HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 01/26/1981 Kent, Washington
January 26, 1981.
A SPECIAL MEETING of the Kent City Council was called to order at
4: 00 o 'clock p.m. by Mayor Hogan. Present: Mayor Hogan, Council-
persons Hamilton, B. Johnson, J. Johnson, Masters, McCaughan and
Mooney, City Administrator Cushing, City Attorney Mirk, Planning
Director Harris and Public Works Director Wickstrom. Councilperson
Bailey was not in attendance. Approximately 25 people attended
the meeting.
Mayor Hogan noted that a letter had been received from Laurie Johnson
of the Green River Study Group, regarding the wetlands. McCAUGHAN
MOVED that the letter be accepted for the record, J. Johnson seconded.
Motion CARRIED.
J. JOHNSON MOVED TO TABLE the "Unique and Fragile Areas" map until
the entire Council was present, Mooney seconded. Motion CARRIED.
Harris determined that the next subject to consider was storm
drainage. He noted, however, that there was one item which had
been tabled and no action taken on it. He referred to page 5
of the Green Book, Economic Development, GOAL 6, Policy 1, and
noted that the Council had requested staff to rewrite Policy 1
at the workshop meeting of December 18, 1980. In accordance
with that request, the Planning Department had prepared a new
Policy 1 as set forth in their memorandum dated December 22, 1980.
GOAL 6, Policy 1, has now been rewritten to read as follows :
"Policy. 1: Large bulky structures should be generally
discouraged from locating close to the river
or to major public pedestrian/bicycle routes
connecting the river. (Large and bulky refers
to buildings with an area under one roof of
1 .5 acres or greater and with a facade of
200 feet or more facing the Green River. Close
to the river refers to an area closer to the
river 1, 000 feet. ) "
Harris explained that the Council expressed concern regarding the
clarification as to what a large and bulky structure was and this
had been dealt with through the proposed new wording. In response
to Master' s question, Harris determined that the 200 foot facade
had been handled previously and at this time they were simply identi-
fying the bulkiness of buildings . McCaughan stated that it was
- 1 -
January 26, 1981
important to know the major pedestrian/bicycle routes connecting
to the river, and questioned whether these would go through the
industrial area. Harris noted that they would go along S . 212th,
S . 228th and any interior streets connecting to the river. Harris
further clarified for McCaughan that the policy was saying that
there would be no buildings larger than 1. 5 acres.
Dave Uhrich noted that he wished to address two items, namely the
size limitation on buildings to 1 . 5 acres and also the meaning of
"close to the river or to major public pedestrian/bicycle routes" .
He suggested that more streets than S . 228th and S . 212th and the
WVH were identified in the Land Use Proposal as being major pedes-
trian corridors; that the Puget Sound Power and Light Company right-
of-way has been designated as a major: corridor, as well as all in-
dustrial areas having to provide access to employees at 1000 ' inter-
vals along the corridor. Harris clarified that the policy would
set up a series of street systems within the industrial area between
the West Valley Highway and the Green River between S. 212th and
S. 228th. Uhrich stated that he was not in disagreement with
the fact that there should be size limitations imposed in certain
areas and particularly within the transition area for industrial
or commercial or residential uses . He also noted that he did not
object to size limitations on riverfront lots but suggested that
it be changed to 2 acres rather than 1. 5 . Referring to size limita-
tions on lots that are close to major pedestrian or bike routes he
noted that he would like to see some type of landscaping standard,
perhaps a Type 3, imposed between the Corridor and any building
development. He suggested that the entire area would then come
under the proposal as now written with more limitations. In res-
ponse to Masters ' question, Harris noted that landscaping types
were set up under the Zoning Code, with Type 1 being the most
restrictive. He pointed out, however, that landscaping would not
accomplish anything and that the question to be considered was
should they keep big and bulky buildings 1000 feet away from the
river and that reference to bicycle/pedestrian routes was not
pertinent since they could be all over the area. He suggested
that if the policy was adopted which leads into the 1000 foot
corridor area, discussed at the January 22 meeting, at which time
most of the regulations were adopted, and if reference to the
bicycle/pedestrian area was removed, it would still result in a
policy that there would be no buildings larger than 1.5 acres
within 1, 000 feet of the river.
