HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 02/02/1981 i
Kent, Washington
February 2 , 1981.
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at
8:00 o' clock .p.m. by Mayor Hogan. Present: Mayor Hogan, Council-
persons Bailey, Hamilton, B. Johnson, J. Johnson , Masters, McCaughan
and Mooney, City Administrator Cushing, City Attorney Mirk, Planning
Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom and Finance
Director McCarthy. Also present: Acting Fire Chief Freelove,
Hearing Examiner Burke , Administrative Assistant Webby, Parks
Director Wilson, and URS representative Abed. Approximately
170 people were in attendance at the meeting.
I
CONSENT MASTERS MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A
CALENDAR through L, be approved, with the exception of
Item K, the final Budget Adjustment Ordinance
for 1980, which will be presented at a later
date .
AMENDMENT TO On January 27, 1981 the Planning Commission
ZONING CODE held a public hearing to consider amending the
Zoning Code, Section 7. 19 , Exceptions to
Height Regulations , as follows :
Add to the list of exceptions : water tanks and
standpipes . The Planning Commission recommends
that the proposed amendment be denied.
The public hearing was opened by Mayor Hogan.
Wickstrom recommended that the proposed amend-
ment be approved, explaining that even with the
change, a Conditional Use permit would still
be required. He explained that similar elevated
tanks would be needed also on the East Hill .
He pointed out that West Hill residents opposed
the proposed site at South 244th and Military
Road, but that one alternate site proposed by
the residents at South 248th had covenants which
would preclude the building of the standpipe.
Wickstrom further noted that another alternate
site near Cambridge Highlands was to be used by
the state for a pit site for the extension of
SR 516 . He pointed out that the only other
alternate site would be at the existing reservoir
site.
I
- 1 -
Wickstrom explained that under the existing
code in order to build an elevated tank or
reservoir, both a conditional use permit
from the Hearing Examiner and a variance from
the Board of Adjustment were necessary because
of the height restrictions. Applications must
be signed by the owner of the property, so under
the existing conditions , the city could adquire
a suitable site with no guarantee that the
variance would be approved.
Mooney asked about the additional cost of
running a pipeline from South Cambridge to
the north portion of the area involved in
this proposed improvement. Wickstrom noted that
if we placed the tank at the southerly site a
new transmission main would be necessary to
provide a comparable level of service at a
cost of $150 , 000 to $225 , 000 .
Berniece Burtis objected to the attempt to
change the code after the application for the
water tower had been considered and rejected.
Berne Bitemen, speaking for West Hill residents ,
recapped the sequence of events over the past
several years , and filed a copy of the recap
for the record. Fie noted that the applications
for the proposed standpipe had been denied
by the Board of Adjustment, the Planning Com-
mission and the Hearing Examiner and suggested
that the Council should now reinforce the action
taken by these bodies and not change the code
for the purpose of permitting this particular
standpipe . He pointed out that the residents
were not opposed to the water tank, but were
opposed to the city' s proposed location, and
further that Water District 75 had the mains ,
pressure and tank capacity to give the West
Hill area water service . Bitemen noted that in
1978 URS had estimated the cost of an under-
ground tank at $640 , 000 but that the estimate
was now at well over one million dollars . He
displayed a map showing the city' s proposal
and several alternate sites suggested by the
residents . Upon Mooney' s question, Wickstrom
noted that an alternate site proposed by
Biteman had covenants running with the plat
which allowed no more than two stories in
height, and noted that there was a strip
- 2 -
100 feet wide against the shopping center
building, which was outside the area with. the
restrictions . Upon the Mayor' s question,
Wickstrom determined that Water District 75
had indicated that they were not interested in
committing to a long-term agreement to serve the
area but that they were willing to help in the
water shortage situation. On Bailey ' s inquiry,
Biteman noted that there was only one house in
the plat which was near the site he proposed,
and that the site was already screened with
second growth trees .
Richaid Aramburu, attorney for the West Hill
Homeowners Association, stated that the city
should consider the neighborhood when proposing
a site for an elevated standpipe . He stated
further that the proposed amendment to the
zoning code was not in the public interest and
was , in fact, an attempt to change the code to
suit this particular city situation. Don Knapp,
resident of the area, stated that the city
should find another location for the standpipe
and should not amend to the code . Mrs . Markham
j stated that she lived across the street from
the city' s proposed location and objected to
placing the tank on that site , noting that she
didn' t think that the city had made an effort
to find another suitable location.
! After all who wished to speak had done so,
McCaughan MOVED to close the hearing. B. John-
son seconded, motion carried. B. JOHNSON MOVED
that the Zoning Code be amended to exempt
elevated reservoirs , tanks and standpipes from
height restrictions and that the West Hill tank
at South 244th and Military Road be excluded
from the motion. Masters seconded. Hamilton
clarified that the intent of the motion was
that the restrictions still exist for the tank
s
in question. Upon Mirk ' suggestion, B. John-
son added to her motion , for further clarification,
that the restrictions still exist for the site
at South 244th and Military Road, which was the
subject of the Conditional Exception and Variance
applications and that the City of Seattle property
is not involved. Mirk noted that this action
would prevent an automatic exemption from the
height restrictions for this particular site.
