Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 08/18/1980 Kent- , Washington Auclust 1.8 , 1.98() Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at. 8 : 00 o'clock p.m. by Council President/Mayor Pro Tem McCaughan. Present: Councilpersons Bailey, Hamilton, B. Johnson, Masters, McCaughan and Mooney, City Administrator Cushing, City Attorney Mirk, Public Works Director Wickstrom and Planning Director Harris . Mayor. Hogan and CouneilpE: rson J. Johnson were not in attendance. Also present: Administrative Assistant Webby , Hearing Examiner Burke, Planning Commissioner Brooks and URS representative Abed. Approximately 60 people were in attendance at the meeting. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5A) Approval of Minutes . APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of August 4, 1980 . CONSENT B. JOHNSON MOVED that the Consent Calendar Items CALENDAR A through Q with the exception of Items F, H, L and 0 be approved, Masters seconded. Motion carried. HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5P) SANITATION Downtown Sewer Replacement Change Order. APPROVAL of the change order reQu(- .ted by King Construction r(�lating to the additional work associate('' with the construction of tl)(- sanitary sewer installation in West Valley Highwa,,,. The ~hange order includes tho work required in ilhe unanticipated replacement of the existinq water main. The total change order is in the amount of $-2 , 575 . 00, of which $1. , 800 relates to overtime work, associated with the paving of State Street. and Smith street . Garbage Service. Receipt of a letter from Nancy C. Streiffert , 9907 South 269th Street, Kent, was noted regarding the higher rate for garbage service in her area after take-over by the City of Kent. It was determined that the area was part of an annexation which is now included in Kent ' s service area for <xarbage collection. MASTERS MOVED that the letter be referred to the Finance Department for response, McCaughan seconded. Motion carried. WATER (REMOVED AT THE REQUEST 01' COUNCILPERSON McCAUGHAN) (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 550) Kent Springs Deep Well . The Public Works Committee has reviewed a request by the Publ.i-c Works Department to drill an exploratory deep well at Kent. Springs at a cost of $70 , 000 . This exploratory test well is anticipated to be a key part: of the analysis of - 1 - i i i i I i August 18, 1980 WATER the Kent Springs for which we anticipated a total budget of $75, 000 . It would now appear that the total project will be $110 ,000. At the time of review by the Public Works Committee, we had anticipated a total of $90 , 000 reflecting an increase of $15, 000 in the project total which was approved by the committee. Authorization, however, is requested to proceed with the project and an increase in the budget by $35, 000. 'In response to McCaughan' s questions regarding a proposed increase in water rates, Wickstrom ex- plained that the City was close to running out of interim financing for the various water_ pro- jects but that a meeting would be held with the City' s consultants to review the problem and arrive at some source of emergency funding. McCAUGHAN PROVED to authorize the drilling of the exploratory deep well at Kent Springs and an in- crease in the project budget in the amount of $35, 000, Hamilton seconded . Motion carried. 1981 Water Supply Well Drilling Contract Bids. Five bids were received on August 14 , 1980 at 10: 30 a.m. for drilling four wells . The bid tab, as prepared by URS, is as follows: Contractor Amount + Tax Burt Well Drilling $129 , 078 . 95 (4 wells) Richardson Well Drilling 154 , 463. 50 (4 wells) Armstrong Well Drilling 71, 781. 00 (2 wells) Olympic West Drilling 29 , 931. 25 (1 well) Story Drilling, Inc. 39, 455. 00 (1 well) A memorandum was presented by Wickstrom explaining the proposed project which noted that the total estimated budget for the project is $212, 640 which includes well drilling and testing at four sites-- Cambridge, Linda Heights, Garrison Creek Reservoir and the 18000 Block and Kent-Kangley, engineering services, and contingencies. He noted that Burt' s bid was $135, 920. 13, including tax. The estimate allowed for this work (including !0% contingency) was $167 , 640. As such, sufficient budgetary allo- - 2 - August 18 , 1980 WATER cation was made. Wickstrom noted that interim financing other than the unencumbered funds of the Water Department may be needed to totally finance this project. Because of the crucial need of this project, especially in light of the Kent Springs source failure, he recommended that we proceed with this project. Any additional interim financing could be set up later after a detailed analysis of all the needs is completed. MOONEY MOVED that the memorandum from the Public Works Director be made a part of the record and that the low bid of Burt Well Drilling Company in the amount of $129 , 978. 95 + tax be accepted. B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. (REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILPERSON BAILEY) (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5H) LID 303 - S.E. 270th Water Main Ordinance. The public hearing on this proposed LID was held on August 4, 1980 and the City Attorney has prepared an ordinance to create the LID. Bailey noted that in response to a letter from one of the individuals involved in the LID he had requested that the City Attorney provide the Council with any procedures for deferring assessments for economically disabled persons. Mirk quoted from the RCW regarding such deferments and noted that the statute also provides that it is up to the City Council to act on the matter of deferments, the type of security needed and the lenath of time involved. Bailey suggested passage of the ordinance creating the LID be defer- red. Mirk noted that while the statute does refer to 1st class cities, it is the Attorney General ' s opinion that this provision would also apply to Code cities. Bailey also noted that a similar letter had been received with regard to LID 301 - S. 252nd Street Improvement. He noted that the lady who resides in the area er..compassed by LID 303 claims to be an indigent property holder. It was determined that the assessment would be a lien against the property which would have to be paid in the event of the death of the property holder or the sale to another party and would include interest. Bailey concluded that due to the fact that many elderly people were involved in these - 3 - August 18, 1980 WATER LIDS the matter should be considered. Masters noted that such deferment was available for a north end project some years ago. It was noted that it would be necessary to make a determination on the type of cases to be considered and necessary procedures would have to be established. In re- sponse to Bailey' s question, Mirk noted that LID assessments were prior to any other encumberances with the exception of taxes. MOONEY MOVED that the ordinance creating LID 303 be withheld and any action deferred to the next. meeting, Bailey seconded. Motion carried. STREETS (REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILPERSON MOONEY) (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM_ 5F) LID 301 - S. 252nd Street Improvement. Mooney noted that a letter of protest had been filed with the Clerk from the Kent School District with regard to this LID and Mirk noted that the protest would be considered with the other received and noted at the public hearing held on July 21, 1980. He also clarified that a 30-day protest period still applies after passage of the ordinance creating the LID. It was noted that the ordinance creating the LID has been prepared by the City Attorney but in light of the previous discussion regarding possible defer- ment of assessments for indigent property owners, MOONEY MOVED that the ordinance creating LID 301 be withheld and any action deferred to the next meeting, Bailey seconded. Motion carried. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5G) LID 304 - Smith Street Improvements. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 2241 creating LID 304, for which a public hearing was held on August 4 , 1980. A nega- tive declaration on the EIS has been received. SIDEWALKS Meeker Street. A letter was noted from Edith McDaniel regarding a recent fall she suffered in the vicinity of Leonard Rexall Drug Store at Meeker and Second Avenue North. Mrs. McDaniel requested that the planters be made the same level as the sidewalks. MASTERS MOVED that the letter be referred to the appropriate department for response, McCaughan seconded. Motion carried. 