B. JOHNSON MOVED TO STRIKE the words "or to major public pedestrian/
2 -
January 26, 1981
bicycle routes connecting the river. " Masters seconded. In response
to questions, B. Johnson clarified that the policy would now state:
"Policy 1: Large bulky structures should be generally discouraged
from locating close to the river. (Large and bulky
refers to buildings with an area under one roof of
1.5 acres or greater and with a facade of 200 feet or
more facing the Green River. Close to the river
refers to an area closer to the river 1, 000 feet. ) "
Uhrich raised questions about what could be seen from the Corridor
and noted he could understand the concern for keeping small build-
ings close to the river and large buildings away. He suggested,
however, that from Russell Road the first thing that would be seen
was the first tier of buildings , the rail spurs were to be screened,
and that the view of any buildings beyond the first tier would be
blocked. He stated that it was an unfair imposition to subject
the rest of the buildings outside the riverfront lot areas to the
same size limitation of 1. 5 acres when in fact those buildings
could not be seen. In response to McCaughan ' s question, Harris
noted there are many commercial buildings in excess of 1. 5 acres
but that the need for larger buildings was not a concern to be
considered--that the issue to be addressed was .what could be seen
from the river area. He pointed out that it was approximately 6, 000
feet to the West Valley Highway and that the special restrictions
were being imposed on only the first 1000 feet. He also noted that
Uplands Industries owns a large portion south of the Puget Sound
Power right-of-way and that this land was still open for development,
that large buildings could be built in this area. He reiterated
that the intent of the policy was to keep the buildings smaller
within the 1000 foot area from the river, and contended that 1.5
acres was reasonable for those developing in that area. B. Johnson
stated that by limiting the size of the buildings close to the
river more landscaping would be in place and the appearance and
quality of the river area would be improved. She also made reference
to the fact that the Council had giver, up a great deal by allowing
the railroad spurs within 250 feet of the river, thereby reducing
the number of restraints on development in the area.
Mirk contended that the building along the river could be any size
so long as the facade was no longer than 200 feet and Harris disagreed,
that this was not what the Council wanted, and that the intent was
to restrict buildings to 1 . 5 acres . He suggested that perhaps the
reference to facade should be striken. Masters stated that it might
3
January 26, 1981
be better to say large, bulky structures should generally be dis-
couraged from locating on riverfront lots, " and omit any reference
to the 1000 feet. She noted that she was not in favor of the 1, 000
foot area and had voted against it.
Accordingly, MASTERS MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION by striking the words
"close to the river" and inserting the words "on riverfront lots. "
Hamilton seconded, noting that in the Special Interest District there
is already a restriction that on riverfront lots a building facade
of more than 200 feet was not allowed facing the river. In response
to questions from the Mayor, Masters clarified that she had not
included striking the reference to the 1000 foot area in her amend-
ment.
There was no further discussion on the amendment and the MOTION TO
AMEND CARRIED, with B. Johnson and Hamilton voting nay.
It was determined that Policy 1, as amended, now read as follows :
"Policy 1: Large bulky structures should be generally discouraged
from locating on riverfront lots . (Large and bulky
refers to buildings with an area under one roof of 1.5
acres or greater and with a facade of 200 feet or more
facing the Green River. Close to the river refers to
an area closer to the river 1 , 000 feet. ? "
There was no further discussion on the motion as AMENDED and a tie
vote resulted, with B. Johnson, Masters and Hamilton voting against
and J. Johnson, Mooney and McCaughan voting in favor. After it was
determined by the City Attorney that the policy would be adopted
by resolution and not an ordinance, he noted that it would be proper
for the Mayor to vote under the new regulations . The AMENDED MOTION
CARRIED with Mayor Hogan voting in favor. .
Masters suggested that Policy 1 was now contradictory since the
reference to riverfront lots locks it in and the 1000 foot reference
tends to cloud the description of what constitutes a riverfront lot.
Hamilton noted that perhaps a riverfront lot could be 1500 feet deep
and the policy would govern the first 1.000 feet. In response to
McCaughan' s question, Harris determined that riverfront lots were
restricted to a minimum of 500 feet. Mirk contended that the term
"close to the river" in the last sentence no longer had any meaning
because there was no longer any other language in the policy which
referred to "close to the river" and some change should be made to
4 -
January 26, 1981
clarify the situation. MOONEY MOVED to strike the last sentence of
the policy as adopted, Masters seconded. Motion CARRIED.
In response to questions from the Council and the audience, Mayor
Hogan clarified that Policy 1 now reads as follows :
"Policy 1 : Large bulky structures should generally be discouraged
from locating on riverfront lots . (Large and bulky
refers to buildings with an area under ,one roof of
1. 5 acres or greater and with a facade of 200 feet or
more facing the Green River. "
In response to questions from Masters and Mayor Hogan, Mirk determined
that the policy would be covered under the resolution adopting the
entire plan and that this would be done at a REGULAR Council meeting.
Responding to questions from Tom O ' Connell with reference to discus-
sions on the "Unique and Fragile" areas, Mayor Hogan determined that
the Council had tabled approving the map until the entire Council
was present. Cushing noted that Bailey was absent because of illness
and Harris reminded the Council that Bailey was quite emphatic about
having the entire Council present when the "Unique and Fragile" areas
were discussed. He suggested that the Council should now move on to
"Surface Water Management" since this was the next item to be con-
sidered. At McCaughan ' s request, for the benefit of those in attend-
ance because of possible discussion on the "Unique and Fragile" areas,
HAMILTON MOVED to continue the "Unique and Fragile Studies" to Monday,
February 2, 1981 at 4: 00 o ' clock p.m. , Mooney seconded. Motion carried.
