HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 04/07/1980 Kent, Washington
April 7, 1.960
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called t(,.) order at
8: 00 o ' clock p.m. by Mayor Hogan. Present: Counci1perso..Ys Bailel-k
Carey, B. Johnson, J. Johnson, Masters, McCaughan and aliooi-te.y, City
Administrator Cushing, City Attorney Mirk, Planning Direc',:.()r Harris ,
Public Works Director Wickstrom, and Finance Director McCarth?.
Also present: Fire Chief Foster, Administrative Assistant W :abyj
Parks Director Wilson, Planning Commissioners Baer, Brooks and
Hamilton, and URS representative Abed. Approximately 40 peop-
were in attendance at the meeting.
PERSONNEL Public Works Director. Councilperson Mooney, a
Chairman of the Public Works Committee, rioted th .t
Don Wickstrom had been named Public Works Direr°':.j .
for the City of Kent and extended congratulat..:ions
to Wickstrom upon behalf of the Council.
CONSENT B. JOHNSON MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A
CALENDAR through S, with the exception of Item H, he
approved, McCaughan seconded. Motion carried_"
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5A)
Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of
the regular meeting of March 17, 1980.
HEALTH & (CONSENT. CALENDAR ITEM 5J)
SANITATION Bill of Sale - Poplar Development KVIP_Lo 15
Sewer Extension. ACCEPTANCE of the Bill of Sale
and Warranty Agreement for approximately 33 feet
of sanitary sewer extension constructed .=.n the
vicinity of North 6th Avenue and South 228th
Street for continuous operation and maintsenance
and RELEASE of the cash bond after expiration
of the guarantee period and payment of any out--
standing bills against the project, as recommended
by the Engineering Department„
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5M)
Bill 'of Sale - Hill ' s East Valley Short Plat #2
Utility* Extension. ACCEPTANCE of the Bill of
Sale and Warranty Agreement for approximately
345 feet of water main extension and approximately
446 feet of sanitary sewer extension constructed
in the vicinity of S. 190th Street and East Valley
- 1 -
April 7, 1980
HEALTH & Highway for continuous operation and maintenance
SANITATION and RELEASE of the cash bond after expiration of
the guarantee period and payment of any outstand-
ing bills against the project.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5N)
Downtown Sewer Replacement Change Order. APPROVAL
of the change order as requested by King Construc-
tion Co. for $41, 938.00 for additional work associa-
ted with making the drop connection on Naden Avenue
and West Meeker Street and with the work oti State
Street. When making the drop connection on Naden
and Meeker to the Auburn Interceptor, the stub was
not located as indicated on the as-built plans,
and it was necessary for the contractor to go
quite a bit deeper to complete the connection.
In addition, when placing the sewer line on State
Street a telephone duct was located at the same
site as the intended location of the new sewer
lines . The Public Works Committee has recommended
approval of the change order requested.
WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5L)
East Hill Well Change Order. APPROVAL of the change
order request as submitted by Burt Well Drilling
Co. in the amount of $6, 078.00. Due to the law
suit over this well, the contractor was asked to
leave the site and then to return once the problems
were resolved. The change order requested reflects
the costs involved as well as a change in unit
prices for drilling. The Public Works Committee
has reviewed this change order and has recommended
approval.
Bids - East Hill Well Control Building. Six bids
were received on March 20, 1980 for this project.
Wickstrom noted that awarding of the bid would be
held until it was determined how much water was
available, since the bids were subject to a 120 day
holding period. Mooney reported that water had
been reached at 250 feet and that the well looked
promising at this time.
Valley View Christian Church Request for Water
District ill Water Connection. Receipt was noted
- 2 -
April 7, 1980
WATER of a letter from Valley View Christian Church
requesting a hearing concerning a variance to
connect to Water District 111 facilities for
their new church located on the corner of S.E.
256th and 124th S.E. CAREY MOVED to accept
the letter and refer it to the Public Works
Committee, B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried.
STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5K)
LID 288 EVH Street Improvement (S. 212th_to
S . 192nd) Change Order. APPROVAL of the change
order request of Scarsella Bros. for $17, 345.O0
for additional work associated with the follow-
ing:
1) Having to excavate deeper than anticipated
to install telephone ducts
2) Raising the fence for Boeing
3) Designing necessary changes in the field and
changing from corrugated metal pipe to ductile
iron due to these design changes.