4 - August 18, 1980 i POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5D) & FIRE Disability Board Appointment. APPOINTMENT of Iry Hamilton to replace Bill Carey on the Disability Board. The term expires September, 1981. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5K) District Court Filing Fees. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign the contract with King County estab- lishing District Court filing fees for 1981 as dis- cussed at the August llth workshop. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5J) Fire Fighters Contract. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign the labor contract with the Kent Fire Fighters Association. PUBLIC (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5M) SAFETY Drug Paraphernalia. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 2242 regulating the display of drug paraphernalia and prohibiting the sale of same to persons under 18 years of age. PARKS & Bids - Playground Equipment. Only one bid was re RECREATION ceived on August 14 for the playground equipment for the Commons Playfield. The bid was from Vanco Recreation, Kent, in the amount of $7, 263. 80, includ- ing tax. The Parks Department has $8 , 000 budgeted for this project and recommends that this bid be accepted. Accordingly, B. JOHNSON MOVED to accept the Vanco bid in the amount of $7, 263. 80, Bailey seconded. In response to B. Johnson' s question, Neil Sullivan noted that the required procedures for advertising the Call for Bids had been followed. Motion carried. KENT COMMONS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5N) Hiring of Employees. AUTHORIZING for hiring two full time employees at the Kent Commons as discussed at the August 11, 1980 workshop meeting. BEAUTIFI- Preservation of Trees and Restrictions on Development. CATION The Planning Department has proposed that the City adopt an ordinance imposing restrictions on the destruction of trees and on development near streams. The matter was discussed at the workshop on August 11 , 1980. BAILEY MOVED to refer the pro- posed ordinance to the Public Works Committee meet- - 5 - August 18, 1980 BEAUTIFI- ing on Wednesday, August 20, 1980 for further CATION study, Mooney seconded. Motion carried. ANNEXATION (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5Q) Kessay Annexation. DISAPPROVAI, of Circulation of the 75% petition for the proposed Kessay Annexation based on the need for the update of the East Hill Comprehensive Plan. A meeting with the proponents was held at the workshop session of August 11., 1980. PLANNING (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5C) COMMISSION Appointments. CONFIRMATION of the Mayor' s appointment of Daniel P. Kelleher and Timothy J. Leahy to the Planning Commission. Mr. Kelleher replaces Terrence Burns which term will expire in January, 1981 and Mr. Leahy fills the unexpired term of Iry Hamilton whose term expires in January, 1983 . BUILDING Environmental Impact Statement. Receipt of a PERMIT letter from Carl Pozzi was noted asking that the City require a full environmental impact study be made before any building permit is issued for Tax Lot 322 for which a multi-family dwelling is proposed. The property in question is located in the vicinity of Kensington Avenue and Reiten Road. MASTERS MOVED that the letter be accepted and referred to the Public Works Committee, Mooney seconded. Motion carried. SALE OF Property Sales to Foreign Countries. Receipt of PROPERTY a letter from Sarah V. Naslund, 23656 30th Avenue So. , Apartment #6, was noted expressing her con- cerns over recent property sales in the area to Canadian and other foreign corporations. MASTERS MOVED that the letter be made part of the record. McCaughan seconded. Motion carried. PRELIMINARY (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5E) PLATS Kentview Preliminary Plat Time Extension. APPROVAL of the request for a six month time extension for the Kentview Preliminary Plat (SU-79-4) . The Council may grant extensions up to one year. - 6 - i August 18, 1980 PRELIMINARY Foster Preliminary Plat. On March 17, 1980 the PLATS public hearing on the Foster Preliminary Plat was concluded and the conditions of approval were listed in the April 7 Council minutes. The Department of Transportation would not approve the access between SR 516 and Willis Street and, at the request of Jones & Associates, the hearing was reopened on July 7 and continued to this meeting. The Planning Department has distributed a list of traffic circulation alter- nates, which has been made a part of the record. The handout states that the Planning Department has reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of various traffic circulation alternatives for the area south of Willis Street. Their recom- mendations are based on a neighborhood public meeting held August 6, 1980; city-adopted policies from city plans; and a six-week study of the area ' s existing land use pattern circula- tion system, demographics, neighborhood environ- ment and the city ' s past neighborhood preservation efforts for this area. The continued public hearing was opened by Council President McCaughan. Keri Adams of the Planning Department noted that the alternatives were dis- cussed at the workshop of August 11 and that pro- perty owners had been notified of the neighborhood meeting held on August 6 . It was noted that Block Grant funds had been utilized to upgrade the neighborhood. Upon Hamilton' s question, it was determined that the cost of improving the S. 259th crossing would be approximately $725, 000 . McCaughan noted that closing off First and Third Avenues would severely restrict fire service and Bailey commented that the bridge would not support one of the newer fire trucks. Adams noted that it was suggested that First and Third be left open for emergency vehicles. Dan Dawson, Traffic Engineer for Foster, asked if Wickstrom had any further input. Wickstrom noted that there were only two choices, as outlined in the Planning Department's handout tonight and as previously recounted in his letter to the Council; j to use S. 259th as the collector route for all I 7 - August 18, 1980 PRELIMINARY industrial traffic in the area south of Willis PLATS Street OR to allow access to the Foster Plat through W. Willis Street. Dawson noted that the proposal for the plat had first been presented to the city in March 1979. He noted that the Union Pacific tracks separate the industrial area from the plat and that the cost of utilizing the S. 259th route was prohibitive, in that the bridge alone would cost $725, 000, and further that Union Pacific had stated that the railroad could not be shut down while the bridge work was underway. He asked that the Council approve the W. Willis access to the plat as recommended by the Public Works Department, noting that Foster had agreed to the conditions. He stated further that the proposed lots in the plat were small and would not generate a lot of heavy duty trucks. Upon Masters ' question, he noted that the railroad signals and cross-arms were part of the Public Works requirements. Laurel Whitehurst noted the difficulty large trucks would have in turning and suggested that the city might consider downgrading the zoning, so that the plat area would be used for a different purpose. Jack Wardell also expressed concern about sufficient room for trucks to turn. Wick- strom noted that the setting of the signals would take care of the turning radius. Judy Omar noted that the congestion of vehicles seeking access to 167 would encourage traffic to go through the neighborhood and further that Foster was aware that access to his property was difficult when he proposed the plat. Both she and Helen Brookes expressed concern for the safety of the school children if the traffic generated by the plat was routed this close to the school. Dawson des- cribed how the proposed buffer could be accomplished without losing space in the street. Richard Chapin, attorney for Foster, noted that the Public Works Department had recommended the use of W. Willis and that they were more expert than the Planning Department in matters of traffic circula- tion. He noted that the Foster plat is isolated from the other industries and that it is southbound traffic which is going through the neighborhood and 8 - August 18 , 1980 PRELIMINARY that the Foster Plat traffic would skirt Willis PLATS Street and only