Discussion ensued with reference to the Surface Water Management plan
appearing on Page 28 of the Green Book.
Wickstrom noted that the Planning Commission had recommended adoption
of the LID for drainage and pointed out the area to be covered. He
stated that the consultants had looked at various alternatives and it
was determined that they would concentrate on the area east of the
Green River and north of the Green River and the railroad tracks. He
referred to areas on the map which were not part of the analysis since
they were indicated Agricultural on the zoning map. Referring to the
presentation of Kramer, Chin & Mayo to the Planning Commission, Wick-
strom noted that they had analyzed five alternatives to control the
stormwater run-off generated within the study area as follows :
1) Piecemeal Plan (whereby everyone in the area did their own
thing)
5 -
January 26, 1981
2) SCS Interim Plan (tying into Mill Creek, Springbrook, the
P-1/P-2 Channel and also the P-3 Channel under the old
SCS project)
3) Direct Discharge Plan_ (pumping into the river)
4) Direct Discharge with Storage (pumping into the river with
the offsetting storage on the West side of the river)
5) Direct Discharge to a Larger City Program (going down to
S . 180th and pumping into the river with more storage on
the west side of the river)
Wickstrom noted that the consultants had determined that the lagoon
would not be considered because it might be a potential industrial
development area; however, it was determined after the Planning Com-
mission hearings that the sewage lagoon would be classified as
"Unique and Fragile. " He also noted that the Public Works Department
had looked at the lagoon and felt that it could be utilized as a
wildlife habitat and a storm drainage detention basin. Referring
to the consultant' s alternatives , he noted that it was the recommenda-
tion of the Public Works Department that a combination of No. 2, SCS
Interim Plan, and No. 4, Direct Discharge with Storage, be utilized.He pointed out that the consultants had determined that 350 acre feet
of storage would be required during major storm events. He added that
the Public Works Department plan had been approved by the Planning
Commission and that it was being developed as a ULID. This proposed
plan is intended to:
1) Meet or mitigate the environmental needs as developed by the
Valley Studies .
2) Provide adequate drainage to the whole area.
3) Provide drainage independent of the SCS Channel System.
(Wickstrom pointed out the areas on the map, noting that
the sewage lagoon, including channel storage, would provide
all the storage necessary so that the rate of release would
be the same. He noted that if the SCS project goes the
storage site becomes unnecessary and that it would be primarily
an environmental or wildlife habitat.. If the SCS project
does not go, the necessary storage is provided. )
4) Ability to tie in with the SCS Channel should it be constructed.
However, it would be able to stand on its own should the channel
system not be constructed.
6 -
January 26, 1981
5) Provide recreational requirements through bike routes on
the system. (Wickstrom noted that they were looking at
developing the channel with a road on both sides--one being
64th Avenue S ./Russell Road and the other being a paved main-
tenance road which could be used as a pedestrian/bicycle path.
Referring to the Surface Water Management Study Policy Recommendations
Wickstrom read from the Green Book as follows :
1) Kent should continue to support the SCS Valley Drainage Projects.
(Wickstrom pointed out that this policy addressed the area indi-
cated on the map but would not address the balance of the City
as drainage problems to the east and north of the Green River,
which the SCS projects would do if. implemented. )
2) Development of any drainage system should be consistent and
compatible with the proposed SCS Valley Drainage projects.
3) Prohibit development within the FIA designated ponding areas
unless equivalent storm water storage is provided or until
the SCS Valley Drainage projects are constructed. (It was
noted they were talking about specific ponding areas south
of S. 228th, west of the West Valley Highway, primarily affecting
the Polygon property, and in the area of the lagoon, which
affects the Uplands property and that of Pacific Industrial
Concepts. It was also pointed out that the FIA consultant
had analyzed the drainage system in the Valley as it presently
exists and then done a computer analysis based on the existence
of interment areas where the 100-year 24-hour flood plain would
be. It was also noted that in the ponding areas referred to the
outlets were restricted, such as a lake type situation, so the
outlets did not allow water to escape at natural positions.
It was determined that the Public Works Department was saying
that they did not want any development in those designated
ponding areas unless equivalent storage could be provided,
which the LID would cover, or on an interim basis, that the
developer would have to provide or devise a storage facility
somewhere on the property. )
4) Adopt the concept of the North/South drainage channel and
that development thereof should proceed as soon as possible.
(Wickstrom noted that they are presently acting on a petition
which was received some time ago for the North;South flood
channel control project, that a preliminary meeting had been
7 -
January 26, 1981
held with the property owners who are involved and that they
were aware of what their assessments might be. He noted that
a recommendation had been made by the Planning Commission to
adopt that concept as part of the overall SCS plan. )
5) All developments within the area shall preserve the viability
of constructing the North/South drainage channel .