- 3 -
Upon McCaughan' s question, it was determined
that this action does not pertain in any way
to the Seattle reservoir. Wickstrom noted
that Section 7. 19 states in part: "The height
limitations shall not apply to barns and silos
provided that they are not located within
fifty ( 50) feet of any lot line. " He asked
that it be understood that the amendment to
the code would not place the water tanks and
standpipes in this same category; that the
50-foot setback restriction would NOT apply
to the water tanks and standpipes. Motion
CARRIED.
Bailey MOVED to direct the Engineering Depart-
ment to seek out other sites for the necessary
standpipes and/or reservoirs . B . Johnson second-
ed. Masters suggested that when this matter is
again discussed that the meeting be held in the
neighborhood to be affected, with Council , staff
and the community involved in the deliberations .
Mooney asked Biteman to work with the Council
and staff to find a solution to the problem and
suggested that a meeting be held with the
residents of the plat to discuss the covenants .
Motion CARRIED.
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5A)
Approval of Minutes . APPROVAL of the minutes
of the Special Meetings of January 8, 12, 15,
19 and 22 and the Regular Meeting of January 19
with the following corrections :
Special Meeting January 8 , 1981
Page 3, line 26 , word "road" changed to "roads"
Page 10 , line 14 , "Miller" changed to "Millen"
Page 12 , line 21 , "committee" changed to Commission"
j Page 12 , line 34, change "park" to "parks" , delete
the word "plan"
Special Meeting January 12 , 1981
I
Page 12 , line 22 , change "property" to "properly"
Regular Meeting January 19 , 1981
Page 17, line 22 , change "appoint" to "appointment"
4 -
i
Special Meeting January 19, 1981
Page 3, line 12, insert the words "of the" at
the end of line 12
Page 3, line 13, place a comma after "plans"
j and combine with the following sentence .
Page 4, line 24, change "purposed" to %)roposed"
Page 12, line 31 , add " to" after the word "added"
Page 12 , line 47, change "would" to"should"
Page 13, line 11 , change "an" to "a"
Page 13, line 18, delete second "only"
i
Special Meeting January 22, 1981
Page 4, insert "motion carried" following motion
to adopt Regulation 3.
Page 7, line 13, delete words "for lots used
for line of the River"
Page 81 add line 21 . "J. Johnson seconded.
Motion carried. "
HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5C)
SANITATION Comprehensive Sewerage Plan. ADOPTION of
Resolution No. 915 the 1980 Comprehensive
Sewerage Plan as prepared by URS.
LID 305 - Sanitary Sewer (113th Avenue S .E.
(North of S .E. 256th) . An informal meeting
with the property owners of the involved area
was held on December 10 , 1980 at which the
proposed sanitary sewer improvement LID was
discussed. The Public Works Department has
reviewed the events leading up to the proposed
sanitary sewer improvement and recommends that
Resolution No. 916 be passed proposing the
Local Improvement District. Said resolution
sets the public hearing date on the formation
of the district for March 2, 1981 .
MOONEY MOVED that Resolution No. 916 be
adopted, J. Johnson seconded. Motion carried.
WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5C)
Water Comprehensive Plan. ADOPTION of
Resolution No . 914 adopting the Ground Water
Development Standards as an amendment to the
water Comprehensive Plan adopted November 1979 ,
by Resolution No. 979 .
5 -
WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5E)
Kent-Renton Water Intertie. ACCEPTANCE of the
Bill of Sale for the Kent-Renton Water Intertie
originally constructed by the Benaroya Company
in 1978 and APPROVAL of reimbursement in the
amount of $27 ,000 to the Benaroya Company. The
intertie was constructed by Benaroya Company
for a total cost of $5.1 , 000 and the request for
reimbursement has been reviewed by the Public
Works Committee in March of 1980 and approval
recommended.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5F)
O' Brien Water Service Request. APPROVAL of
the request of Dan O' Brien, owner of a parcel
of land located in the vicinity of S .E. 234th
and 116th Avenue S .E. to allow Water District
No. 58 to service his property. At the present
time, the westerly half of the parcel is in
Kent' s water franchise area and the remaining
portion is in Water District 58' s franchise
area. The request has been reviewed by both
the Public Works Committee and the City Council
as a whole and after determining that Kent' s
Comprehensive Water Plan will not be affected,
approval of the request is recommended.
STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5G)
L_ID 292 - 104th Avenue S .E . Street Improvement
(S .E. 235th to S .E . 242nd. ) ACCEPTANCE of the
certification of the City Treasurer that
$21 , 933. 59 in assessments was collected during
the 30-day interest-free period and that the
remaining unpaid assessments total $139 , 913. 87.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5H)
LID 294 - Guiberson Street Improvement. ACCEP-
TANCE of the certification of the City Treasurer
that $5 , 213. 33 in assessments was collected
during the 30-day interest-free period and that
the remaing unpaid assessments total $24, 612 . 89 .
STREET (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5J)
VACATION Southcente.r Corporate Park Cul-de-Sac Vacations.
ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 2270 vacating a por-
tion of Southcenter Corporate Park Plat and two
cul-de-sacs within the plat, for which a public
hearing was held on November 3, 1980 . Uhrich
questioned whether the lot _lines were also vacated
and Mirk indicated they were .