affect the six homes on Willis . He pointed out that pedestrians were already crossing SR 516 which was much wider and had more traffic than Willis. He noted that the costs of the improvements to the S. 259th underpass were prohibitive, and that such a proposal by the city would be unfair to Foster. He asked that the city follow the Public Works recommenda- tion, noting that Foster had agreed to the Public Works conditions. Wickstrom staged that he had recommended W. Willis , recognizing that the Foster Plat was already zoned for industry, and recogniz- ing that the area was a residential neighborhood. He noted that improvements to S. 259th would in- volve both city and county and would require a shoreline management permit. He stated that 259th as it exists is a substandard street, and further that the city has no leverage in requiring off- site improvements. Harris noted that the Planning Department' s report dealt with neighborhood traffic circulation, as was requested. Mr. Halloway noted that the use of Willis Street would present a pro- blem for those actually living on Willis Street since they do not have an alley. Wickstrom noted that the improvements would be paid for by the developer. Ms. Misner expressed concern about leaving access for emergency vehicles . After all who wished to speak had done so, B. JOHNSON MOVED to close the hearing. Masters seconded. Motion carried. Bailey expressed concern of the future impact of SR 516 and the 10 to 15, 000 additional vehicles per day anticipated. He noted that due to the industrial zoning, S. 259th would have to be event- ually improved and stated that there were two issues; whether it was feasible to improve the S. 259th underpass at a possible cost to the Foster people of over $700, 000, or whether such industrial develop- ment is as important as preserving the neighborhood for which funds have been spent for improvement. Bailey noted that the community was dedicated to developing residential areas on the valley floor and to provide housing for people regardless of their income and that he was against any solution other than the developement of S. 259th. 9 - August 18 , 1980 PRELIMINARY Mirk noted that the reference to "down-zoning PLATS the plat site could require the city pay the difference between the property value as presently zoned and that of any new zoning, and that this was not feasible. He noted that legally the city could impose "reasonable" conditions, and that he did not think that the proposal for improving S. 259th was reasonable or even practical . Upon McCaughan' s question, he noted that this was his legal opinion relating to the total costs of upgrading the S. 259th approach. Mirk further stated that the city had two alternatives from a legal viewpoint: to allow the plat and require the off-site improvements, or to allow development as it is presently zoned and have no control over off-site improvements . MOONEY stated that based on Mirk' s statements, and recognizing that Foster could legally build on four lots now, he would MOVE to recommend acceptance of Alternate 2 of the Planning Department report. Masters seconded. It was then pointed out that Alternate 2 contained more provisions, listed on the next page, and the motion and second were with- drawn. Wickstrom' s recommendations as listed in his July 2 , 1980 report were read as follows : a. Improve West Willis Street from 4th Avenue to 74th Avenue with 24 feet of asphalt conc. pave- ment as centered on the centerline of the exist- ing pavement, eight-foot gravel shoulders (both sides) , storm drainage and upgrade railroad crossing with flashing lights and gate arms meeting Washington State Utilities and Trans- portation Commission' s and the City of Kent's approval. b. Improve 4th Avenue from SR 516 to West Willis Street to a paving width of 36 feet with asphalt conc. pavement, cement conc. curb and gutter and storm drainage. C. Improve 74th Avenue from West Willis Street to north limit of plat with 24 feet of asphalt conc. pavement as centered on the centerline of the existing pavement, eight-foot gravel shoulder(both sides) and storm drainage. 10 - August 18, 1980 PRELIMINARY d. Install decorative fence 3 to 4 feet in height PLATS along south side of West Willis Street from 4th Avenue to railroad crossing. Said fence will be such that it will restrict children from directly running out into the line of traffic plus it will have gates or openings which would allow for access (vehicle and pedestrian) to the immediate properties abutting thereto. e. Submit detailed plans for all the above to the Engineering Department for review and approval. Masters asked about landscaping with the fence and Mirk expressed concern over liability of the city with regard to the fence. McCaughan asked about the turning radius and Wickstrom noted that that would be covered under "e" . MOONEY MOVED to approve the Willis Street access to the property with the conditions set forth above by the Public Works Department after review by the City Attorney with regard to the safety factor, and to include landscaping as a buffer near the residences . Masters seconded. Motion carried with Bailey dissenting. OLD NATIONAL REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILPERSON MOONEY BANK (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5L) ACQUISITION Condemnation for Acquisition. Authorization has been requested for the City Attorney to draft an ordinance to proceed with condemnation for acquisi- tion of the Old National Bank Building. Mooney expressed his opposition noting that appraisals have been made on the property. He pointed out that an article in the newspaper suggested that the City had brought up the possibility of institut- ing condemnation proceedings. Cushing explained that when it was learned that there was a possibility that the bank would call for bids on the building, it was determined that the City could not buy the property for more than the appraised value already established. He noted that the Bank' s willingness to sell at the appraised price to the City is now predicated on their receipt of City' s notice of intent to condemn the property. Mooney expressed - 11 - August 18, 1980 OLD NATIONAL concern over such methods of finding tax breaks BANK and suggested that Federal funds suffered from ACQUISITION this type of transaction. HAMILTON MOVED to ap- prove Item 5L authorizing the City Attorney to draft the ordinance of intent to condemn, B. Johnson seconded. In response to B. Johnson's questions, Mirk determined that the Bank now feels that the property may be worth more than the appraised value. It was also determined that the City cannot afford to let the building go and if we can negotiate the sale at the appraised value it will save the city money, since going through the condemnation procedure could cost $30, 000 . Mooney stated that the bank had not acted in good faith and Masters questioned the necessity of going through the charade of condemnation. Mirk explained that the property had been appraised by two appraisers as general office space rather than a bank building. He noted that since then other banks had expressed interest in buying the property. He noted that if the city were to actually go through the condemnation proceedings, additional court costs would be incurred. He further determined that the law does provide for tax relief such as is being sought by the bank in cases like these. Mirk also clarified that since Federal funds will be used to purchase the property, the necessary Federal guidelines apply which state that property cannot be purchased at a figure higher than the appraised value. He suggested that it was important to look at the needs of the city and the costs to the citizens in con- sidering the alternatives. He noted further that the city has used the condemnation procedure in the past in acquiring other city properties, such as Russell Road Park and Korry Field. Motion carried, with Mooney voting nay. HOUSING & 1981 Housing & Community Development Joint Project COMMUNITY Proposals. The public will be given an opportunity DEVELOPMENT to comment on any of the 1981 Housing & Community Development Block Grant Joint Project applications which the Planning Department submitted to the King County Block Grant office on August 15, 1980. Joint projects are those projects cosponsored between the city and King County. The deadline - 12 - i August 18, 1980 HOUSING & for these projects is earlier than applications COMMUNITY for other Block Grant projects so