6) Kent should proceed with the development of a City-side Storm
Water Drainage District.
7) Recommend support for the LID Plan proposed by the Public Works
Department as the drainage solution for the study area.
Mayor Hogan referred to the meeting which had been held with the
property owners involved in the proposed LID and that a great deal
of concern had been expressed by residents south of James Street
with ::egard to their assessments and the need for the LID. She
indicated that some discussion had followed about only doing a
portion of the proposed LID.
Referring to the Surface Water Management Study Policy Recommendations
Mayor Hogan questioned whether the Council wished to adopt them as
a whole or review the recommendations individually. McCaughan noted
that he had heard nothing about the concerns of people south of James
Street and was uncomfortable about adopting the policy recommendations
without those persons being present, particularly since the hearing
was related to the adoption of the Surface Water Study. He suggested
that there should be some input from these people since Policy 7
stated that the City should adopt the LID Plan. Mayor Hogan pointed
out that it had been understood at the meeting that the parties peti-
tioning for the LID have the necessary percentage of the assessments
to carry it.
Mooney referred to the area south of James Street, noting that a rezone
had recently been approved in the area for high density uses of the
property, and commented regarding the blacktop which was breaking up
because of standing water. He stated that the ditches in the area
were in need of some type of improvement to drain the affected properties
and referred to the West Meeker Street improvement which should begin
shortly. He noted that while he sympathized with the property owners
in the area, particularly those on limited incomes, if the City was
going to continually upgrade the other properties with rezones and
allow further development in the area, lie believed the most economical
8
January 26, 1981
way to do it was on a large basis . Mayor Hogan pointed out that
people far to the south did not feel there was a need for the
drainage system in their area and it was determined that the Public
Works Department would be meeting with these people to get input
as to where the problem areas were. Mooney stated that after review-
ing the assessment roll proposed the City of Kent would have an
assessment of about a half million dollars and that the total
project cost was approximately 8.5 million dollars. Wickstrom
clarified that at this time they were merely asking that the concept
of the LID be adopted, that proceeding on a normal schedule the
entire project would be reviewed, and that it could be modified
at a later time. Wickstrom responded to Mayor Hogan ' s question
by noting that the value of the lagoon was based on its present
zoning. Mooney commented that the lagoon was ,Sewer Department
property and that they were entitled to compensation for it. Masters
raised the question as to whether these property owners would be
exempt from any future assessments for Surface Water management
if the LID were approved and Wickstrom responded by noting that
if the SCS project were approved and these properties could stand
on their own, it would be difficult to show future benefit.
Mayor Hogan questioned whether the drainage ditches that presently
exist would be capable of handling the water if the LID were formed
and the channel constructed and Wickstrom pointed out that the outlet
into the Mill Creek at approximately S . 204th would be a restricted
outlet similar to the system at Lower Mill. Creek, where only a certain
amount of water was allowed to go through and the rest was backed up
in ponds. He pointed out further that the ditches and the lagoon
would provide a similar storage area. He also noted that there are
20 acres of ponding facilities in back of the pump station not pre-
sently being used as a storage basin but which would be under the
SCS project.
Mooney pointed out that the pumps were capable of pumping 3000 cfs
and the most that they have ever pumped is 500 cfs, that there is
a restriction to the amount of water going into the pond, and that
there would be a meeting with the County sometime this week in an
effort to resolve the problem.
Mr. Goldsmith referred to the question raised by Masters about the
possibility of people being faced with another assessment further
down the line even if they participate in the LID. He noted that
he had two concerns, one being that no one knew at this time how
the SCS system would be dispersed through Kent or King County and
whether or not there would be an assessment for this . Secondly,
9 -
January 26, 1981
Goldsmith referred to an operation and maintenance fee under the
City' s Surface Water Management Plan and suggested that everyone
in the City would be assessed for that. He pointed out that it
should be made clear to those parties participating in the LID
that there was a possibility that they would be facing another
assessment in the future. Wickstrom clarified that the LID was
for construction as well as for maintenance and operation fees.
With reference to the proposed LID and the objections that were
being raised by parties to the south who indicated they had no
drainage problems, Goldsmith concurred with Mooney that the only
economical way to handle the problem was to address it as an area
wide problem. He suggested that the people who were objecting
the most strenuously were probably using their property at the
present time for single family residences , even though it might
be zoned Industrial or Commercial, and that if the property were
sold for development as zoned, the new owner would be unable to
get the necessary permits due to lack of drainage. Goldsmith
also suggested that an indication was being made that the parties
who had petitioned for the L.ID were, because of their size, pulling
poor people in who had been warned this was what would happen if
development were allowed in the Valley. He suggested that this
was an unfair assumption and pointed out that the developers north
of S . 240th were willing to pay the assessment for facilities in
front of their properties and to this extent the drainage channel
and/or the lagoon would have storage area to benefit the people
to the south in the future when in fact they needed the drainage.