The Public Works Committee has reviewed the change
order request and has recommended approval of the
same.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5P)
Kent/Renton Joint Street Improvement Project
(S 180th/SW 43rdl_. The Urban Arterial Board
has given Renton an extension until April 7, 1980
to come up with a firm financial package and con-
struction schedule for this project. The origi-
nal design of the project included an underpass
for the railroad crossing. Two alternatives were
presented in a recent meeting with Renton. Alter-
nate two consisted of a five-lane facility from
West Valley Highway to East Valley Highway with
a four-lane facility of a temporary nature and
on-grade crossings in the area where the underpass
would be, with right-of-way acquisition for under-
pass construction later. This alternate would
cost approximately $4, 600, 000. The third alternate,
at a cost of $3, 200, 000, consisted of a five-lane
facility with no sidewalks and a four-lane facility
3 -
April 7, 1980
STREETS and an on-grade crossing. In response to Masters '
question, Wickstrom clarified that the reference
to a temporary on-grade crossing meant that funds
were not available to construct the underpass at
this time; however, between the cities of Renton
and Kent and UAB, there would be sufficient funds
to acquire the necessary rights-of-way for the
underpass. He noted that it could be a long time
before the underpass could be constructed. He
clarified that this would be an on-grade crossing
facility with four lanes, but since it would b,-,
of a temporary nature, there would be no curbs
and gutters. He also clarified that the costs
for the underpass amount to about $2, 500, 000.
In response to B. Johnson ' s question, Wickstrom
noted that the crossing would be up to standards
with cross-arms. He stated for Mayor Hogan that
UAB wants a construction schedule for the project
and that they had extended the deadline to April 7
for a response. Therefore, the alternate was
proposed at this time in order to meet the time
schedule. In accordance with the recommendations
of the Public Works Committee, after review of
the three alternates, AUTHORIZATION is given to
Alternate Two.
STREET (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5Q)
VACATION Vacation of Portion of S. 238th. ADOPTION of
Ordinance No. 2217 authorizing the vacation of
a portion of S. 238th Street as approved at the
March 17, 1980 Council meeting.
RAILROAD (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 50)
CROSSINGS 84th Avenue S. Burlington-Northern Railroad
Crossing. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign
the Railroad/City Agreement as recommended by
the Public Works Committee covering a franchise
absorbing the City 's share of the cost for the
track work and rebuilding at the subject cross-
ing. The Public Works Director has received a
letter from Burlington-Northern to this effect.
80th Avenue Burlington-Northern Railroad Cross-
ing. As discussed at the last Public Woks
4 -
April 7, 1980
RAILROAD Committee meeting of March 19, 1980 it was
CROSSINGS noted that Burlington-Northern, in conjunction
with the development of Norpac II, extra nded
80th Avenue S. across an existing rail.°o,33d
spur. The spur was constructed per the Harold
Hill crossing of 84th Avenue S. and 80th .Place
S. ; however, no permit was sought for the
deeded right-of-way of 80th Avenue S. it is
therefore recommended that a franchise permit
be granted to Burlington-Northern for the
80th Avenue S. railroad crossing for which
Burlington-Northern is presently seeking WUTC
permission to construct. B. JOHNSON MOVED
that the City Attorney be directed to prepare
the franchise ordinance for the Burlington-
Northern 80th Avenue S . Railroad Crossing. ,,
Mooney seconded. Motion carried.
DRAINAGE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5P)
UTILITY Formation of Drainage Utility. The concept of
a Drainage Utility has been presented to the
Council at a workshop meeting. The functions
of the Utility would be to better manage storm
water and resolve problems associated there-
with. Implementation is estimated to require
approximately nine months and associated costs
are estimated to be approximately $60, 000.
AUTHORIZATION is given for the Public Works
Department to proceed with the work involved
in formation of the Drainage Utility, with
formation costs to be paid via a loan through
the unencumbered balance of the Sewer Division.
FIRE (ITEM 5H REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR)
DEPARTMENT Open Burning. Chief Foster referred to the pro-
posed Resolution before the Council this date
with regard to open burning. He clarified that
it was his intent that such open burning, under
the conditions specified in the Resolution, be
allowed in the month of May in 1980 and in the
month of April in 1981. MASTERS MOVED to adopt
Resolution No. 890, as clarified by Chief Foster.
A public hearing was conducted on this matter
on March 17, 1980 and Resolution No. 720 is
hereby rescinded.
- 5 -
April. 7 , 1980
PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5G)
RECREATION Commons Playfield Change Order Request. APPROVAL
of Change Order No. 1 as recommended by the Parks
Department, increasing the contract by v, 6C5.O0
to provide two additional softball backstc,t:.,s
equal to four (4) each backstops included in the
original contract sum and including a time exten-
sion of 32 days to June 1, 1980.
KENT (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5E)
VALLEY St. Anthony's 4th Annual Kent Valley Festival.
FESTIVAL APPROVAL of the request of St. Anthony's Catholic
Church that Titus Street from 2nd Avenue to 3rd
Avenue be closed from 6: 00 o 'clock p.m. Wednesday,
June 11, 1980 until 3:00 o ' clock p.m. 'Tuesday,
June 17, 1980, and for clearance of the parish
parking lot north of the Church from 6: 09 o ' clock
p.m. Wednesday, June 11, 1980 until 7:00 o ' clock
a.m. Tuesday, June 17, 1980 to allow the carnival
to set up, operate and dismantle. St. Anthony' s
Catholic Church will hold their annual Kent galley
Festival on June 13, 14 and 15, 1980 on the parish
property and the request is in accordance with
similar request approved in past years . The
Traffic, Street and Police Departments have been
notified and have voiced no objections.
