed pictures
of similar operaLl.ons Lo that of Northwest Sto..,!el
and also of salvage c.q)erations, and pointed out
the differerA,c,-_,e the, two. lie referred to
Lhe, tl"Ict _LS a processing
operation 't :1. ,ti.\,, -)_j n, 11
k.-C different than
of a -.xlso as previously pointed
f�R
.,v
UidAL With reference to the property owned by Robison
FIERMIT Investment .Company, he noted that the Department
APPEAL of Social & Health Services had selected the
site and built their building in that location,
knowing not only that the Northwest Steel Roll-
ing Mill operation was in existence but that
they also owned 33 acres which could be used
for their operation. He suggested, therefore,
that they had no grounds for complaint at this
time.
Referring again to the matter of noise pollution
control, Curran quoted from the Final Environ-
mental Impact Statement. regarding Noise, as
follows:
"NOISE Noise level readings were taken on June
30, 1978, from several locations on property
lines of D.S .H.S. in regard to complaints of
noise emanating from Northwest Steel. The
instrument used was a Quest #215 sound level
meter and was calibrated prior to any readings
being received.
"Readings were first taken from the southwest
corner of the D.S.H.S . property line, approxi-
mately 60 feet west of the building itself.
Readings recorded each minute for 35 minutes
fluctuated between 58 and 63 dBAs. Using the
standard formula for computation of noise levels
of an industrial noise source to a residential
area, Northwest Steel developed a reading aver-
age of . 1333 with a reading of 1.0 necessary as
being a violation. It may also be noted that
General Disposal Company is immediately south
of the complainants building and it was obvious
that noise from this source certainly had an
impact on the final reading.
"As a comparison of noise levels, readings were
also taken from the east wall at the entrance
to the D.S.H.S. building adjacent to the main
entrance, toward traffic on 84th Avenue South.
These readings fluctuated between 65 and 84 dBAs,
with distance to the center line of the street
being approximately 45 feet. Using the same
formula, the street produced 1.45 average,
which would have been a violation if pro-
duced by an -industrial plant. Since noise
performance standards have a different
criteria of computation, 86 dBAs are allowed
by any one vehicle on a public street, the
noise level was much higher at the entrance
from street traffic than either industrial
business surrounding the D.S .H.S . "
A copy of a"Noise Study Report for the Pro-
posed Recycling Facility Addition, Northwest
Steel Rolling Mills, Inc. , Kent, Washington, "
prepared by Jan H. Hauge, P.E. , of Towne,
Richards & Chaudiere, Inc. , Consultants in
Sound and Vibration, was distributed to the
Council with a copy for the official record.
Curran noted that if the noise level exceeds
the standards set by Y,the City, Count or State,
Y
because of the additional use, then Northwest
Steel will have to comply with the standards
by adding additional buffering, such as build-
ings constructed between the highway and the
operating units.
.............
CONDITIONAL Regarding the reduction in the number of
USE PERMIT employees at the DSHS facility, he contended
APPEAL that this was not pertinent to the issue
since nothing in the Code criteria or stan-
dards requires the Council to consider such .
a factor.
Referring again to the problem of traffic
congestion, Curran noted that the subject
had already been dealt with generally but
pointed out that the highway had been improved
from a two-lane highway to a five-lane high-
way between the Valley Freeway and S . 212th
several years ago and suggested this was not
done to accommodate residential sites but for
the vast area zoned for industrial usage on
both sides of the East Valley Highway. He
maintained the matter of increased traffic
should not be a basis for denying the permit.
Curran further noted that the petitions raise
the issue of a burden on the City to monitor
the proposed use. He suggested that this was
not a criteria to be considered according to
the Zoning Code and that it is the responsibility
of the City to monitor the conditions listed.
Referring again to the statement on the peti-
tions regarding depreciation of property values,
he contended that no justification existed for
this statement since property values have been
steadily increasing in the Valley area.
In response to the letters which were read,
and particularly Mr. Carpinito ' s letter regard-
ing the Sternoff operation, Curran contended
that the Council had been shown by the pictures
presented that the Northwest Steel Rolling Mill
operation is an entirely different type opera-
tion; and further, that the other issues raised
in the letters had already been discussed.
In response to references being made that the
property was zoned for Northwest Steel Rolling
Mills, Curran pointed out that this operation
was part of the Comprehensive Zoning process
in 1973 and any objections should have been
presented at that time. In reference to Mr.
Lewis ' comments regarding zoning regulations
Curran noted that he had examined the EIS, the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code and
was of the opinion that his clients ' operation
is in accord with all of those documents. He
also pointed out that the Zoning Code refers
to other uses in the Zone and noted that all
of the people who objected are not in the same
Zoning Code area--some of them are in M-2 , zoned
areas, some in MR-M areas, and some in CM areas,
all established in 1973 by the Zoning Code.
Referring to the problem of air pollution from _
smoke, Harris read from the Final EIS the letter
from the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
as follows:
"We have reviewed the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the Northwest Steel
Rolling Mills proposed fragmentizer facility
and I am responding to your invitation to
submit comments. ` Thd 'comments submitted are
related to the' air (Jin l_i ty aspects of the
project and the staL.,meat.