He pointed out that the developers might feel_ that if the size of
the channel were cut down as well as the amount of storage in the
lagoon, they would still pay their fair share and leave the prob-
lem of drainage to the south to be solved in the future by those
property owners . He noted out that the City through its advance
planning had given consideration to these future needs. Goldsmith
also questioned whether the Environmental Excise Tax could provide
an opportunity for the City to pick up or at least maintain the
potential cash flow in the next 10 to 15 years for servicing the
LID bed. He suggested that this might be one application of the
fee even though he knew the ordinance specifically spelled out
sewer, water and parks and that drainage facilities were equally
as important.
Mayor Hogan questioned the possibility of providing for a late
comer charge on the oversizing and Wickstrom declared that it
was not a utility; that presently late comer charges are allowed
on sewer and water facilities, together with a charge in lieu of
10
January 26, 1981
assessment.
Goldsmith further raised questions with regard to Policy Recommendation
No. 6 regarding the development of a Cit<<7-wide Storm Drainage Utility
and questioned the time frame involved. He clarified for Mayor Hogan
that the intent of his question was whether or not if the Storm Drain-
age Utility were developed it would then qualify as a utility so late
comer agreements would be allowed. In response to Goldsmith ' s ques-
tions, Mirk commented that without looking at the statutes he could
not state specifically whether late comer agreements could be used
for anything other than sanitary sewers ; that there was a statute
referring to sewerage that included storm sewers but this was not
related to late comer agreements . In response to Mooney ' s questions ,
Wickstrom noted that the LID project was expected to be operational
as a utility in March of 1982.
Goldsmith commented on the recreational_ requirements as set forth
on the top of page 29 under item No. 5. Harris clarified that this
was editorial comment and that the issue under consideration was
the policy recommendations .
Discussion followed concerning the 7 Policy Recommendations.
MOONEY MOVED to adopt Policy Recommendation No. 1 reading as follows:
" l. Kent should continue to support the SCS valley
Drainage projects .
B. Johnson seconded. MOTTON CARRIED .
Referring to the remainder of the Policy Recommendations, Goldsmith
noted that Wickstrom had indicated that primarily the policies
related to the area north and east of the river and that no specific
evaluation was done to the south and west. He suggested that since
the Valley Studies related to all areas , it was his opinion that if
anything were adopted in terms of Policy Recommendation No. 3, it
would be appropriate to indicate specifically "north and east. "
He noted that he had concerns with "Prohibit development within the
FIA designated ponding areas . . . " because the FIA had identified the
areas as a floodway which is primarily dealing with north and east
of the Green River itself and her banks and that the ponding areas
would fall within that zone . He also pointed out that both FIA and
King County, relative to State Flood Control Permits , allow
fill in the floodway fringe area . He noted this determination was
i
January 26, 1981
the result of a study conducted to evaluate the Valley area. He
stated that the flood plain that exists deals with the elevation
of a structure within that area, with minimum floor elevation for
flood-proofing. Referring to ponding areas, he suggested that
these are basically areas that fill up with water due to restric-
tions in outfalls ; that the non-concern expressed by both King
County Surface Water Management Division and HUD is based on their
theory that once these areas are filled for a given season, they
are in fact totally filled, whether with water or dirt. He con-
tended that if the area were filled with dirt the runoff would
be less than if it were filled with water, his reasoning being that
with water there would be a 100% discharge from the area. He
stated that to prohibit development in those areas is inconsistent
with the policies referred to; that if the City was saying that
they wanted detention on site in terms of the increase in impact
from development this would be consistent with the City' s policies
and with those of King County and other agencies requiring storm
water detention. He suggested they were talking about two different
things--storm detention on development and regulating the increased
discharge. Goldsmith also indicated that there was a problem in
the area of the properties dealing with the LID since these owners
have petitioned the City to take their storm water detention require-
ments from development and put it into the channel and into the
lagoon, with no on-site retainage. He suggested that some clari-
fication was important there since King county ' s position, in terms
of management of the SCS system, is that holding the water back in
these inundated areas merely holds it back from getting to the pump
station, which he noted Mr. Mooney had indicated was only being used
to 1/6 of its capacity. He referred to the problem which Mooney had
indicated existed with the drainage ditches and that the County was
working on the restrictions downstream. Referring to Policy Recom-
mendation No. 3, Goldsmith concluded that the Council should emphasize
"north and east" of the river, and further, regular development in
these areas in accordance with the FIA and the HUD study program and/or
the State Flood Control Permit process .