that the County DEVELOPMENT can review the proposals in conjunction with their budget process. The Council is requested to approve joint applications submitted to the County on August 15, 1980. The joint project application for $25, 000 construction funds for the Earthworks project which was authorized at the last Council meetina has been found to be in- eligible for this program. The public hearing was opened by Mayor Pro Tem McCaughan. Keri Adams reviewed the joint project proposals as discussed at the workshop meeting of August 11, 1980 noting that the Senior Center proposal and the Kent Commons project had been discussed but were not part of the proposals presented. She noted that these proposals were not sufficiently developed to be submitted as joint projects at this time but could be considered in the future. The projects submitted are as follows: 1) Bicycle and Pedestrian trails along Green River Dike resurfacing. . . . . . . . . $30, 000 2) Lake Fenwick Parking Lot. . . . . . . . . . . . . $44 , 000 Masters questioned if there was some place in time during the year where the Council could make suggestions so there would be time to study the various projects under consideration. Harris clarified that the "Population" and "Needs" monies were considered separately and that time was allowed for input but that the joint projects funding allowed little time for input. He noted that the time table was received from the County who are looking to the various communities for pro- jects to be funded. Since the amount of money is limited, they set a deadline to submit proposals. He also noted that the earthworks project which was submitted was not eligible for inclusion in joint projects. Reference was made to an addendum provided to the Council regarding the County' s request for the City to co-sponsor a joint project with the County to provide safer railroad crossings 13 - August 18, 1980 HOUSING & along the Interurban Bicycle Trail. $40, 000 COMMUNITY will provide the supplies for two crossings at DEVELOPMENT S. 185th and two crossings at S. 224th. In- stallation will be provided by the railroad company and the crossings will be improved with rubberized fittings. Harris explained that this was merely asking for the City's support of a proposed County project. Bailey suggested that the various committees of the Council compile a list of projects for possible funding. Harris noted this was especially impor- tant in the case of "Population" and "Needs" monies. Masters suggested that the budget deliberations could be used to back this up, and Harris noted that the Parks Department had utilized this process. Bailey noted that Ms. Cooke was preparing a study for the Parks Committee with regard to the renovation or re- building of the Senior Center. He suggested that the City might be able to apply for study monies such as preliminary architectural funding. There was no further discussion and MASTERS MOVED to close the public hearing, B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. MASTERS MOVED to approve submitting the Green River Dike Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails improvement and the Lake Fenwick Parking Lot im- provements, together with support for the County' s proposal for improvement of railroad crossings along the Interurban Bicycle Trail , B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. APPEALS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5I) Pacific Ventures Short Plat Appeal . SETTING Septem- ber 2, 1980 as the date the Council will consider the objections to the conditions imposed by the Short Plat Committee in the matter of the Pacific Ventures Short Plat (SPC-80-17) . Public Storage, Inc. Appeal (CE-80-5) . Public hear- ings were held by the Hearing Examiner. on April 16, 1980 and on May 18, 1980 to consider a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Public Storage, Inc. to construct a 677-unit mini-warehouse at 84th Avenue S. and S. 222nd Street. The Conditional Use Permit was denied by the Hearing Examiner on June 11, 1980. An appeal has been filed and a hearing scheduled for this meeting. The City 14 -- August 18, 1980 APPEALS Attorney described the appeal procedure, quoting from Section 7 of Resolution 896 which establishes the appeal procedure from a decision of the Hearing Examiner. He explained that it was not a new hearing but must be confined to the record and that the appellant was allowed to present argu- ment as to whether the Hearing Examiner was in error or that procedures were not followed, and that the Hearing Examiner would be allowed to present her rebuttal to these arguments. A com- plete set of the file documents have been distri- buted to the Council and have been made a part of the record. MASTERS MOVED that Mayor Pro Tem McCaughan read Section 7 of Resolution 896, B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. Section 7 was read into the record. The hearing was opened by Mayor Pro Tem McCaughan. Mike Rogers, attorney for Public Storage, Inc. , addressed the Council upon behalf of the applicant and noted that the appeal was based on the con- tention that the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation was unsupported by material and substantial Evidence. He explained the nature of the proposed project and noted that Public Storage Company Inc. intended to developthe subject property into a mini-ware- house building with 677 storage units encompassing 78, 500 square feet (including hallway space of 1400 square feet) . He noted that the subject property is located at the southeast corner of 84th Avenue S. and S. 222nd Street, that the property was to the north of the interchange for the Valley Freeway across from the Ranch Motel. He noted that the 4.59 acres in question is zoned HC, Highway Commercial and that the proposed building would be a maximum of 10 ' in height, although under the existing code, buildings could be as high as 35 ' . He noted that the proposed project would have access from one point only on East Valley Highway approximately 200 feet south of S. 222nd Street. Referring to page 5, paragraph 3 of the Hearing Examiner' s Findings & Decision, he noted that 84th Avenue S. is referred to as a minor arterial and expressed the opinion that it was in fact a major arterial and that the subject property lies between two major arterials. He also made reference to the Hearing Examiner' s contention that the area is a viable residential neighborhood, pointing out 15 - August 18, 1980 APPEALS that the property was annexed to the City in 1958 , that the property remained C-3, General Commercial , until 1973 when the zoning was changed to HC with the adoption of the present Zoning Code. He also pointed out that the pro- perty is adjacent to S. 222nd and that the pro- perty to the north of S. 222nd is zoned CM, Com- mercial Manufacturing, which zoning would allow an operation such as that proposed. He clarified that HC zoning does allow the proposed project under certain conditions. He noted that the city staff had reviewed the proposal and had recommended approval with five conditions. He noted that a Declaration of Non-Significance was issued under the appropriate SEPA Guidelines. He also sug- gested that the Hearing Examiner was in error with reference to classifying the area as resi- dential, noting that there was one old house located south of the subject site, set back from the East Valley Highway, and in an HC zone. Refer- ring to the proposed mini-storage project, he opined that this type of development would have the least impact when compared with the type of uses that could go on the property under HC zoning. Rogers referred to the Hearing Examiner 's contention that the landscaping was found to be inadequate, and suggested that with the HC zoning a property owner could develop with no setbacks to the side or rear yards. He noted that the applicant had agreed to Type 2 landscaping, which would be 6 ' trees, and noted that the buildings were to be 10 ' in height and he suggested that within two years the entire project would be sight-obscured. He noted further that the Type 2 landscaping calls for the 6 ' high trees, together with a 4 ' high fence, that the fence would in fact be 6 ' in height, and that the property owner had agreed to place wood slats in the fencing in accordance with the staff recommendation with a protective wire at the top. Rogers also noted that the people in opposition to the proposal were concerned about traffic genera- tion on the East Valley Highway, including