C'OiiDIT TONAL "Short-term impacts will be caused by new
IjSE PERi11IT construction and the emission of construction
APPEAL dust which can be mitigated by wetting as
needed. Long-term impacts due to motor
vehicles will ease with progressive increase
in the standards and controls on vehicles in
compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle
control program. A long-term impact might
be created due to an increase of fugitive
emissions from the handling of junk auto
bodies unless properly controlled.
"The discussion on air quality on page
seven (7) of the EIS states that 'Data derived
from this monitoring reveals that the air
quality is within the primary standards with
the exception of photochemical oxidants and
carbon dioxide. ' The author was probably
referring
in to carbon monoxide. Although h it
is true that the air quality is within the
primary standards , the general Kent area has
been designated by EPA as a 'non-attainment
area, ' because the secondary standards for
total suspended particulate have been exceeded.
Although Northwest Steel Rolling Mills is just
outside of the non-attainment area, they are
close enough to that zone to have an impact
on the designated non-attainment area. "
Curran contended that the Puget Sound Air
Pollution Control Agency did not appear to.
raise questions with regard to the smoke issue
that have been referred to by persons at this
hea
ring.. He suggest
ed that it was the respon-
sibility of that Agency to monitor such condi-
tions.
Curran concluded by asking that the Council
sustain the Planning Commission and uphold
their decision to grant the permit with condi-
tions.
Gary Andrews suggested that there seemed to
be a conflict in opinion on many of the issues
raised and pointed out that the main issue
was not between Robison Investment Company
and Northwest Steel Rolling Mills, but rather
the fact tha
t residents of
the area were ask-
ing for Council support in their request for
denial of the permit.
Mrs . Tonelli responded further to Curran' s
statements regarding the petitions and the
fact that some of the persons signing the
petitions did not reside in the Kent area
by noting that some of the persons signing
were employed by the DSHS . She pointed out,
however, that she also had contacted people
on the East Valley Highway and to the north
who wished to sign the petition. Referring
to the smoke and continual noise produced
-- by the Northwest Steel operation, she also
stated that Mr. Harris had advised that the
City does not have the manpower to control
the smoke and noise pollution and suggested
that interested citizens were merely attempt-
ing to seek a solution to a problem which
already exists and which would be increased
if the permit were. granted.
........ ..
I
294
cOiNIAa:LTI01i AL Mr. Purdy concurred and questioned whether the
USi PERMITnoise level readings which were taken were
ht'1L
, ,, done during peak periods of operation. Mayor
APPEAL
Hogan also questioned whether a 24-hour reading
had been taken on the site and Mr. Hauge noted
that the monitoring was done by his firm over
a one-hour period after they had determined
that the noisiest operating condition existed
when the processing operation was going through
the furnace. He noted that this was a 2-hour
operation, which occurs repeatedly during both
daytime and nighttime hours, and that most j
of the noise occurs during the first hour
of the operation. He pointed out further -"
that the monitoring was done during that
one-hour period in each of the various loca-
tions, including the residential areas, and
it had been found that the operation was in
compliance with the City, County and State
Noise Ordinances . He suggested that the
reason the noise may seem worse at night was
possibly because the traffic no
from 5R167
and the East Valley Highway was less, since
during the day the traffic tended to mask the
noise coming from the Northwest Steel Rolling
Mill operation and when the traffic was less
the noise became more audible. Hauge also
noted for Mayor Hogan that while there had
never been a 24-hour reading, it was not
expected that the noisiest part of the opera-
tion, already tested, would continue to be
conducted during nighttime hours . He suggested
that what people were objecting to was the
operation that was already there, and that
this operation had been found to be in compli-
ance with the Noise Ordinance.
Mr. Ellis stated that one of his main concerns
was with regard to air pollution, which results
mainly from the operation conducted during the
nighttime hours, and questioned how an accurate
measurement of this type of pollution could be
obtained, when the measurement was taken during
the day. It was determined for Mayor Hogan that
a 24-hour reading of the air pollution resulting
from the operation had .not been made either, but
the contention was made that the operation was
monitored on a constant basis and air pollution
was no greater during the day than at night.
Further questions were raised by the audience
as to how much greater the noise would be by
the addition of the new equipment and how an
accurate reading could be obtained in a 1-hour
period. Mr. Lehn responded by noting that
the noise levels at this time were slightly
under that allowed by the Kent Noise Ordinance
and that these calculations were based on the
addition of the shredder; therefore, the noise .
level could not increase very much. He
pointed out that this was the reason for
retaining the noise consultants so such
determinations could be made before installa-
tion of the new shredder. He also referred
to several possible solutions for lessening
the noise created and noted that Northwest
Steel was studying these alternate methods
at the present time. He also pointed out
that operating standards and technology were
much different now than they were at the time
Northwest Steel becj .n .its operation several
years ago.