ANIMAL (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5R)
CONTROL Animal Control. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to
renew the agreement with King County for Animal
Control Services .
PLANNING (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5D)
COMMISSION Appointment. CONFIRMATION of the Mayor ' s appoint-
ment of Terrence Burns to the Planning Commission
to fill the unexpired term of Darrell Phillipson,
expiration of the term being January, 1981. The
Mayor introduced Mr. Burns, who was in attendance
at the meeting, to the Council.
LIBRARY Appointment. The Mayor recommended that Helen
BOARD Selig, who has served approximately three years
as a member of the Kent Library Board, be reap-
pointed for an additional five year term.
6 -
April 7, 1980
LIBRARY MOONEY MOVED to confirm the Mayor ' s reappointment
BOARD of Helen Selig, Bailey seconded. Motion carried.
APPEALS Equip Rent Conditional Use Permit. R. Sandwick,
attorney for Corvi Construction, has file?, an
appeal relating to the Hearing Examiner ' s deci-
sion granting a Conditional Use Permit to Equip
Rent to operate a facility for the rental of
construction equipment on a site of approximately
(EQUIP RENT) one quarter acre. The approval was given subject
to six conditions as outlined in the Hearing
Examiner ' s Findings, distributed to the Council
on March 10, 1980. B. JOHNSON MOVED that the
matter be considered by the Council. at the
April 21, 1980 meeting, Carey seconded. Motion
carried.
Pay N Pak Sign Variance. It was noted that Mr.
R. Koler, attorney for Pay N Pak, had written
to the Council requesting consideration of their
appeal relating to the Sign Variance application
denied by the Hearing Examiner. Mirk noted that
he had written Koler on February 28 stating he
had directed the City Clerk not to put the matter
on the Council agenda. He referred to telephone
conversations held with Mr. Koler and his under-
standing of the prior agreement as set forth in
the letter--that Pay N Pak had agreed to be
(PAY N PAK) bound by the decision of the Hearing Examiner.
Mr. Rives of Koler ' s office noted that the matter
had been handled by Koler for much or the time..
He referred specifically to the background of
the case, noting that their client, Pay N Pak,
had requested a sign variance which had been
denied by the Board of Adjustment, and then
appealed to the King County Superior Court.
It was then decided to withdraw the case from
the Courts and since their client thought there
was additional information available, it was
determined that the matter should go back to
the Board of Adjustment. Mirk noted that at
this time Rives had stated in a letter that
Pay N Pak was prepared to abide by the Board
of Adjustment ' s decision after rehearing the
7 -
April ?, 1,980
APPEALS matter. In the interim, the process was removed
from the hands of the Board of Adjustment and
the City implemented the Hearing Examiner process
under which system the matter went to the Hearing
Examiner. Rives suggested that when the matter
was removed from the Court system they were not
aware of the change in the City ' s system. He
added that it was their intent to keep the matter
at a City level and that it made more sense for
the matter to be heard before the City Council.
Mirk clarified that the Council did in fact have
the right to consider an appeal from the Hearing
Examiner ' s decision. He also noted that the
matter could not be considered at this meeting
as notices were required. He also clarified
for Carey that only those items which were part
of the Hearing Examiner ' s records could be con-
(PAY N PAR) sidered by the Council--that no new material
could be introduced.
Bailey noted he was a stockholder in the Pay N
Pak Corporation and Mirk concurred that he would
have to disqualify himself.
Mooney questioned whether the applicant felt that
the Hearing Examiner had erred in judgment. Mr.
Koler noted that he had prepared a statement which
was sent to the Council on March 24. CAREY MOVED
that the appeal be heard April 21 to review the
matters of record. B. Johnson seconded. Mirk
clarified that the applicant could address the
record but that no new testimony would be taken,
that new testimony could be given only if remanded
to the Hearing Examiner. Koler noted for Mayor
Hogan that they understood what was to be heard
before the Council. Motion carried.
REZONE VETO Veto of Ordinance No 2215, Arrow Development Rezone.
Ordinance No. 2215 approving the Arrow Development
rezone was passed on March 17, 1980 and was vetoed
(ARROW by Mayor Hogan on March 19, 1980. McCAUGHAN MOVED
DEVELOPMENT) that the veto message be accepted as part of the
record, B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried.
McCAUGHAN MOVED to override the Mayor' s veto and --
8 -
Aprii 7, 19,10
REZONE approve Ordinance No. 2215, the Arrow Development
VETO rezone ordinance. Mooney seconded. Mayor Hogan
stated that she wished to comment with regard to
the action on her part and noted that under-
stood the Council ' s commitment to developers of
the area. She further noted that as a result of
the IPP Studies information had been received
about concerns over development in that area.