the owner of the Ranch Motel. Rogers noted that the Hearing Examiner had referred to the traffic as "relatively low traffic. " He stated that the - 16 - August 18, 1980 APPEALS record establishes that there would be no more than 200 trips per day in the development, no more than ten cars at a time on the property and that the traffic is being located at one access point. He noted that the neighbors to the north were concerned about S. 222nd but that there would be no extra traffic from the develop- ment on this street. Rogers noted that there was testimony in the record that the traffic generated by the development would be 1/10 or even 1/40 of that generated from full development of the property as allowed under HC zoning. He referred specifically to some of the uses allowed under HC zoning, such as used car lots, storage and sales, taverns, or motels. He also referred to concerns by the residents about the view and that at the first hear- ing the motel owner feared the view would be unsightly. He pointed out that there would be no problem with the view, as the Ranch Motel feared as the landscaping plans for the development were based on Kent City Code; that the landscaping re- quested by City staff is far in excess of that required of HC zoning. Rogers also expressed difficulty with the Hearing Examiner ' s decision as shown on page 4 , item 3 of her Findings and Conclusions noting her reference to the negative impact on the existing residences and noting that this proposal would"hasten the con- version of viable residential units to commercial or industrial uses. He noted that the current zoning has been in place for 22 years and that development of this type has been coming to the area for years. He referred to two businesses on the north side of S . 222nd including Novak' s Gutter Supply and Ferrell' s Fire Extinguishers. Rogers further noted the Hearing Examiner' s con- clusion that the motel and restaurants would also be detrimentally affected by the proposed use due to the intense site coverage and industrial character of the buildings. Rogers referred to Finding #6 on page 2, which states in part: "The general area adjacent to 84th Avenue S. (East Valley Highway) west of SR 167 is undergoing transition from the earlier rural and semi-rural uses which were pre- - 17 - August 18 , 1980 APPEALS valent in the Valley, to commercial and industrial uses. " He pointed out that the property is between two major highways and that they recognize that commercial development is long overdue. Rogers also noted that Public Storage had agreed that S. 222nd would not be used for access, and that they would dedicate 132 feet along the entire north line of S. 222nd for street purposes so that S. 222nd can be completed to a full street width, even though the owner of the development will not be using it. Rogers noted that there had been an LID proposed for storm drainage which was defeated; however, his client had agreed to build approximately half of the entire storm drainage improvements proposed; that the storm drainage would be carried some distance from the property. He also noted that his client had agreed to sign LID Covenants for streets , sidewalks, sewers and the SCS P-Channel project. He noted that the Hearing Examiner' s Conclusions contain eight principal items. He also referred to page 6 of the staff report and noted that staff did not feel that the proposed use would have an adverse impact on the area and gave reasons sup- porting the applicant' s proposal, based on the Kent Zoning Code requirements for review of Con- ditional Use Permit applications. He opined that the Hearing Examiner' s findings were not based on substantial evidence if one looked at the other uses permitted under HC zoning. Rogers noted that a request had been made regard- ing limited hours of operation and noted that the facility would be open from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. or a 12-hour period and that other uses of the property such as a motel could have continuous hours of operation. Rogers noted that Public Storage, Inc. is a national company, that the project would be done right. He also referred to the costs of the drainage project which his client had agreed to bear, noting that the costs would amount to approxi- mately $118 , 000. Referring to the suggestion that the property was residential , Rogers stated that the residents of the area and property owners knew that the property was zoned commercial , knew that development was coming and that they were objecting for other reasons. He suggested - 18 - August 18 , 1980 APPEALS ments that his client had agreed to would benefit all property owners in the area. Rogers also re- ferred to the Hearing Examiner' s questions as to the lighting of the facility and that it would be incompatible with the existing houses and sug- gested she was referring to the one house to the south; that it would not affect the housing to the north. He pointed out that the lighting system had been designed as a low profile system but that because of a request from the Kent Police Department the owner was asked to put the lighting high up on poles for security reasons. He also suggested that if the developer placed the lights in accordance with Police Department requirements, the property owner to the south might object. Rogers also pointed out that no one had expressed any concern over possible noise from the proposed development. Summarizing, he stated that they did not believe the Hearing Examiner ' s decision was supported by substantial facts and evidence; that his client' s proposal was supported by staff throughout the two hearings. He also noted that strip develop- ment could occur and suggested that the property owners in the area would not be in favor of such developments, considering the types of uses which could be placed in the area. He also noted that the property owners had apparently not listened to the proposed landscaping plans the amount of traffic or the size and height of the buildings. He suggested that the proposed development was the least objectionable use, would provide the best buffer, as well as the lowest traffic generated. He asked that the Council consider and accept the opinion of staff with regard to the proposed development. Nadine Burke, Hearing Examiner, referred to Ordi- nance 2233 which establishes the office of the Hearing Examiner and lists, in Section 16 , the requirements for an appeal as follows : " Such appeal shall be based upon the record, specific errors of .fact, specific procedural errors, omissions from the record, errors in interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan or evidence that was not available at the time of the hearing. " 19 - August 18 , 1980 APPEALS She stated that the written appeal from the developer does not allege the existence of any of these conditions. She noted that reference to the East Valley Highway as a minor arterial was contained in the staff report and that the Council has full records of all of the proceed- ings. Burke pointed out that the developer had presented an artist' s concept of the project which was then displayed for the Council. Burke also referred to the allegation that there are or may be uses which may be permitted outright. She referred to page 3 of her Summary of the Hearings and Decision, paragraph 3 entitled "Impact on Existing Uses" and noted that it states that there is no disagreement that there are some other uses which may be permitted by the Code in HC zoning. She questioned whether this was a criteria for granting a conditional use, and suggested it was not. By City stand- ards a Conditional Use referred to a specific use at a specific location. Burke referred to the fact that certain benefits might result be- cause of improvements that the developer had agreed to make, including installation of the drainage system, and opined that this also was not a criteria by which conditional use appli- cations are judged. There were no further com- ments and B. JOHNSON MOVED that the hearing be closed, Hamilton seconded. Motion carried. Masters expressed her agreement with Ms. Birke' s decision. She referred to the water drainage problem in the area and also stated that the people who do own homes in the area should be given some consideration. MASTERS MOVED, for those reasons, to support the Hearing Examiner's findings and decision. B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. SHORELINE City of Kent Shoreline Master Program. On August MASTER PROGRAM 4 , 1980 the City Council_ continued the public AMENDMENTS hearing for considering the adoption of the amend- AND ments to the Shoreline Master Program, including DEFINITIONS a set of definitions to replace the existing defini- tions on pages B-1 through B-6 of the Program, and recommending the designation of a number of areas along the Green River as Conservancy Environments. The proposed amendments and definitions as pre- sented on August 4, 1980 are as follows: 20 - Auaust 18, 1980 SHORELINE MASTER AMENDMENTS TO THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PROGRAM AMENDMENTS AND 1) One 20-foot wide public pedestrian/bicycle access DEFINITIONS from a public road to the Riverfront shall be pro- vided for every 1000 feet of River frontage or Scenic Drive frontage. 