- 6 -
REZONE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5L)
Lincoln Properties Rezone (RZ-80-7) . ADOPTION
of Ordinance No. 2271 approving the Lincoln
Properties application for a rezone of 21. 6
acres located south of James Street west of
64th Avenue South, east of Russell Road Park,
from GC, General Commercial, to MR-M, Multi-
Family Residential Medium Density. The Hearing
Examiner heard the application on November 19,
1980 and the Council accepted the Hearing
Examiner' s recommendation for approval with
conditions on January 19 , 1981.
The Shires/180 Associates Rezone . (RZ-80-8)
The Shires 180 Associates Rezone application for
a reclassification of 25 . 3 acres from MRM and
R1-7. 2 to MRG (Garden density multi-family resi-
dential) with a maximum of 200 units , south of
South 248th approximately 1 , 200 feet east of
104th Avenue S.E. , was heard by the Hearing
Examiner on December 10 , 1980 . The Examiner
has recommended that the application be approved
with conditions as noted in her report
which has been made a part of the record.
MASTERS MOVED that the recommendations of the
Hearing Examiner be approved and the City
Attorney be instructed to draft the necessary
ordinance. Mooney seconded. Motion carried.
PARKS & Bids - Kent Memorial Park Backstop and Fencing.
RECREATION Bids were opened on January 29 , 1981 for back-
stop and fencing for Kent Memorial Park. Three
bids were received as follows :
Bidder Amount
Northwest Fence Co. $26, 803. 22
Secoma Fence Inc. 27, 876 .19
P. K. Enterprises , Inc. &
Scarsella Bros . , Inc. Joint
Ventures 39 , 782 . 18
It is the recommendation of the Parks Department
that Northwest Fence Company be awarded the job
in the amount of $26, 803. 22 , including tax.
Parks Director Wilson noted that the budgeted
amount was $22 , 632. 00 so it will be necessary
to utilize $4 , 441 . 22 from revenue sharing which
the Finance Director has indicated is available.
BAILEY MOVED to accept the bid of Northwest
Fence Company in the amount of $26 , 803.22 and
to authorize the transfer of $4 , 441 . 22 from
revenue sharing funds , B . Johnson seconded.
Motion carried.
7 -
POLICE & FIRE Public Safety Committee. The report prepared
MERGER by the Public Safety Committee as well as a
staff report regarding the three potential
phases of police/fire integration has been
submitted to the City Council for review. The
City Council Public Safety Committee has discussed
the subject on two occasions and has recommended
proceeding with integration Level "A" , i .e . ,
administrative integration. The subject was
discussed at the January 26 workshop and at the
direction of the City Council , placed on the
February 2nd regular meeting agenda. Council-
person Bailey noted that many people in the
community had expressed a great deal of interest
relative to the proposal and that he appreciated
the interest that had been shown by the members
of the Fire Department and the Police Department
and the public as a whole . He pointed out that
a great deal of consideration and thought had
been given to the proposal by the Public Safety
Committee regarding the advantages and disadvan-
tages of such a program. He also noted that at
the workshop two weeks ago it was the recommenda-
tion to implement Level "A" which is integration
of top-level officers . BAILEY stated that since
that time he had reconsidered and examined the
various aspects of the question and MOVED that
the public safety merger issue not be implemented
and that the Council proceed to immediately appoint
a new Fire Chief, Mooney seconded . McCaughan
stated that he would like to compliment the Fire
Department on their enthusiasm and suggested
that the City was in good hands . B. Johnson,
chairman of the Public Safety Committee, noted
that the Committee determined that Level "A"
would be recommended if a majority of the
Council was in favor. She noted that some of
the things that have come out of the report were
good, such as recordkeeping, which is one of the
places where money might be saved. She also
noted that one of the reasons she was not now
in favor of the merger was because of the nature
of the City of Kent and its increased industrial,
commercial and residential growth. She stated
that the Committee suggested that Kent should
take the lead in establishing a Regional Fire
Department for the area . Masters stated that
she would like to compliment the Public Safety
Committee on their courageous report and sug-
gested that possibly like departments could be
merged but this was up to the people who have to
8 -
i
live and work with such a merger. Mooney seconded
Bailey ' s motion , which CARRIED unanimously.
Former Chief Foster expressed appreciation to
the Council for their action, noting that after
30 years as Fire Chief, he still felt the Kent
Fire Department was the best around and suggested
that the morale of the Department would improve.
Chuck Duffy, representing the Firefighters ,
thanked the Council for taking time to listen
to their point of view.
It was noted that letters from Henry C. Towne
and Henry D. Mairs relating to the proposed merger
had been received and distributed to the Council.
MASTERS MOVED to accept the letters for the
record; B. Johnson seconded. Motion CARRIED.
POLICE Reward. BAILEY MOVED that the City offer a
j DEPARTMENT reward of not less than $1 ,000 for information
leading to the apprehension and conviction of
the person who shot one of our officers; Mooney
seconded. Motion CARRIED. Mirk determined that
this action was legal .
ENVIRONMENTAL Environmental Excise Tax Deferred Payment Provision.
EXCISE TAX The deferred payment provision of the Environmental
ORDINANCE Excise Tax Ordinance provides for the granting of
deferrals upon the identification of hardships
when such granting does not constitute a special
privilege . In reviewing the possible reasons for
deferral, it appears that. the granting of any
deferral could constitute a special privilege and
the City Attorney has prepared an Ordinance to
delete the reference to "Deferred Payments . "
B. JOHNSON MOVED that Ordinance No . 2272 amending
Ordinance No. 2264 be adopted; Hamilton seconded.