In response to B. Johnson ' s question, Wickstrom noted that Goldsmith
was referring to three classifications--floodway, floodway fringe
and ponding, which is a restricted outlet type of situation. He
stated that it is possible to build in the floodway fringe or fill
an area up, the effect of which would be to raise the upstream
channel depth in the creek by one foot. Referring to the floodway
classification, he noted that you definitely have to stay out of
that area. Wickstrom also referred to an interim report from the
Basin Executive Committee in trying to make a. determination as to
12 -
I
January 26, 1981
whether the SCS program would ever be completed. In the interim
report it was stated that any development that does occur, if
within the floodway fringe, will provide the detention plus 50%
of that area or volume in the floodway fringe. Referring to
ponding, he suggested that this is a more severe type situation
and the City was asking that no building take place in these
areas, noting that if these areas are filled in the water has
to go someplace, the outlets are restricted and water is displaced
onto other properties . Wickstrom noted that in the areas under
discussion they were concentrating on the major ponding areas
asking that no building take place, and that in some of the larger
parcels of land equal storage volume could take place elsewhere.
until the LID was put together and constructed. Responding to
Goldsmith ' s question, Wickstrom noted that the LID would take
care of any water that is stored below the flood plain.
Mooney suggested that in Policy Recommendation No. 3, after the
words "equivalent storm water storage, " perhaps the words "or
the interim surface drainage plan is provided or until the SCS
Valley Drainage projects are constructed. " Wickstrom responded
by noting that this was his intent--that until this takes place
there would be no building in the ponding areas. Wickstrom also
clarified that in the interim period for design and construction
of the LID, after its initial approval, if construction were allowed
the chances of the 100-year, 24- hour storm occurring were relatively
small. Wickstrom clarified for Goldsmith that his assumption that
storage would be provided through the LID was correct and Goldsmith
stated that it was important that this be included. He also
referred to the fact that they, were talking about prohibiting
building when in fact the storage facilities were being provided.
Goldsmith also suggested that some indication should be made that
reference was being made to "north and east" of the river and that
these surface water recommendations I should also apply to -the south
and the west. He expressed concerns that the south end of Kent
could become the holding pond for the City of Auburn since Auburn
does allow flooding in the floodway fringe area and was also follow-
ing the State Flood Control permit regulations and HUD recommendations
for filling in the floodway fringe . Wickstrom pointed out again that
the study only addressed areas north and east of the river because the
other areas were designated as agricultural areas under the Land Use
Program. He noted that they would be coming back to the Council
with flood plan maps which would address the areas. Goldsmith con-
tended that Policy Recommendations Nos . 3 , 4, -5 and 7 should clearly
indicate north and east so long as the storage that is to be provided
13 -
I
,January 26, 1981.
is in fact part of the LID as another solution.
Dave Uhrich commended Wickstrom and the Public Works Department for
the excellent job done in assembling the information supplied and
coming up with a viable drainage solution. He expressed the support
of Uplands and concurrence with the seven proposals with regard to
the Surface Water Management Study Policy Recommendations . He posed
two questions to the Council, namely with respect to designations of
ponding areas and as to what a ponding area actually was. He sug-
gested that there were some areas which have been designated as
ponding areas by HUD which were completely isolated from other
areas and which did not have anything in common with the existing
ditch. He questioned whether it was in fact true that these areas
are primarily inundated with water during severe storms because of
their topography and not because of backing up of water. Wick-
strom agreed that this was true but noted also they were ditched
areas. Wickstrom also stated that these were smaller areas which
was not the subject of discussion. lie noted that they were talking
about the major ponding areas around the lagoon, and north to S.
212th, around S. 228th and the West valley Highway. Uhrich noted
with respect to the areas north of S . 228th lying in common with
the existing Drainage District No. 1 channel constructed down the
west side of the lagoon and across the south side, that there is
an outlet under S . 212th at the present time that drains out of
the Boeing Company property. He suggested that these ponding areas
were caused because the outlet is restricted; therefore, the water
cannot flow through there at a great enough rate to dissipate it
as it collects. Wickstrom pointed out that there was a high point
on the ditch on the north side of S . 212th which may have caused
a partial restriction. Uhrich questioned whether it was true that
in the event that development did occur in the areas referred to
the water would spread and relocate within the general area rather
than causing flooding downstream and Wickstrom agreed that this was
whatthe FIA studies showed.
With regard to Policy Recommendation No. 3, Uhrich stated that
he was not sure in his mind what "equivalent storm water storage"
meant in terms of deciding how much water should be reallocated
over the unponded areas and expressed concerns that possibly some
of the volumes might be counted more than once. Wickstrom clari-
fied that the drainage LID would provide equivalent water storage.
Mayor Hogan raised questions as to the projected runoff from the
property and Wickstrom noted this could be done with the contours
of the map since they show what the surface water elevation is under
14 -
January 26, 1981
the 100 year, 24-hour storm. He noted that if Uhrich provided the
necessary contours and showed the area in question was below the
surface water elevation, that would equate to a certain volume,
which would have to be provided over another parcel.