She suggested that the City should consider some
of the concerns that were taken from the Studies
relating to residential development in the Valley
and read the following statement from the Land
Use Study:
"Through ' implied commitment' to development,
the study area has come to be considered as an
industrial land reserve; however, the RA (resi-
dential-agricultural) and MA (manufacturing-
agricultural) zoned lands and the 1.50 acres
(ARROW conditionally rezoned M-1 in 1979 have special
DEVELOPMENT) characteristics which distinguish them from
other areas in the valley, such as :
"l. High-quality soils that could still be
utilized for agricultural uses until
there is a clear need for converting them
to urban uses.
2. A critical role in the Green River Valley
natural systems storage of storm-water that
presently has no alternative outlet; and,
provision of vital wildlife habitat.
3. A major contribution to the present visual
integrity of most of the open valley land,
as yet undivided by highways, rail lines or
other major interruptions of its pastoral
quality.
"The City has major discretion over the nature of
development still to occur. The legislative act of
rezoning the land from RA and MA zones will be
significant. When it occurs, the City will be
saying that the time has arrived when urban develop-
ment should occur and that alternative interim uses
of the lands--agriculture, low-density residence,
_ 9 _
April 7, 1980
REZONE etc. , should therefore be displaced. In order
VETO to obtain the higher Public Value and Benefit that
goes with such a determination, the new replace-
ment uses should have three basic qualities}:
111. Fiscal feasibility in a cost/benefit sense
2. Environmental quality
3. Aesthetic quality
"That is, the rezoning should be tied to some assur-
ance that the general taxpaying residents of the
City will not incur development-related costs unless
they are largely offset by tax and fee revenues.
The development should also be of a high quality
to offset the loss of prime agricultural land and
open space which residents have enjoyed heretofore.
"Those parts of the valley now zoned RA and MA differ
from any other lands in Kent. Though shown on the
Valley Development Plan as suitable for eventual urban
development, actual reclassification of the RA and
MA zones to urban residential or industrial zones
(ARROW is not intended to be automatic. Such reclassifica-
DEVELOPMENT) tions require clear assurances that utilities, major
streets and other facilities can be economically
provided ' so that compact orderly development will
occur. ' One Key Measure the City must observe is
to avoid overzoning - zoning much more valley land
for urban development than is needed at a given time.
One condition of rezoning for urban densities should
include an indication that timing of development
is imminent and that proposed rezoning is not
merely speculative. High standards of development
may slow the rate of growth in the Kent area; however,
slowing of the pace of development may be offset by
a long-term benefit to the City of Kent. "
She concluded by noting that it was interesting to
learn that the Planning Department had made a survey
of vacancies in multi-family units in the area and
that the rate was presently 10/0. She noted that the
rate was high and questioned the necessity for addi-
tional development of that type in the area.
Bailey noted that he had read the Mayor ' s veto
10 -
April 7, 1980
REZONE message with great interest and had also referred
VETO to the Studies. He expressed concurrence with
the Mayor 's concerns but noted that his decision
was based on the fact that the City has e;:.aicouraged
certain types of development in the area, not neces-
sarily this Council, but over the past ten yea*s,
and that many people had spent a great deal of
time and money in plans and development for their
particular interests . He suggested that the only
alternative at this time was to go for a "no
growth" pattern of development. He notad, 1iowever,
that Arrow Development has agreed to abide by the
standards set forth in the IPP Studies.
Mayor Hogan noted that she was concerned that the
Studies may show that the City may wish to withdraw
from their commitment as to development. She
(ARROW pointed out that considerable problems have sur&Lced
DEVELOPMENT) since the IPP Studies began, and suggested that a
hard look should be taken at the matter at this
time. She referred to some of the conditions that
had come out of the IPP Studies and noted that one
part of the document states that about 900/. of the
future housing development could occur on the Valley
Floor. She noted that the Mueller Group ' s plans
were to cover a period of eight years but pointed
out that with the number of units that were being
allowed by the rezone the development could be
stretched out over a period of 18 years. She
clarified for McCaughan that she had been quoting
from the Land Use Study, which Study Harris noted
would be distributed to the Council at this meet-
ing. McCaughan questioned Item 2 of the Mayor 's
veto message and asked if it was true that building
permits were being issued with a warning that the
City may not have an adequate supply of water.
Wickstrom clarified that this was true and McCaughan
stated he had not known that. Masters noted that
she was also concerned with a number of the items
that the Mayor referred to but questioned why the
Mayor was quoting from a study which had not been
formally adopted by the Council and which was in
fact narrow in scope. The Mayor noted that the
Studies had been the subject of a series of meetings
- 11 -
April 7, 1980
REZONE with the consultants and that drafts had been
VETO issued. Motion carried.
VACATION Kent Estates Plat Vacation Request. The Clerk
OF PLAT noted receipt of a request from the Mueller Group
requesting vacation of the Kent Estates Plat and
all streets contained therein. MASTERS MOVED to
accept the petition and refer it to the appropriate
departments for handling, McCaughan seconded.
Motion carried.
PRELIMINARY (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5C)
PLATS Woodrid Estates Preliminary Plat. APPROVAL of
ge
the request for a one-year time extension for com-
(WOODRIDGE pletion of this Preliminary Plat until April 16,
ESTATES) 1981. The Council may grant extensions for up
to one year.