Mr. O' Brien stated that he had filed an exemption
application. It was noted by Mayor Hogan that
Mr. O' Br.ien' s application had been received and
made a part of the record. Mirk noted that this
application would be discussed at the next work-
' shop meeti_nq. '"lotion CARRIED.
i
MIDWAY Receipt was noted of a letter from Jim Curran to
LANDFILL Don Mirk dated January 16 , 1981 regarding the
Midway Landfill . MASTERS MOVED that the letter
be made a part of the record; B. Johnson seconded.
Motion CARRIED.
9 -
PLANNING Planning Commission Appointment. CONFIRMATION
COMMISSION of the Mayor's appointment of Carol Stoner to
the Planning Commission to replace Gloria Brown.
COUNCIL/ At the January 26 workshop, the City Council
MANAGER FORM discussed whether to place the question of
OF GOVERNMENT Council/Manager government on a special election
ballot this spring. At the direction of the
Council, the subject has been placed on the
agenda for this meeting. McCAUGHAN MOVED to
TABLE any action on this matter until the first
meeting in March; B. Johnson seconded. Motion
CARRIED.
HOUSING & Needs and Joint Projects Monies. Mayor Hogan
COMMUNITY reported that Kent had received $57, 800 for our
DEVELOPMENT Housing Repair Program and $93, 000 for the North
Park Drainage project from the "needs" monies.
She also noted that a $70 , 000 grant for the Lake
Desire project had been approved from " joint"
funds . The Kent/Renton Self-Help Program did
not qualify but would be the next eligible
project. She also referred to an additional
$5 , 752 in "populati funds
forwhich
the Kent Commons
asked to program, possibly
project for low and moderate income groups.
In response to Masters ' question, Harris deter-
mined that under the housing repair program
the Count), selects the contractor for major
repairs but that in the case of minor home repairs,
the City employs a person to do the work. It
was determined that complaints are referred back
to King County Housing Authority and the con-
tractor is required by the County to make the
necessary corrections .
PERSONNEL Mirk reported that three people had been inter-
viewed for the job as Assistant City Attorney and
three more were scheduled this week, that a total
of 21 applications had been received. He also
noted that Cushing and himself would make the
selection, which is anticipated to be completed
this week.
Salary Survey. Cushing noted that the salary
and job classification survey had been reviewed
by the Finance Committee on Friday and that the
10 -
results have now been seen by the Department
heads who made recommendations to the Finance
Committee. He noted that the matter would be
discussed at the workshop of February 9 and was
expected to be implemented by March 1 .
COUNCIL Parks Committee. It was determined that the
COMMITTEES Parks Committee would meet on Wednesday,
February 11 , at 8 : 15 a .m.
Public Safety Committee . B. Johnson stated that
the Public Safety Committee would meet on
Wednesday, February 11 , at 3: 30 p .m. to discuss
the Massage Parlor ordinance , Merchant Patrol
Ordinance yric i; of i,:,r ordinan%:es which may
require e isi.a�
Administration. lL was noted that an additional
j microphone would be provided for the podium and
Masters asked that some consideration be given
to purchasing enough additional microphones so
that each councilperson could have one .
Public Works Committee . Mooney reported that
the Public Works Committee would meet on
Wednesday morning at 8 : 15 a.m. A letter was
read by Mayor Hogan from County Councilman
Grant regarding a requested water service at
S.E . 256th and 124th S .E . She questioned
whether it would be appropriate to ask Water
District 111 to adopt the same procedures which
Kent follows in asking developers to look for
new water sources since we supply the district.
It was determined that the letter from Grant
would be discussed at the Public Works Committee
meeting on Wednesday.
McCaughan asked if the city received EIS check
lists regarding building developments being
contemplated close to the city but in the County.
The mayor noted that the City was receiving A95
reviews when federal money i_s involved. Mayor Hogan
suggested that t-he County should be asked to so
advise the City and McCaughan suggested that as
far as street improvements were concerned they
are not ad-isinry us . Ilarris noted for McCaughan
that inforir.,=, '-)71 0�1 ir�ip-rovements close to
the city 7 i ti i t- `ii, rj r shed t(-) the Public
- 11 -
COliivCIL Works Dep -irtmen1 tho Fire Inspectors and the
COMMITTEES Planning McCaughan and B. Johnson
opined that the City should be commenting on the
inadequacy of the County roads . Masters noted
that the staff people on the County Planning and
Growth M anigemer-,- Committee should see the City
of Kent. X r ct to growth problems .
LIDs 288/292/293 and 294 .
FINANCE C�_)NSoi[,�llr�'P r` �� ; i:> ,i_i�; -
The City has neyutiaied with Foster & Marshall
to purchase the bonds on the consolidated issue
in the amount of $525, 069 . 65 . Finance Director
McCarthy introduced Mary Hughes of Foster &
Marshall who explained that the interest rate
would be 10 . 8% and that a meeting had been held
with the City Treasurer to discuss the matter.
In response to questions from the Council ,
Finance Director McCarthy noted that they have
passed the prepayment period on all four LIDs
and that delay in selling the bonds would place
the City in the position of extending credit on
Interest Bearing Warrants . McCAUGHAN MOVED to
accept the offer of Foster & Marshall to pur-
chase the bonds for the consolidated issue,
Mooney seconded. Motion CARRIED.