2) One off-street public parking space shall be pro- vided for every 175 feet of River frontage or Scenic Drive frontage. Parking space (s) shall conform to Off-Street Parking Standards in Chapter 4 of the Kent Zoning Code. I I 3) A public access easement or land dedication shall be granted on riverfront land beginning at the Ordinary High Water Line and extending landward to a point at least 70 feet from the centerline of an existing dike or 50 feet from the Ordinary High Water Line where there is no existing dike, whichever is the greater distance inland. 4) In residential zones the following visually objec- tionable or high noise uses or activities shall be kept at least 100 feet from the Ordinary High Water Line, 75 feet from the center line of the dike, or 60 feet from the R.O.W. of a scenic drive, whichever is the greater distance inland, and shall be screened from these by buildings (preferred) , dense planting, or earth berming; non-automobile parking, loading docks, truck service roads, machinery. i In commercial and industrial zones the following visually objectionable or high-noise uses or activities shall be kept at least 200 feet from the Ordinary High Water Line, and shall be screened from these by buildings (preferred) , dense planting, or earth berming: non-automobile parking, loading docks, truck service roads, and machinery. These requirements are not for parking facilities strictly for the benefit of public access to the Green River. Existing developments which have the visually 21 - i August 18 , 1980 SHORELINE MASTER objectionable uses mentioned above shall, within PROGRAM two years, establish a "Type I Solid Screen" AMENDMENTS AND between the objectional use and the river. DEFINITIONS 5) Loading docks shall not be located on river- facing sides of buildings . 6) The applicant must establish and show on the sub- division plan a building setback line" along the Green River. This line will establish the limits of all buildings, fencing and impervious surfacing along the Green River. The standards for establishing the building limits line shall be as follows : In residential zones the building setback line shall be a minimum distance of 100 feet from the Ordinary High Water Line, or 60 feet from the R.O.W. of a Scenic and Recreational Drive, or 75 feet from the center line of a dike, whichever is the greater distance inland from the river. in order to avoid development which creates a "wall" of buildings along the minimum setback distance, the building setback line shall not coincide with the minimum setback distance for more than 50% of its length. Variations from the minimum setback line shall occur at intervals not to exceed 200 feet. Variations shall not be less than 20 feet and the average distance of the building setback line shall not be less than 150 feet from the Ordinary High Water Line. In commercial and industrial zones the build- ing setback lines shall be a minimum distance of 200 feet from the Ordinary High Water Line. In order to avoid development which creates a "wall of buildings along the minimum setback distance, the building lengths, on the river- front side, shall be limited to 200 feet. ° The building setback line shall take into account the need for visibility of the river- front park system from public roads at access points. 22 - August 18, 1980 SHORELINE MASTER 7) Development shall maintain and establish a_per-- PROGRAM manent vegetative buffer of trees and shrubs AMENDMENTS AND between the development and the river, OR DEFINITIONS between the development and any flood control structure or riverfront road or riverfront park or "unique and fragile" area, such buffer having an average width of twenty-five feet along the length of the shoreline and minimum width of fifteen feet. Existing unsightly land uses along the Green River shall have a permanent vegetative buffer established between themselves and the river within two years of time of adop- tion of these regulations. These unsightly uses shall include: material storage, truck maneuver- ing areas, equipment parking, junk yards, refuse storage and other such visually objectionable uses. 8) Landscape screening and buffer strips shall be planted so as to be harmonious with those already planted on adjacent properties and consistent with the Kent Landscaping Requirements. 9) No cutting, damage, or removal of trees in the Shoreline Zone over 4 inches in caliper (as measured 12 inches above their mean ground eleva- tion) will be permitted. 10) There shall be no disruption or destruction of areas identified as "unique and fraqile" in the Kent Green River corridor Plan (1980) , OR, in the event that disturbance is demonstrated to be unavoid- able, disruption or destruction shall be "fully mitigated" by the applicant through complete land reclamation and .restoration of vegetation. Dikes or levees will be set back around "unique and fragile" areas . The "unique and fragile" areas shall be clearly defined on a detailed map. 11) Rip-rapping (the placement of rock or other material to armor the river bank against erosion or meandor-shifting) when initiated by the developer is allowed only where a clear and present danger to existing structures exists. - 23 - August 18, 1980 SHORELINE MASTER 12) Rip-rapping or other bank armoring when initiated PROGRAM by the developer will be covered with topsoil and AMENDMENTS AND revegetated by the applicant. DEFINITIONS 13) The landward side-slope of any dikes or levees (which have been modified by a developer) shall be sloped at no greater than 3: 1 (three feet horizontal for every one foot vertical) . 14) The landward side-slope of dikes or levees shall be covered with at least 12 inches of topsoil and permanently revegetated by the applicant, if the developer has modified the dike. 15) The applicant shall follow any applicable recom- mendations of the State Department of Fisheries and State Department of Game for preventing and mitigating adverse impacts on fish and. wildlife resources and enhancing wildlife habitat. 16) If public funds are used in the construction of flood control works (dikes, levees, flood walls) , public rights of access to such works are re- quired prior to construction. 17) Surface drainage facilities such as drainage channels and retention areas shall be designed to be integral parts of any common trail and open space system connections to the Riverfront. 18) There shall be no over-water structure unless it is demonstrated that such structure is needed to protect or promote the public interest, or will enhance public access and enjoyment of the Green River. 19) Where a need for an over-water crossing has been demonstrated, such crossing shall (a) provide or allow for a safe pedestrian access under the bridge wherever the bridge crosses a potential river trail route identified in the Kent Green River Corridor Plan (1980) ; and (b) in the case of public roads, provide a safe pedestrian river crossing having a width of no less than six feet. - 24 - August 18, 1980 SHORELINE MASTER 20) There shall be no rails or rail spurs within 500 PROGRAM feet of the river. AMENDMENTS AND DEFINITIONS 21) All lots and buildings must have road access without using Scenic and Recreational Roads as defined by the Green River Corridor Plan (1980) . 22) Development shall include no street connections to Scenic and Recreational Roads. 23) Development shall not force or encourage property outside the proposed development to use a Scenic or Recreational Road for access. 24) Development shall not force or encourage traffic from the proposed development to use a Scenic or Recreational Road for access. 25) Roads within the Shoreline Master Program shall be designed for low-volume local traffic. 