Uhrich proposed an amendment to Recommendation No. 3 that would
read as follows : "No development will be allowed within FIA
designated ponding areas unless said development incorporates
a design which will not increase run-off or increase the possibility
of downstream flooding or until a city approved area-wide drainage
project is approved for construction. " He suggested that this was
consistent with Kent ' s storm water ordinance . Wickstrom noted
this had also been proposed at the Planning Commission level but
the Public Works Department still preferred the language they
presented. Referring to the City ' s storm drainage ordinance,
he stated that it referred primarily to water run-off and not
ponding areas that are existing and occurring on certain properties.
Masters commented that the ponds that exist today might not be
ponds tomorrow. Wickstrom stated that the study dealt with the
100 year, 24-hour storm, the entire drainage basin, establishing
the water surface level when the storm occurs based on existing
conditions, and that the surface water elevation is therefore
a constant factor.
Goldsmith referred to Masters ' comment and suggested that the City
was in fact penalizing property owners who have water standing on
their lands now in terms of actions that the City has allowed in
the past which have closed off drainage outfalls. He opined that
the storm detention within the lagoon and within the channel were
not designed to accurately handle those problems and that it was
a means of providing the release of those waters that have been
trapped there by virtue of some errors that have occured in the
past. He suggested further that they were not natural ponding
areas but are areas which are ponded now because of drainage re-
strictions, thereby adversely affecting the property owners .
Joel Haggard suggested that there were a few basic concepts which
should be considered in trying to resolve the wording for Policy
Recommendation No. 3. He stated that as a matter of fact and law,
the State, through King County as well as FIA and HUD, imposes
certain requirements, regulations and/or restrictions upon any
development that may take place on property that is either directly
subject to flooding, or as a result of development, causes flood
or flood damage in other areas, particularly downstream or upstream
as a result of impoundments or the lack cf same. He noted there
15 -
,Tanuary 26, 1981
were at least .two existing programs with attendant regulations
that specifically control development as it occurs in floodways,
flood fringes, flood plains and other classifications . He also
pointed out that the retention of the storm water must be such
that the rate of release before development. and the rate of re-
lease after development is strictly controlled. He stated that
he would resolve the issue by saying "Any development in the study
area which is north and east of the river and south and west of
this line, insofar as it affects flooding, shall be consistent
with and in accordance with existing State Flood Control Permit
and FIA requirements, " instead of using terms like "Prohibit
development unless . . . " He referred to Mooney ' s comments about
the pumping and suggested that it did not make much sense to
build a lot of reservoirs, holding ponds or tanks to keep the
water in the area when the pumping was only being done to 1/6
of its capacity, so long as it did not increase the damage down-
stream. Putting these two principles together, he suggested that
Policy Recommendation No. 3 read as follows : "Development within
any area subject to flooding shall be controlled in accordance
with existing State Flood Control permit and FIA requirements .
Until the SCS Valley Drainage projects are constructed, developments
within the drainage study area shall provide for storm water stor-
age consistent with release capacities . " Mooney noted that when
the SCS project is constructed and Howard Hansen Dana is releasing
12, 000 cfs, which may occur for 4 or 5 days at a time, there are
going to be times when the water is doing to have to be held in
the channels. Haggard concurred but suggested that it was neces-
sary to account for this variability by tying it in to release
capacities and that this possibility of release should not be
ignored throughout the entire year.
Sally Millen of Arrow Development requested clarification with
regard to Policy Recommendation No. 7 , noting that it was her under-
standing that the LID plan was as shown on the map but questioned
whether it also took into consideration the lakes being developed
on the Arrow Development property. She referred to the bottom of
page 28 in the Green Book which reads " . . .enough storage capacity
could be provided in the Lagoon, the proposed lakes in the Lakes
Development, and in channel storage to accomodate the storage re-
quired during major storm events . " Wickstrom stated that this was
an error, that the lakes are not part of the system. Millen sug-
gested that the lakes could in fact provide quite a bit of storage.
Wickstrom clarified that the City does not have a firm commitment
from Lakes Development in terms of those facilities being there and
16
January 26, 1981
and that they will be part of the system. He noted that some ques-
tions had been raised that because of their nature the lakes will
be kept as part of the Lakes Development, since the City would not
be able to protect them from any possible oil spills that might
occur and happen to get into the drainage system. He further pointed
out that the proposed LID would be assessing the Lakes Development
property totally, including the detention portion. If those facili-
ties are developed before the final LID stage is reached, there
would be a possibility that a credit would be coming to Arrow
Development if the facilities were in fact a part of the City
system. Millen suggested that they would like to have this flexi-
bility to work with the City and Wickstrom stated that it already
existed but until the lakes are actually there and the Lakes
Development bonded, there is no guarantee that they will be part
of the City system.