It was noted that Bond Counsel has prepared the
ordinance to authorize the sale of the bonds ,
fixing the interest rate, maturity and denomina-
tions of the bonds . McCAUGHAN MOVED that Bond
Ordinance No. 2273 be adopted, Mooney seconded.
Motion CARRIED.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5B)
Approval of Bills . APPROVAL of payment of bills
received through February 3 , 1981 after auditing
by the Finance Committee at its meeting to be
held at 3: 00 p.m. on February 13, 1981.
the meeting be adjat
ed
ADJOURNMENT MONEY:40 . ,p•m B that
Johnson seconded. MotionnCARRIED.
Marie Jensen, CMC
City Clerk
12 -
A SPECIAL MEETING of the Kent City Council, was called to order at
4: 00 p.m. on February 2 , 1981 . Present: Mayor Hogan, Council-
persons Hamilton, B. Johnson , Masters, McCaughan - and Mooney,
City Administrator Cushing, City Attorney Mirk, Planning Director
Harris and Director of Public Works Wickstrom. Councilpersons
Bailey and J. Johnson were absent.. Approximately 50 people were
.in . attendance at the. meotinq .
The continued Public Hearing was opened by Mayor Hogan. Harris
noted that the Unique and Fragile Area map was the next item of
business . B. JOHNSON MOVED and Moonev seconded that consideration
of the map be .removed from the table. Motion CARRIED.
Harris noted that on January 15 , the Council approved a series
of Unique and Fragile Area statements shown on pages 7-9 of the
"green book" but that Item No. 7. b . 1) on page 8 and No. c. 3)
on page 9 under East Side had not been adopted. He also pointed
out that the map had not- been adopted as vet either, although
reference had been made to the map on page 8 discussing the
L-5 area as "Unique and Fragile" area to be preserved and managed
to support wildlife habitat; sp=cifically , migrating waterfowl
and also to maintain RA zoning in L-5 . He pointed out that the
Council had not drawn on the map exactly the precise location of
L-5 . Upon McCaughan ' s question, Harris said that within that
boundary it was all to be considered Unique and Fragile regardless
of the elevation, although it was mostly low. He stated that
O' Connell 's land was probably within 400-500 feet of the river
but that the map was not exact and precise . He noted that the
preciseness will be determined when the Basin Executive Committee
moves forward with money to acquire the land that they said they
would buy on that side of the river for wetlands . They have said
they want to buy 70 acres and the L-5 area is much more than 70
acres, that it is about 200 acres . Harris noted that on the tour,
the Council concluded that SR 516 should not bother L-27 and it
does not bother L-29 at all. cand pointed out that SR 516 would come
along the north edge of L-27 and that the L-27 line could be moved
south a little. Master.- stated that the minutes say that we agree.
that the definition of an area for a roadway or utility corridor
should be defined before: we declare that a Unique and Fragile Area
and that that concern still. exists . Hogan said that 516 is north
of L-27 and suggested. that the Council could change the north
boundary since the map has nog been adopted. Masters asked for
clarification that the area �,.>as zoned RA__ and not just A. Masters
indicated that she thought we had never designated it A_, that the
references had been changed to RA and MA_. Harris agreed that A
had been replaced with RA on the top of page 9 but that under
the Valley Floor Plan the A designation had been adopted for
the area south of the river, where the Smith Brothers Dairy is,
--' and another area south of the river, east of the East Valley Highway.
... 1 -
F(-bruary 2 , 1981
B. JOHNSON MOVED to reconsider 7. b. 1) on page 8. Hamilton
seconded. Motion CARRIED. Haggard questioned whether a matter
can be reconsidered at a meeting other than the next succeeding
meeting. Harris noted that on January 15 , Hamilton had moved to
adopt L-29 and L-27 but he was the only one voting in favor of it.
Hamilton stated that these meetings are continued each time and
therefore reconsideration was in order. Harris noted that nothing
had been done on the Unique and Fragile subject for a couple of
meetings. Mirk concurred that the matter could be reconsidered.
HAMILTON MOVED to adopt 7. b. 1) on page 8 which reads as follows:
"l. Designate areas L-27 and L-29 as ,'Unique and Fragile"
areas that are to be preserved and managed to support
wildlife habitat, specifically migrating waterfowl. "
with the provision that major transportation corridors be allowed
to go across the end of them if necessary. B. Johnson seconded.
Motion CARRIED with Masters and Mooney voting against. Harris sug-
gested that the next action should be for the Council to designate
on the map the areas to be considered Unique and Fragile in L-5 ,
L-27 and L-29 .
McCAUGHAN MOVED that the Unique and Fragile map be adopted. _.