26) Overhead utilities will not be allowed unless underground placement is clearly demonstrated to be infeasible. 27) Applicant shall locate uses on Riverfront lots which will benefit from a Riverfront location and contribute to a park-like atmosphere along the Riverfront. Such uses may include but are not limited to the following: - Residences - Club houses/meeting rooms - Resident recreational facilities - Employee recreational facilities - Lunchrooms - Offices - Light manufacturing - Research and development facilities - Restaurants - Limited convenience commercial with river- orientation 28) Applicant shall not locate uses on Riverfront lots - 25 - August 18, 1980 SHORELINE MASTER which would adversely affect the shoreline PROGRAM environment. These uses include: AMENDMENTS AND DEFINITIONS - Outdoor storage of materials or equipment - Heavy industry - Rail served warehousing - "Strip" commercial - Shopping centers 29) No natural or constructed features of potential historic, cultural and educational significance shall be destroyed or modified so as to negate its value to the public. KENT GREEN RIVER CORRIDOR DEFINITIONS Scenic and Recreational Roads/Drives : 1) Frager Road throughout its length within the City of Kent. 2) Russell Road from the eastern end of the proposed Russell Woods Park as designated in the Green River Corridor Plan north to the point where it leaves the River (approximately at 200th Street) . Common Trail System: Pedestrian and/or bicycle accessways which are shared (held in common) by a group of landowners and occupants of a subdivision but which may not be accessible to the general public. Riverfront Road: A public street or road which lies alongside the Green River and which has no major develop- ment between it and the river. Riverfront Park: A publicly owned open space which lies along the Green River, along a Scenic and Recreational Road/ Drive, or along a Riverfront Road. 26 - August 18, 1980 SHORELINE MASTER Ordinary High Water Line (or Mark) : PROGRAM AMENDMENTS AND "Ordinary high water mark" on all lakes, streams, DEFINITIONS and tidal water is that mark that will be found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting up-land, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, 1971 or as it may naturally change thereafter: PROVIDED, that in any area where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, the ordinary high water mark adjoining salt water shall be the line of mean higher high tide and the ordinary high water mark adjoining fresh water shall be the line of mean high water. (RCW 90.58.030) (2) (b) . Riverfront Lot: Any lot or land parcel which is adjacent to the Green River, a Scenic and Recreational Road/ Drive, a Riverfront Road or a Riverfront Park. Unique and Fragile Area: An area of special environmental significance for wildlife habitat, threatened plant communi- ties, and/or natural scenic quality. The geo- graphic boundaries of these areas shall be offici- ally mapped. Truck Maneuvering Area: An area of a site used by trucks for turning and backing or for access to loading/unloading areas . Over-Water Structures: Any structure projecting over the ordinary high water mark of the Green River. - 27 - August 18 ,1980 SHORELINE MASTER Revegetation: PROGRAM AMENDMENTS AND The planting of vegetation to cover any land areas DEFINITIONS which have been disturbed during construction. This vegetation shall be maintained to insure its survival and shall be consistent with planting requirements of the Kent Landscape Code. Conservancy Zones : The objective in designating a conservancy environ- ment is to protect, conserve and manage existing natural resources and valuable historic and cultural areas in order to ensure a continuous flow of recreational benefits to the public and to achieve sustained resource utilization. The conservancy environment is for those areas which are intended to maintain their existing character. The preferred uses are those which are nonconsumptive of the physical and biologi- cal resources of the area. Nonconsumptive uses are those uses which can utilize resources on a sustained yield basis while minimally reducing opportunities for other future uses of the resources in the area. Activities and uses of a nonpermanent nature which do not substantially degrade the existing character of an area are appropriate uses for a conservancy environment. Examples of uses that might be predominant in a conservancy environment include diffuse out- door recreation activities, timber harvesting on a sustained yield basis, passive agricultural uses such as pasture and range lands, and other related uses and activities. The designation of conservancy environments should seek to satisfy the needs of the community as to the present and future location of recreational areas proximate to concentrations of population, either existing or projected. For example, a conservancy environment designation can be used to complement city, county or state plans to legally acquire public access to the water. (WAC 173-16-040 (4) (b) (ii) ) . - 28 - August 18, 1980 SHORELINE Harris noted that this matter had been discussed MASTER PROGRAM at the August 11, 1980 workshop and that the AMENDMENTS AND following changes were agreed upon: DEFINITIONS (The additions or changes are underlined) . Amendment No. 3 Change: The number 70 to number 50 Amendment No. 6 Add: The applicant must establish and show on the development or subdivision plan. . . . Amendment No. 10 Change: There shall be no disruption or des- truction of areas identified as "unique and fragile" in the Kent Green River eaprider Plan 4}989} Shoreline Master Program. . . . Add new Amendment No. 30 To Read: In the Conservancy zones, necessary dike maintenance and construction shall be permitted Areas shown in the River of Green Study as potential setback dikes and agreed upon by the City Council, by Resolution 903, shall not be affected by the Conservancy zone. Harris noted that in addition to these changes, how- ever, there was an agreement on changes to the Con- servancy zones in the Russell Woods area and the Neely Home area. There was also considerable discussion concerning the desirability of deleting Amendment No. 20, which now states: "There shall be no rail spurs within 500 feet of the river. " The Planning Commission also placed this statement in the overall Green River Cor- ridor proposal which will be coming to the City Council 29 - August 18, 1980 SHORELINE with the Land Use, Transportation and Storm Drainage MASTER PROGRAM package in September. AMENDMENTS AND DEFINITIONS Harris next referred to a letter from Upland Indus- tries dated August 14, 1980. A copy has been distributed to the Council and made a part of the record. The letter requests deletion of Amendments Nos 17, 20 and 28 and a portion of No. 6, plus modification of Nos. 1, 2 and 6. Harris commented on the rationale for each amendment, noting that they might affect other industries. He referred to No. 28, noting that changes to the two plans must be considered separately. He noted further that No. 20 was also listed in the Green River Cor- ridor proposal. Harris reported that the Conservancy zone in the Goodnews Bay Company area was also discussed as a possible deletion because the area is already zoned MR-M while all other proposed Conservancy zones, other than the Neely Home and Russell Woods areas, are zoned RA or MA. The continued public hearing was opened by McCaughan. Harris clarified for Julius Rosso that the Shoreline Master Program includes all properties within 200 ' of the river, not just the Uplands property, a nd that it is not possible to build within 200 ' of the shoreline other than by seeking a formal Shore- line permit. Rosso noted that the setback from the river had been changed on his property several times and Harris noted that his setback was 200 ' . He pointed out the location of the property and noted that Rosso has green-house type buildings in the middle of the property and that when he built, he elected not to go through the hearing process to obtain a Shoreline permit. He stated further that Rosso could plant shrubs and other plantings, as well as provide protection for the greenhouses, for their nursery business .in that area. With reference to the Goodnews Bay property, Harris noted that the amendments to the plan have cut down the size of the Conservancy area. Bailey noted that 30 - August 18, 1980 SHORELINE the City was also moving toward acquiring property MASTER PROGRAM and dedicating it for future park purposes. AMENDMENTS