Maple Wylde Preliminary Plat. The deadline for
recording this plat was January 22, 1980. A
request for a one-year extension has been received,
which request the Council may grant. Harris sub-
mitted a memo setting forth the background and a
(MAPLE memo from the City Attorney clarifying that under
WYLDE) the terms of the Zoning Code the Council has the
authority to grant the extension.
CAREYn to MOVED
thatthe request for a one year
com-
plete the Maple Wylde Preliminary Plat be granted,
B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried.
Foster Preliminary Plat. On March 17, 1980 the
public hearing was concluded on this Preliminary
Plat. The Plat was approved with the following
conditions:
(FOSTER)
1) Drainage Plan. Construct an adequate storm
drainage system. Submit to the Engineering
Department for review and approval a detailed
drainage plan showing how surface water will
be received, handled, and transported within
the property. The drainage system shall meet
the requirements of the City of Kent Drainage
Code. Construct interim drainage and erosion
control measures . Provide detailed plan of
12 -
April 7, 1980
PRELIMINARY same to Engineering Department for review
PLATS and approval..
2) Sanitary Sewers. Construct gravity sanitary
sewer service to all lots . Submit detailed
sewer plans to the Engineering Department for
review and approval.
3) Water System. Provide City water service to
lots. Loop through the Plat with a 10" water
main tying in the existing main on W. Willis
Street to the existing main on S . 259th Street.
Submit detailed water plan to Engineering Depart-
ment for review and approval.
4) Street Improvement and Requirements. Improve
74th Avenue to a paved width of 36th feet with
asphalt concrete pavement, cemen4-: concrete
curb and gutter, and cement concrete sidewalk
(FOSTER) (one side) , and street lights from S. 259th
Street to north limit of plat. Improve
north half of 259th Street with 18 feet of
asphalt concrete pavement as measured from
the.,center line of the existing pavement, con-
crete curb and gutter, cement concrete sidewalk
and street lighting. Dedicate to City for street
purposes 50 foot radius at northeast corner of
74th Avenue and S . 259th Street.
5) The street access to the plat from the north
side will be only from SR 516, with right turns
only for ingress and egress. The railroad
crossing of old Willis Street is to be closed.
The cost of accomplishing this condition is to
be borne by the developer of the plat.
6) Open Space. The City Council will consider a
staff recommendation for the provision of open
space for this plat at the April 7, 1980
City Council meeting.
- 13 -
April 7, 1980
PRELIMINARY Mayor Hogan noted the public hearing had been con-
PLATS cluded at the last Council meeting and that the
only item under consideration now was the question
of open space. She noted that a recr.xmoF s,;,:Dtion in
this respect had been sent to the Cou.�zc.L_1 as well
as the response from Mr. Chapin, �.ttorney for the
applicant. MASTERS MOVED to make the letter from
Mr. Chapin dated April 2, 1980 part of the record,
McCaughan seconded. Motion carried. It was deter-
mined for Mirk that the Council had received a
copy of the Mayor ' s letter dated April 1, 1980.
The Mayor also noted receipt of a packet from George
Kropinski, President of Qestar Development Corpora-
tion, dated April 3, 1980 regarding the Foster Pre-
liminary Plat, "Rainier Industrial Park. " The
packet included a copy of the letter frorn the
Qestar Corporation presented to the Council. ca
October 15, 1979 setting forth their intent as
to the remaining unplatted area of the Plat by
the river as well as the storm water and deten-
tion system. The April 3 packet was deliverer:.
only to the Mayor, B. Wilson, J. Harris and D. Mirk.
(FOSTER) B. JOHNSON MOVED to accept the material from MU:.
Kropinski, Masters seconded. Motion carried.
Referring to Chapin 's letter of April 2, 1.980
McCaughan noted Chapin' s question of the City' s
legal right to require open space. Mirk quoted
from RCW 58. 17. 110 which covers approval or dis-
approval of subdivision dedications and clarified
that the State law says that items such as open
space shall be considered by the Council and that
a specific ordinance is not required. He noted
that the Subdivision Code refers specifically to
this section of the RCW and its application and
that after consideration is given to open space,
it may be determined that it may not be required.
Mirk clarified that Tract A and the lot west of
Lot 1 are part of the plat.
Cushing noted that a presentation had been put
together by staff and Parks Director Wilson,
using visual aids, pointed out the location
- 14 -
April 7, 1980
PRELIMINARY of the proposed plat consisting.of 19 buildih4'
PLATS lots. . Refering to lot 1 (the area shown on this`
preliminary plat map as a storm detention basin)
he noted that it' contained 2.6 acres. Is{gin
commented on the adverse impacts and the jiic.reased
demands which such developments place on the Police
and Fire Departments. He suggested that the City
should be giving more consideration to the impact
on these Departments when allowing development, not
only industrial but residential as -well.