B. Johnson seconded. MOONEY MOVED to AMEND the motion to add
that we cut L-5 south of 212th and 1, 000 feet west of the river
and cut, L-27 back so that the 516 corridor would be exempt. The
area was pointed out on the map and it was clarified Mooney' s
amendment would limit L-5 to north of 212th Street and no closer
than 1, 000 feet to the river. B. Johnson seconded. O' Connell
stated that he thought the 1, 000 foot line would come close to
the hill. Mooney' s proposed amendment CARRIED. Mayor Hogan noted
that the amended motion reads to adopt the map, deleting the area
south of 212th and the 1, 000 feet west of the river lying north
of 212th and to cut L-27 so that the SR 516 corridor would be
exempt. McCaughan noted that we would still have plenty of wet-
lands and that there are more than 70 acres in the area. Amended
motion CARRIED. Harris noted that the Unique and Fragile Area
discussion was now concluded and that there was still some question
on the MA, RA designations and that this should be straightened out
by the next meeting. Haggard suggested that the adoption of the
Unique and Fragile map should carry a notation that the boundaries
are approximate and do not precisely delineate boundaries between
Unique and Fragile areas and non-such areas . Mooney agreed to adding
the stipulation that the lines are not precise and a man from the
audience suggested that care be taken to ensure that if there is
movement in one direction there is the same accompanying movement
elsewhere to that the Unique and Fragile area wouldn' t be sliced
away bit by bit because of the language saying that the lines
are not precise. Mooney suggested that the Planning Department
- 2 -
February 2 , 198.1
could be authorized to use these guides and be given leeway.
There was general disagreement to the suggestion. Haggard
suggested we use the same language suggested by Sally Millen
for the Land Use Map. MOONEY agreed and MOVED to add to the
motion . . . "that the lines are not precise . " B. Johnson
seconded. Motion CARRIED.
Jack Stevens, 4655 South 200th, asked for clarification of L-5
and opposed the borders agreed upon, noting that there was a
drainage district in that area and that he would like to work with
the Council in any further planning for that area. He said he would
like to see the Unique and Fragile Area defined closer because it
was a large area. Mayor Hogan stated that the motion had already
been passed to designate that limited area as a Unique and Fragile
Area.
Robert St. Louis asked if his letter to the Council on behalf of
Vincent Coluccio had been received. The Clerk said it had been
received and distributed and MASTERS MOVED that the letter be made
a part of the record. MCaughan seconded. Motion CARRIED.
Masters asked how much of L-5 was in the city limits and Harris
said that more than 70 percent of it was.
Harris announced that Transportation Study, starting on page 30
of the "green book" would be the next subject. Harris read pages
30 and 31 from the "green book" and Wickstrom reviewed the
Transportation Study Policy Recommendations on page 32, starting
with No. 1. Employment Densities . Wickstrom noted that when the
consultant did his computer analysis , it was based on the land
use plan which showed agricultural for those areas south and west
of the river so they did not really have much play in the final
conclusion of this report as these areas were left out of the
basic study. He pointed out that throughout the study, it was
assumed that 516 would be built and that it is critical.
No. 2 . Arterial Plan. Wickstrom noted that this map shows the
recommended plan as shown in the "green book. " He noted that it
is recommended that this , capital improvement program be adopted
as a guideline and that all this data would be used in the overall
City Traffic Study as a backbone system. Mayor Hogan suggested
that we go back to the recommendations , starting with No. 1.
Employment Densities noting that all the things listed needed a
great deal of cooperation from the private sector, and that they
were aimed at relieving traffic congestion.
No. 1. a. and b. read as follows :
1. Employment Densities
a. Direct the planning staff to formulate a proposed
3 -
F pbruary 2, 1981.
traffic mitigation plan including but not limited
to the following:
- private van-pool operation
- transit/van-pool fare subsidy
- elimination of free parking as a fringe benefit
- provision of subscription bus services
- capital improvements for transit services
- provision of shuttle service from park & ride lots
preferential parking for car-pools and van-pools
- participation in ride matching programs
- linkage to major bicycle paths
- bicycle parking facilities
b. Direct the staff to coordinate with other governments
and agencies to further research and develop transportation
mitigation programs . "
Volchok stated that 95 percent of the roads were to be put in by the
developers at their cost and then turned over to the city. He
pointed out several streets on the map which would be built by
developers or by LID. He noted that the city' s expense will be
for the expansion of 212th and for Meeker Street. B. Johnson
noted that we will have to work with the surrounding cities and
with the County, and MOVED to eliminate No. 1. a. and to ADOPT 1 . b.
Masters seconded. MASTERS MOVED to amend by adding to 1. b.
"including, but not limited to consideration of the above indentified
proposals as listed in 1. a." B. Johnson seconded. Amendment CARRIED.
Volchok noted that he took direct exception to the last sentence in
paragraph 3 on page 30 . "KCM' s second report again concluded that
a future employment density of 30 employees per acre is possible
and probable in Kent, " and wanted that noted in connection with
the reference in 1 . b. to the word mitigation. The motion as
amended, CARRIED.
McCAUGHAN MOVED to ADOPT No. 1. c. under Employment Densities
reading as follows :
C. Direct the staff to prepare an analysis of the parking
code and suggest revisions and specific code changes for
Council approval that would provide incentives to developers
to utilize alternative modes of transportation. "
Mooney seconded. Volchok suggested that the word "users" be
utilized instead of the word "developers" noting that in 80 percent
of the construction the developer does not know what the user will
do with the building. McCaughan agreed to strike the words
developers to. " Mooney concurred and the motion CARRIED.