CO.�gj):C1PIO1\7AL Iry Hamilton, Planning Commissioner, pointed
U:3L i „ out that it would be well to keep in mind the
U.,3E ,,' '1�T fact that Northwest Steel Rolling Mill is at
APP
the location and is operating--the only differ-
ence is that they are asking for a permit to
allow them to get their scrap metal in a new
manner, which is the question to be considered..
He commented that they would still be operating
even if the permit is denied and that the only
thing to be considered was the matter of con-
trolling the noise produced.
Mr. Lewis qu _�stioned why the permit was needed
if the operation is located in a properly zoned
area. Harris responded by noting that under
any Zoning Code there are operations that are
of .such a nature, scope, bulk or size that
rather than have the Planning Department or
Building Department issue administrative permits
it is preferable for a public hearing to be held.
In this way all of the issues associated with
such an operation can be heard by the Planning
Commission and/or the Council. He noted that
Northwest Steel Rolling Mills is termed a
"heavy-type industry and basically takes a
raw product--in this case scrap metal-- and
turns it into a semi-finished product. Appli-
cation for the Conditional Use Permit is for
the purpose of mitigating any problems which
come out of public hearings that are held.
He reviewed the action to this time, which
has been as follows: the Planning Commission
held a proper hearing, received input both
for and against the application, and at the
end of their hearing granted the permit with
eleven conditions. He noted that the mair,
conditions to granting of the permit were fc.r
the benefit of nearby residents--that the
-- noise level could not exceed those limits
contained in the Noise Ordinance of the City
of Kent, and also the matter of landscaping.
Further discussion was held regarding the
possible increase in noise levels resulting
from the expanded operation. Harris clarified.
that the State Legislature adopted the stand-
ards on noise levels and the City cannot make
any changes in its own Noise ordinance to these
State-set standards.
In response to McCaughan ' s question, Harris noted
that the Conditional Use Permit requested could
not have been granted without a public hearing
since the Council had determined some time ago
that any operation of the scale, scope and bulk
such as that of Northwest Steel Rolling Mills
should be reviewed by the Planning Commission,
and this was a part of the Zoning Code.
There were no further comments and CAR`EY MOVED
that the hearing to consider the Final Environ-
mental Impact Statement be continued to July 17,
1978, Masters seconded. Mayor Hogan noted that
a great amount of evidence had been presented
at this hearing, both for and against the granting
of the permit, and that the continued hearing
should be restricted to a review of the Final
EIS . Motion carried.
Refund of Filing Fee. The Planning Department
has requested that the filing fee of $75 .00
paid by Lowell and Jewel Hall at the time of
filing an application for a Variance be refunded,
. ...........
296
since the a3i-a ncis been withdrawn and
no staff work was done on the application.
CAREY MOVED that the refund to the Halls be
authorized, Masters seconded. Motion carried.
Segregation Request - LID 260. A segregation
request was received from the attorney for Mr.
and Mrs. Bisyak for the segregation of Assess
ment No. 74, LID 260. All fees have beezgaid.
13. JOHNSON MOVED that the segregation request
of Mr. and Mrs . Bisyak for a segregation of
Assessment No. 74 of LID 260 be approved and
the City Attorney di_re�:-t:ed to draft the neces-
sary resolution, Carey seconded. Motion carried. . �
i
KITTO MOVED that the bills received through
July 3, 1978 and approved by the Finance Com-
mittee at its meeting July 14, 1978 be paid,
McCaughan seconded. Motion carried.
Claims approved by the Finance Committee at
its meeting of June 30, 1978, are as follows:
Current Expense $ 10, 049. 34
Mayor 41. 95
Administrator 179.04
Non-Departmental 39, 764. 52
City Attorney 1,444.03
Planning 430. 74
Police 24, 263 .70
Fire 17, 120.08
Engineering 439.83
Finance 4, 949. 00
Civil Service 853. 26
Parks & Recreation 11, 774.86
Library 81, 025. 92
City Streets 7, 742.89
Alcoholic Rehabilitation 1,079. 98
Kent Commons Oper. Fund 670.45
Federal Shared Revenue 458.93
Russell Rd, Ph. II $ 31, 291. 20
Kent Commons, Ph. II 1, 762.83
78 Acquisition & Const. 39. 37
78 Street Construction 108. 26
Linda Heights Sewer 1, 122.00
Kent/Des Moines Sewer 4, 243.00
Kent Springs Chlorination 6, 121. 23
West Hill Booster Pump 936.38
116th Ave. Trans. Main 35 .00
124th/W.D. 111 Reser. 3, 117.40
Equipment Rental 34, 394.06
Housing & Comm. Devlpmnt 6, 186. 26
Arts Commission 243. 21
Firemen' s Relief & Pension 33 .45
LEFF Disability 4, 320.98
Sewer Fund 34, 689.08
Water Fund 21, 023. 71
Garbage Fund 576._12
$372, 53t2,`06
MELTING ADJOURNED: 10,:40 o ' clock p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Uett.�y Gray
Depu Ly City Clerk