In response to Goldsmith ' s further questions regarding No. 3 as
to whether it was the recommendation of staff to prohibit develop-
ment in the FIA designated ponding areas unless equivalent storm
water storage is provided, Wickstrom stated that equivalent storm
water storage, for definition purposes, would be the LID, and
further noted that this had not been inserted in any of the Policy
Recommendations since they were recommendations from the Planning
Commission. He pointed out that if the Council. wished to make
this change to note that equivalent storage would be the formation
and passage of the LID that was their prerogative. Goldsmith sug-
gested that this was the point he was attempting to make previously--
that equivalent storage is in fact provided until the LID or until
the SCS Valley Drainage projects are constructed. Wickstrom stated
this was correct and that when these facilities were constructed,
storage would become unnecessary. Haggard stated that if this
were spelled out by the Council it could alleviate a lot of concerns
later on as to its meaning.
After discussion, Haggard suggested that Policy Recommendation No. 3
be amended to include " . . .unless equivalent storm water storage or
the LID is formed and passed or until the SCS valley Drainage projects
are constructed. "
MOONEY MOVED to ADOPT Policy Recommendation No. 3 reading as follows :
"3) Prohibit development within the FIA designated ponding
areas unless equivalent storm water storage or the LID
is formed and passed or until the SCS Valley Drainage
project is constructed. "
- 17 -
I
January 26, 1981
B. Johnson seconded. Haggard raised questions as to existing storm
water storage and Wickstrom stated that would be the existing stor-
age volume that presently occurs on property as denoted in the FIA
100-year, 24-hour storm analysis, excluding the minor ponding areas
and referring to the major ponding areas in and around the lagoon,
and to S . 212th and around S . 228th and the West Valley Highway.
Wickstrom clarified for Uhrich that if there was no ponding there
would be no need for storage, and that it would be necessary to
comply with the drainage ordinance as it now exists.
Gary Young of the Polygon Corporation questioned whether they would
be meeting the requirements and conditions if they alleviated the
ponding which presently exists on their property with on-site deten-
tion. Wickstrom responded that it would and that Polygon has sub-
mitted the preliminary plat and the volume of water that has to be
retained has been determined. Young asked for a further clarifica-
tion, referring to the FIA area and the storm drainage ordinance,
and noting that Polygon has a zoning contract with the City that
specifically spells out the volume of storage for the site of 59. 7
acre feet and they were presuming that was developed in accordance _
with the same policies and would not increase. Wickstrom noted
that under the rezone a limited study was done which did not address
the fact that the area is actually a ponding area for off-site
drainage and did in fact address only the water that would develop
on the site from the 7-day storm. Young determined that the water
is coming from other properties and that this was occurring now.
He asked that the current agreement on the Polygon property remain
intact. Haggard suggested that this was a side issue which he
and the City Attorney would have to discuss because it was true
there is an existing contractual rezone applicable to the property
and they did not believe the City had the authority to increase
the requirement beyond that agreement. Wickstrom determined for
Young that if they could supply equivalent storm water storage it
would still have to be compatible with the drainage plan. Referring
to Policy Recommendation No. 5, Wickstrom clarified that the City
would have the ability to get through the property for the North/
South drainage channel.
There was no further discussion and the MOTION CARRIED.
MOONEY MOVED to AMEND Policy Recommendations Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7
to add "north and east of the Green River. " Masters seconded.
Hamilton stated that the policies sounded like good drainage ordi-
nances for anyplace in the City and questioned restricting them
- 18 -
January 26, 1981
to certain areas since the studies were concerned with the entire
area. Haggard recommended that the amendments be adopted for the
reason that the record states, as explained by Wickstrom, that the
drainage studies which were done by the Valley Studies Program
related only to the area north and east of the river. He suggested
that the record establishes that the recommendations did not apply
anyplace else and that Mooney ' s motion responded to that.
The MOTION CARRIED, with Hamilton voting nay.
In response to questions from B. Johnson, Cushing noted that the
initial contract called for looking at the entire area but in the
final refinements, with regard to the Transportation Study, the
Green River Corridor Study and the Drainage Study, all elements
of the Valley Studies, were put into detail based on the selection
by the Council of the Land Use Plan. Harris clarified that the
consultants based their studies on the Cour:cil ' s directions .
McCAUGHAN MOVED for the ADOPTION of Polio Recommendation No. 2,
Mooney seconded. MOTION CARRIED.
B. JOHNSON MOVED for the ADOPTION of Polisiv Recommendations Nos.
3, 4, 5, & 7 AS AMENDED & No.6 . Hamilton seconded.
Don Barr noted that he was still not comfortable with the language
in No. 7 since it implied a plan exists and that there was in fact
a lot of things that had to be resolved with reference to the LID.
After discussion it was agreed that it was a proposed LID plan.
In response to Uhrich ' s request, No. 3 was read again.
"3) Prohibit development north and east of the Green River
within the FIA designated ponding areas unless
equivalent storm water storage or the LID is formed
and passed or until the SCS Valley Drainage projects
are constructed. "
There was no further discussion and the MOTION CARRIED.
HAMILTON MOVED to continue the hearing to Monday, February 2, 1981
at 4: 00 o 'clock p.m. , B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 6 : 00 o ' c1..ock. p.m.
Betty Gray, CPS
Deputy City Clerk.
19 -