4 -
February 2 , ] 981
No. 2. Arterial Plan. Upon the Mayor' s question, Wickstrom noted
that the 1979 figure in the Traffic Study was $50 million for the
improvements . B. JOHNSON MOVED to adopt No. 2 . , a. and b. reading
as follows :
a. Adopt the capital improvement program of the Valley
Studies Transportation Study as a guideline for
future capital improvements .
b. Direct the staff to coordinate with property owners
in the study area so that the final alignment of the
planned arterials may be identified and so that the
required rights-of-way may be officially mapped.
Mooney seconded. Masters said that she thought the word "guideline"
should be underlined since we may wish to re-prioritize as the
valley develops . B. Johnson and Mooney agreed to include this in
the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Upon Sally Millen' s question about the map, it was determined that
all of the streets were in our capital improvement program already.
Wickstrom noted that both loop roads started at 228th and end at
James .
No. 3. Bicycle Routes . Masters asked about provision for bridle
paths and it was determined that this would be made a separate item.
Dan Leonard of the Planning Department, said that bicycles would
be separated from the regular traffic by shoulders so there would
be no potential conflicts . Wickstrom stated that a two-way bike
route would add an additional 11 feet in width to a street section.
Masters asked if there would be any distinction between recreational
bike paths and routes used by people commuting on bikes to work,
noting that she did not support bicycling through industrial areas
unless it was a method of getting to work. Wickstrom stated that
it was looked at for both purposes . Masters asked if there would
be signs saying which bike routes were for recreation and which
ones for people going to work and Wickstrom stated that he doubted
that such signs would be effective . He pointed out that major road
improvements would have bicycle pathways included as part of the
required improvement. B. Johnson expressed concern about recreational
biking becoming extensive in areas meant to be used by bicycle com-
muters . Mirk clarified for McCaughan that it was illegal to ride
on sidewalks unless they were set aside for bikes and noted that
some cities have certain times of the day when sidewalks become
bicycle paths . Upon Hamilton ' s question, Wickstrom noted that
utility easements were not used for bicycle paths unless it was
specifically noted in the easement, in which case the easements
were designated as utility and recreational easements . It was
noted that in good weather, many people were riding on Frager and
- 5 -
2 . 1981
on Russell Roads . Mooney suggested that one side of the street
could be posted for pedestrians only and the other side of the
street posted for bicycles only.
Volchok noted that since we now have the 200 feet along the river
and the bicycle path along the Puget Sound Power and Light right-
of-way, that from the safety and economic viewpoint bicycle paths
along major industrial roads and arterials should be eliminated.
He noted the danger to cyclists from trucks in the industrial
areas and further that it would cost developers an additional $50
per lineal foot to provide the extra width for the paths .
Bendetti, of Pacific Industrial Concepts , said he thought the
special interest district provides that we have bicycle and pedes-
trian access to the river from the buildings on the river for
lunch breaks , etc. , and that major bicycle routes should be
routed around the industrial complexes so bikers other than those
working there would not come through the complexes .
Bill Woods stated that he lives in Redmond and sometimes bikes to
work to the Boeing Space Center, a 60-mile trip . He opined that
interurban trails are poor bike routes because there are no signals
at cross streets and that commuters would rather travel a busy
highway with a shoulder of three or four feet where there are
traffic lights at intersections . He noted that at the Space Center
several dozen people ride their bicycles to work the year round,
and that most commute from the hill . lie pointed out that there
are no shoulders for the bikers to get up and down the hills .
David Howerton stated that he lives in the West Hill area and
works in the Southcenter area and commutes by bicycle daily using
Frager and Reith roads . He noted that bicycle access to the hills
was not provided on the map and it was needed since the residential
areas were mostly on either hill . He opined that a paved shoulder
would be better and cheaper than a separate path and was necessary
in residential, commercial or industrial areas .
Curtis Stogard stated he commuted daily by bike from East Hill to
the north side of Boeing Field and that provision should be made
for bike access to hills . He agreed that paved shoulders were
better than pathways for safety, economy and maintenance.
Sally Millen noted there was some confusion in that the pedestrian
and bicycle paths have been combined on one map.
Nancy Blau asked that the routes not be strictly designated for
bicycles, noting that horsemen use them now and the use is com-
patible with the bicycles . David Howerton stated that shoulders
work best for multiple use. -
6 -
Fnhriiary 2 , 1981,
MASTERS MOVED to ADOPT No. 3. Bicycle Routes a. , b. , b. 1 . , and
b. 2. which. read as follows :
"3. Bicycle Routes
a. Approve Figure IV-5 Bicycle Routes as the official
bicycle plan for the study area with the provision
that final alignment of bicycle routes along
arterials be adjusted to the alignment of the
arterial plan .
b. Direct the staff to develop design standards for
Council approval for bicycle paths to insure that
the bicycle paths are utilized for their intended
purpose .
1 . Bicycle paths along arterials shall be designed
primarily to accommodate commuters .
2 . Bicycle paths which coincide with pedestrian
paths and/or recreation corridors shall be
designed for recreation bicycling.
Mooney seconded. Masters suggested that the pathways be designated
in some way as to commuter use or recreational use. Hamilton noted
that this was a Valley study and that was why it does not discuss
trails from the hills and Mooney pointed out that proposed East
Hill and West Hill plans would be coming to the Council from the
Planning Commissionen. Upon McCaughan' s question, Wickstrom noted
that the state uses 10 or 11-foot wide sections for two-way bike
paths and that the staff would develop standards to be approved
by the Council . Using the map , Leonard, of the Planning Department,
noted that the area along the 1 , 000 foot corridor will be primarily
for multiple use; that within the 200-foot corridor, recreational
use, and that the areas along the arterials are designated as
bicycle use. He noted that people would have to ride through the
arterials to get to the corridors. B. Johnson asked if there
would be a curb between the street and the bike lane , noting that
such a curb would make it difficult to keep the lane cleaned.