Wilson referred to sections in the Final Environ-
mental Impact Statement and noted that it addressed
existing recreation easements, including the Green
River. shoreline He stated that the EIS Etlso
referred to possible- future recreation uses in
the area, such as fishing and hiking. Referring
specifically to the Shoreline rigbt-of- o ay he
noted that the developers had stated that it
would remain .untouched at this time but that a
Shoreline Permit may be applied -for -in the future.
He noted that the EIS also makes reference to the
fact that the development will remave an informal
(FOSTER) play area for neighborhoodchildren and commented
on the fact that much opposition and concern has
been expressed by residents of the area concerning
the proposed development and its effects on the
quality of life. . Wilson- suggested- that more con-
sideration should be given to- these factors when
considering the question of -openispace. He referred
to the different types of zoning ins-the Valley
area, and the impact on open ,space resulting from
each type of zoning. - Masters . questioned whether
any comparison had been made as to' the percentage
of tax base derived from industrial and commercial
businesses that was going into the Parks and
Recreation system.
Referring specifically to Lot l of the Foster Pre-
liminary Plat,, _wilson noted that this was origi-
nally designated as the site for the holding pond
for surface water detention. Chapin clarified
that his client was not committed to -put the deten-
tion pond on Lot 1, that this was only an indication
15 -
April '7, 1980
PRELIMINARY of where it could be placed. He stated that his
PLATS client had no intention of using Lot 1 for the
detention facility. Harris clarified for Bailey
and Mayor Hogan that it was the Planning Depart-
ment's understanding from the Planning Commission
hearings that Lot 1 was to be the site of the deten-
tion pond. He recalled no testimony at the Planning
Commission hearing to the contrary. Mayor: Hogan
noted that mention had been made of putting the
detention ponds along the back of the lots and
Wickstrom had stated that this might be an accept-
able alternative. Wickstrom concurred with Chapin
that all of the technical requirements are not
worked out at preliminary plat level and that the
preliminary plat is merely a basic design concept
which is reviewed. He noted that the concept of
utilizing Lot 1 was approved but that the engineer-
(FOSTER) ing plans could be changed from this design so long
as a workable system was presented. He determined
for Masters that the proposed detention area could
be larger than that provided by the utilization of
Lot 1. In response to McCaughan 's question as to
maintenance and access, Wickstrom clarified that
it was preferable to have the actual storage facility
in one specified area, even though there might be
alternates proposed.
Chapin referred to the statements in the Mayor ' s
letter that a substantial portion of the land is
within the 200 ' area which would be impacted by
the Shoreline Master Program and that the area,
therefore, offered less favorable development
possibilities than Lot 1. He suggested that the
only restrictions imposed by the Shoreline Master
Program was a 50 ' setback and that it would be
necessary to get a permit for the additional 150 '
when and if the property was developed, which
would be done in accordance with the requirements
of the Shoreline Program. In response to Mayor
Hogan 's question, Harris determined that there
was a 200 ' setback from the River but that the
applicant could legally build within the 200 '
area provided a Shoreline Permit were granted.
He noted that the granting of such a permit
- 16 -
Aj a it 7, 1980
PRELIMINARY depended on the impact of the development and the
PLATS tradeoffs that could take place. He 1pointed out that
Kent has been consistent through its Shoire! :.rc 1)ear-
ing system in obtaining recreational ea:�,.,r. ,b as
well as actual donations of usable recreat._t,:nal
land along the River. He noted that no plans had
been approved in the City of Kent allowing develop-
ment which simply lines up 50 feet bacl:r from the
River, even though this type of development had
occurred in other areas.
Masters questioned how the Council could make
determination as to whether or not six acres of
open space was appropriate or excessive and ur ea-
sonable for a development of this type and Mirk
referred to comments in the Mayor ' s letter a:Dout
the area that would be impacted by the Shoreline
Management Act. McCaughan questioned the right
of the City to ask for six acres of open space
(FOSTER) out of the total 30 acres and whether the Citv
had ever required that much in a development-, of this
type prior to this time. Wilson stated that pre-
sent National standards for a new City or new develop-
ment were calling for about 25%u op,,n space. Chapi.n
suggested that the request for 200/. or 6 acres of
open space was unreasonable and possibly illegal,
and that his client ' s proposal for 1. 2 acres was
sufficient open space. Chapin also noted that
considering the length of time this plat has been
under consideration, there had been no input from
the Parks Department until tonight.