AND Harris noted that if they were encountering prob- DEFINITIONS lems with the Conservancy areas it would be neces- sary to take another look at them--as the plan is now ., the City would be given an opportunity to keep 15/0 of the area along the river protected. He referred to properties which were zoned RA and noted that the owners were very limited as to what they can do with their property. He noted that they would have to look at the property to deter- mine if a different type of zoning is appropriate. Mr. King, whose property is in the vicinity of S. 216th and Frager Road, noted that he had a deed dated in 1908 which shows property between the river and the road and asked about the 200 ' . Harris determined that the Shoreline Master Program went into effect in 1974, that it was voted in by residents of the State, and that the Green River was listed as a river of State-wide significance. Harris clarified that the setback from the river had been 200 ' since 1974, that the property had always been a part of the Program and that when the City issues a Shoreline Permit it must follow rules and guidelines. He clarified for King that the restrictions do not apply to buildings which existed prior to 1974 and he provided Mr. King with a copy of the Program. Jim Hudson, of Transcanada, spoke on behalf of the Goodnews Bay project, asking that the property be exempt from the Shoreline Program and the Conservancy designation. He noted that they had submitted their plans for development which included a 75 ' setback line and that they were now doing an EIS on the proposed project. Upon McCaughan ' s question, Mirk stated that the property could not legally be exempt from the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program unless they have a Shoreline Permit. He further clarified for Bailey that the Goodnews Bay property could be exempt from the Conservancy provisions. Hudson noted that when they purchased the property they expected to go through the permit process and also to work with the Corps of Engineers . Harris clari- fied for Dave Uhrich of Uplands which type of 31 - August 18, 1980 SHORELINE property would be classified as a riverfront lot MASTER PROGRAM and also commented on Amendment No. 20. Uhrich AMENDMENTS AND described how rails could be placed in a north/ DEFINITIONS south direction or an east/west direction. Tom Baxter expressed interest in how close any rail could be to the river as he had a lot 508 ' from the river. B. Johnson suggested that Amendment No. 20 could be changed to 200 ' to ensure that industrial development will be at least 200 ' from the River. It was also noted that the property to the south is zoned RA or MRG and that land on the west side of the River is zoned RA. Harris suggested that this was a Conservancy area even though some is residentially zoned and that industrial development is not allowed within 200 ' of the river. Uhrich questioned Amendment No. 6 and Harris clarified that it applied to any development within the 200 ' area. Carol Stone noted that residents of the area used the Green River area extensively and supported the Shoreline Amendments and also supported the Conservancy areas . She noted that zoning changes mean a loss of open space which was important to the area. She suggested that people throughout the area utilized the bike trails and hiking trails along the Green River. Upon Rosso ' s question about the references to the Green River Corridor Study, Harris noted that public hearings had been conducted by the Planning Commission, that notices of all hearings had been properly published in the local paper, and that further information could be obtained in the Planning Department office, including the Corps of Engineers ' plans. Hudson of Goodnews Bay Co. objected to having been told to prepare an Environ- mental Impact Statement on May 29, 1980, obviously well after the Green River Corridor Study was under- way. Cushing noted that he had talked with the realtor who had asked what the zoning restrictions would be and that the question was referred to the Planning Department where he had been told that additional requirements might come out of the - 32 - August 18, 1980 SHORELINE entire Valley Studies Program. Hudson suggested MASTER PROGRAM that if exemptions from the Conservancy zones AMENDMENTS AND could be considered, an exemption from the 200 ' DEFINITIONS setback should also be allowed. He also noted that the property in question is only 750 ' wide and with the setbacks there would be little left to develop. There were no further comments and B. JOHNSON MOVED that the hearing be closed, Mooney seconded. Motion carried. BAILEY MOVED to adopt the amendments to the Shore- line Master Program, including Definitions and Conservancy zones as recommended by the Planning Commission, and as further modified in the accompany- ing report from the Planning Department, including the deletion of the Conservancy requirements in the Goodnews Bay Tract. Hamilton seconded. With reference to the Neely Home and the Russell Woods area, Harris noted that changes came after the Planning Commission hearings , so they were not included in the Planning Commission recommenda- tions. He also noted that it was already agreed that the Conservancy areas shown on the map are approved except for the change to the Goodnews Bay area. Upon McCaughan ' s question, Bailey agreed to include a change to Amendment No. 7 in the first sentence changing "AND" to "OR" . B. Johnson referred to Amendment No. 20, suggesting that the 500 ' be changed to 200 ' in this plan and the remaining 300 ' be considered when we consider the Corridor Plan. Bailey agreed to include this in the motion. McCaughan referred to Amendment No. 17 and questioned whether the language was sufficient to address Uhrich ' s concerns in the drainage channel areas . Mirk suggested that the language be changed to read: " . . .designed, where feasible. . . . " Masters referred to designations of the Conservancy areas and questioned whether this means we will legally acquire these lands . Harris noted that this might be so and also noted that the Russell Woods, Neely Home and parts of the Lakes property should be preserved as open 1 33 - August 18, 1980 SHORELINE space and might be deeded to the City. Masters MASTER PROGRAM questioned why the City needed that much property AMENDMENTS AND and also questioned why the individual property DEFINITIONS owner could not develop it as open space. Harris stated that 15% of the river in Kent was not a major amount of riverfront; that the area is very unique, and in some cases the City will buy it or it will be deeded to the City. He suggested that if this was not done, development could occur right up to within the legal setback. Masters suggested that we were removing the property from the tax rolls and picking up the cost of maintaining the property. Bailey stated that the land will be available but if we do not have the money to maintain it or purchase, the land is still estab- lished as open space. McCaughan referred to the section of Amendment No. 28 prohibiting rail served warehousing and ques- tioned whether it was intended to delete this item. Hamilton stated that he thought the Planning Com- mission so intended, but Harris thought they did not want it deleted from those areas that come down to the river. After some discussion, it was agreed that the deletion of this section of Amend- ment No. 28 would be added to the motion. The motion to adopt the Amendments , Definitions and Conservancy designations, with the changes herein listed, carried with all voting in favor. HAMILTON MOVED that Southcenter Corporate Park be exempt from these amendments, inasmuch as conditions had been placed upon the approval of the Plat. B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. INSURANCE Self-Insurance Pooling. McCaughan noted that comments and questions concerning insurance risk pooling should be directed to Mike Webby by Wednesday, August 20, 1980 . COUNCIL Public Works Committee. Mooney noted that the Public Works Committee would meet on Wednesday, August 20, at 8: 15 a.m. - 34 - August 18, 1980 FINANCE Payment of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through August 19 after auditing by the Finance Committee at its meeting at 3:00 p.m. August 29th. Bailey seconded. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT BAILEY MOVED that the meeting be adjourned at 11:55 o ' clock p.m. , Bailey seconded. Motion carried. Marie Jensen, CMC City Clerk 35 -