Howerton stated that there should be no curbing between the street
and bicycle shoulder since it tends to trap debris such as glass
in the bicycle path and that a bike path should be a minimum of
three feet and no wider than six feet, or cars will try to drive
on it. Motion CARRIED.
No. 4. Pedestrian Paths . B. JOHNSON MOVED to adopt 4 . a. and b.
Pedestrian Paths, reading as follows :
7 -
Febriiary 2 , 1981
4 . Pedestrian Paths
a. Approve Figure IV-6 Pedestrian Paths and Sidewalks
as the official. pedestrian circulation plan for
the study area.
b. Direct the staff to develop design standards for
Council approval for pedestrian paths according
to their intended use; single purpose uses
(pedestrian only) or multi-purpose uses (pedestrian
and bicycle) . "
Masters seconded. Motion CARRIED.
MASTERS MOVED to add a new No. 5 leading as follows :
"5 . Horse trails shall be included where adequate rights-
of-way exist. Staff is to develop design standards to
ensure that horse trails are compatible with other
trails, streets and nearby land use. "
Mooney seconded. Upon a question from the audience, Harris
noted that staff would work with the people from the horse -
trail association and the bicycle groups when developing standards. -
Duane Lien, President of Washington State Horsemen asked that
several existing trails be preserved and maintained.
Harris determined for Sally Millen that. all design standards for
bicycle trails , pedestrian trials and horse trails would be
brought back for Council approval . Motion CARRIED.
McCAUGHAN MOVED to adopt No . 6 . Future Transportation Planning,
which was formerly No . 5 on page 33, -reading as follows:
a. Direct the staff to incorporate the data presented
in the Transportation Study when preparing a city-
wide transportation plan so that the two plans
may be consistent with one another.
and McCaughan noted that the word "two" would be deleted.
B. Johnson seconded, motion CARRIED.
Haggard asked for clarification concerning land use, stating
that Hamilton had made a motion which was adopted by the Council
that the land uses in the area south and west of the river designated
"A" on the "green book" plan were to be changed to "RA. " Hamilton
said he didn' t think that the motion stated anything about south
and west of the river but rather that all the areas on the map
- 8 -
Fphruary 2 , 1 9 81
that were colored yellow and designated "A" would be referred to
or designated "R. " Haggard determined that this was the map
that the Planning Department had prepared and put on the board.
Hamilton said he had not asked for any changes in boundaries
only that wherever it said "h" , was to be changed to RA and
that was all the motion covered. Haggard stated that the Council
also had changed the "A" designation between the Valley Freeway
and the West Valley Highway north of 277th from "A" to MA as
it was in the Valley Floor Plan.
Masters stated that the Council would want time to review the
actions taken at these hearings before adopting the plans .
Harris indicated the material would be written up and distributed
and noted that the staff was still working on the MA/RA material.
He suggested that the material would be ready for the regular
meeting of February 17 .
Haggard stated that with respect to the RA/MA zones that the
Council had deleted the third sentence in the first paragraph,
deleted the word "clear" in the second line of the second
paragraph, deleted the words "at a minimum" in the fourth or
.fifth line of the second paragraph, changed the word "market"
to " fiscal" as far as the analysis and deleted parenthesis that
says "see attachment A" which was at the end of paragraph 2 .
Harris said he would bring back all of the information to the
Council for the February 17 meetinq .
B. JOHNSON MOVED to continue the hearing to the regular meeting
of February 17 at 8: 00 p.m. Masters seconded. There was some
further discussion about when Harris would have the material
ready to distribute .
Volchok asked what steps would have to be taken to adopt the
plan and Harris said that all the information would be in the
packet, showing what resolutions have to be adopted, what
amendments to codes were necessary, etc. , and that the packet
would be ready for the meeting of the 17th but that action would
not be taken on that date. Volchok said that he understood
that the Council would review it on the 17th and that later the
documents will be adopted--the material in the "green book, "
any amendments to the zoning codes , anything that is unconnected
will become a policy or guideline or both to the City' s engineer-
ing, planning, arts , recreation , etc. , staffs . Mayor Hogan
agreed that amendments will be amendments, policies would be
policies and if necessary, programs will be developed to go with
those policies . Volchok asked if there would be other amendments
that would come up as options to the Planning Commission and to
the Council to be made into other verbage . He stated that he
had seen some documentation that is a little bit different from
9 -
Wc,hruary 2 , i981
what has been approved and adopted by the City Council in the
minutes. The Mayor suggested that the documents distrubuted
by Harris might clear up his questions . Harris suggested that
those wishing copies of the packet should leave their names
with the City Clerk. Masters said that everyone should understand
that we not going to adopt this on the 17th.
MOTION to continue the matter to the meeting on February 17 at
8: 00 p.m. CARRIED. The meeting was adjourned at 5 : 40 p.m.
Marie Jensen, CMC
City Clerk
- 10 -