In response to McCaughan ' s question wit't, reference
to the Green River Corridor Study, Chapir.t noted
that the area which his client suggested for dedi-
cation appeared to be the same as that set aside
by the Study and it was his conclusion that the
Council was being asked by staff to implement
a Study which has as yet not been considered for
approval by the Council. Mooney referred to
Chapin' s letter of April 2, 1980 wherein Chapin
stated his client was willing to give a triangular
shaped piece of property, as well as 50 ' along
the entire River bank and questioned whether this
17 -
April 7, 1980
PRELIMINARY included the dike or meant 50 ' in addition to
PLATS the dike. Mirk and Harris clarified, and Chapin
concurred, that the proposal was that Chapin ' s
client was willing to donate the dike (which
at some points may be 30 feet wide and in others
up to 50 feet wide) , plus an additional 50 fee;_,
plus the triangular piece of property. Mooney
referred to the dike area and Wilson' s reference
to it being used as a bike trail at this time
and suggested that the County must have received
an easement at an earlier time to place fill
material on the property. Chapin further com-
mented on the -fact that inference had been made
in the Mayor ' s letter and by Wilson 's comments
that the referenced dedication was a trade-off
for Lot 1, and stated this was not true. Bailey
commented that other developers in the area had
already agreed to bind themselves to the findings
of the Green River Corridor Studies and that it
would be implicit to development to have areas
for open space. He stated that free will dona-
(FOSTER) tions of land along the River had already been
made by some of these developers. He noted that
building along the River would be inconsistent
with the City' s overall plans for the area, and
that land should be preserved there for open
space. Chapin replied that it was not his
intent to imply that his client would not sell
the property but noted that he had seen nothing
in the Green River Corridor Study to imply that
the City would expect that all of the open space
property be donated. In response to Carey ' s ques-
tion, Mirk clarified that the plat extended to
the River and included Tract A as well as the lot
directly west of Lot 1. Harris also determined
for McCaughan that under the Shoreline Master
Program the developer would be required to work
with the City, with a hearing before the Hearing
Examiner, for a permit to build within 200 ' of
of the River. In response to McCaughan' s ques-
tion, Chapin noted that the property to be dedi-
cated abutting and along the River was approxi-
mately 600 ' long and 80 ' in width, which, when
added to the triangular piece of property,
18 -
April 7, 1980
PRELIMINARY resulted in a donation of approximately 1. 2 acres.
PLATS The Mayor commented that this was LESS the ease-
ments for Metro and for the street right-of-way,
and therefore resulted in less than one
Where was no further discussion and. Mc.CATIGk"""
MOVED that the City accept the triangular pies
(FOSTER) of property, plus the dike, plus an additi(:-anal..
fifty feet landward from the dike, as the opera
space requirement for the Foste_ Preliminary
Plat. Mooney seconded. Mayor Hogan clarifies
that the small triangle was located west of the
extension of the street that goes thr{lit:ig x i.ract
A plus the dike area plus fifty feet landwar�-1
from the dike, along the River. Motion carried,
with Bailey voting no.
PUBLIC WORKS Proposed Ordinance. The continued public hear--
IMPROVEMENTS ing on the proposed ordinance to regsaire thou',
ORDINANCE constructing buildings in the City to be respon-
sible for providing the necessary public improve-
ments is scheduled for this meeting. The Public
Works Department has prepared the Final E)aviron-
mental Impact Statement incorporating comments
received in response to the draft EIS. MASTERS
MOVED that the Final EIS be accepted as complete
and filed for the record, B. Johnson seconded.
Motion carried.
The continued public hearing was opened by the
Mayor. In response to a question from Harold hill,
Wickstrom noted that the ordinance was the-same
as that proposed earlier. It was determined than:
a copy of the responses to the letters received
in regard to the ordinance were contained in the
Final EIS, but that only those persons for-nally
responding to the draft EIS were sent a copy of
the document. Since Hill had not received a copy
of the Final EIS , he was furnished a copy by the
Council to peruse.
Jim Klauser of Seattle Master Builders Association
noted that after viewing ordinances of this type
at City, County and State levels, the ordinance
19 -
April. 1 , 1980
PUBLIC WORKS was a prime example of a "No Growth" policy.
IMPROVEMENTS He suggested that the ordinance gives the Public
ORDINANCE Works Director carte blanche to interpret the
law as he sees fit, with no general g,,:.deiines
or guidance from the Council or Mayor. He noted
that with the ordinance in effect it would be
impossible for a developer to know what was
required of him or what the costs would be to
him for a project and that the City should be
looking at ways of providing housing and the
necessary improvements adherent thereto. He
suggested the ordinance as now written prohibits
anyone from building in Kent and that the Council.
should go no further with it in its present tlil:"m.
He noted that industries in the area would be
willing to meet with the Council to go through
various items in this ordinance and discuss some
of the public improvement requirements which the
City wants, such as streets, sidewalks, street
lighting, drainage, landscaping, parks, etc. to
work out some mutual solutions. He also noted
that they had responded to the Final EIS, with
copies of their response to the Council, and
suggested that the EIS was merely a biased res-
ponse from the staff.
Norm Heutmaker expressed concurrence with Klauser ' s
statements, noting that as a small developer he
did not know what impact the ordinance would have
on his business. He suggested that this ordinance
was similar in nature to the sprinkler ordinance
which was passed before the development sector of
the public could express their concerns over this
type of legislation. In response to McCaughan 's
question, Hill noted that it was difficult to
review the EIS in such a short period of time..
He noted, however, that he still had the same con-
cerns as before. He suggested that while it was
apparent the City needed public improvements, this
was a timely matter and that no one was trying to
escape paying their fair share. He suggested that
the ordinance would result in a broken flow of
construction of these improvements, since only
those persons who developed their land after the _
- 20 -
April 7, 1980
PUBLIC WORKS adoption of the ordinance would be required to
IMPROVEMENTS make the improvements. He added that through the
ORDINANCE LID process a developer or owner would be required
to make the improvements when a certain De ,.: cant
reached, whether the property is developed .a4 not.
McCaughan noted that all of the persons gvf.=:st .o:cain.g
the ordinance seemed to be concerned with '1:1-e
vagueness of it. He questioned whether it Ta.as
possible to go into more detail. Wickstrom res-
ponded by noting that they were dealing with manj,
different situations and that it would :be impos-
sible to draft an ordinance that could address
every specific situation which might arise; thus.
the ordinance must leave some room for interpreta-
tion. He referred to the section on Criteria,
which the Public Works Director would have to
establish and meet in order to require the improve-
ments. He also noted that the only improvements
that were really involved were street-related.
He also made reference to the section on Appeal.,
providing for appeal to the Hearing Examiner and.
the Council of the whole, if necessary, and main-
tained that this established a checks and balance
system in the ordinance. He also noted that the
ordinance as drafted contains a section allowing
deferment of public improvements by requiring the
execution of LID covenants and opined that this
would solve the problem of spot improvements.
He noted that the ordinance was almost identical
to the one which Kirkland has with the exception
of the clause for deferment. He also stated that
Renton" s ordinance leaves interpretation entirely
up to the Public Works Director. . Klauser stated
for Bailey that there was no way of telling how
this ordinance would be interpreted. He suggest:c.
that there be a separate ordinance for each public
improvement since this was the only way in which
the Hearing Examiner. and. Council could operate as
a checks and balance to the Public Works Director.
In response to Carey ' s question, Mirk noted that
the same comments were being made now as were sede
before and added that the persons, who had expressed
concerns had been invited to submit specific
- 21 -
April 7, 1980
PUBLIC WORKS language to be considered for additions to the
IMPROVEMENTS ordinance but this had not been done. Mirk.
ORDINANCE stated that he could see no problem with 'he
ordinance since it provided guidelines for the
Public Works Director and provided for appeal
process, which included the counsel and gua. Lanca
of other departments in the City. He added that
it was not possible to cover every situation and
that the ordinance would probably be changed after
it was adopted. Wickstrom and Mirk clarified for
Mooney that the only communications that wer,,
received were part of the record and that no por-
sonal contacts had been made.
MOONEY MOVED that the hearing be continued to
the May 5 meeting and that the matter be referred
to the Public Works Committee for a special -.meet-
ing on April 23, 1980 at 8: 15 a.m. to work out
any problems. McCaughan seconded. It was also
determined for Mooney that the matter had been
before the Public Works Committee prior to the
time Mooney took office and that it had also
been discussed at workshop. McCaughlttn noted
that he would support the motion since serious
accusations had been made against the Council
with regard to adopting ordinances without suf-
ficient public input. He also noted that if
it was going to affect the developers as much
as they claim, it should be given more considera-
tion. J. Johnson stated that there had been
ample discussion of the proposed ordinance and
that the developers had been given adequate time
to come forward and make any input as to changes
they proposed. Masters spoke in behalf of the
motion, noting that the ordinance has now been
defined to a point where it had caught the atten-
tion of the developers and that it deserved a
fair public hearing. Motion carried, with J.
Johnson voting nay.
COUNCIL Parks Committee. Bailey reported that the Committee
COMMITTEES had requested discussion of the Senior Citizens
Center and that there were some suggestions for
enlarging and improving the existing facility.
22 -
April 7. 1980
COUNCIL Ad Hoc Committees. Hamilton noted that he had
COMMITTEES not attended the last meeting on the East B11.1
Plan and Harris noted that the hearings would
be concluded in two weeks and that a -,w,:}uld
be forthcoming as to a possible course of l.ctiorl,
Chamber of Commerce Liason. Bailey noted that.
the Chamber of Commerce was proceeding with a
County-wide meeting on April 30, 1980 regarding
the traffic situation in the Valley. It was
suggested to Mayor Hogan and the Council that
the meeting should be mentioned at other meetings
which they attend and invitations extended.
Bailey also noted that the KDA would meet on
April 10, 1980.
BUDGET (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5F)
Budget Transfers - Fourth Quarter, 1979. ,DOPrb: IC??
of Ordinance No. 2216 approving the budget trans-
fers and adjustments for the fourth quarter of
1979.
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5S)
Petty Cash Fund. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 2218
increasing the Petty Cash Fund in the Finance
Department from $100 to $400 and repealing Ordi-
nance No. 1740 .
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5B)
Approval of Bills . APPROVAL OF PAYMENT of the bills
received through April 3, 1980 after a��di�.ing by
the Finance Committee at its meeting at 3: 00 o ' clock
p.m. on April 15, 1980.
ADJOURNMENT MOONEY MOVED that the meeting be adjourned at 9:45
o ' clock p.m. , Masters seconded. Motion carried..
Marie Je n, CMC
City Clerk
- 23 -