HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 02/17/1981 Kent, Washington
February 3.7, 1981
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at
8: 00 o'clock p.m. by Mayor Hogan. Present: Councilpersons Bailey,
Hamilton, B. Johnson, Masters, McCaughan and Mooney, City Admini-
strator Cushing, City Attorney Mirk, Planning Director Harris,
Public Works Director Wickstrom and Finance Director McCarthy.
J. Johnson was absent. Also present: Administrative Assistant
Webby, Planning Commissioners Stoner and Williams and URS repre-
sentative Abed. Approximately 40 people were in attendance at
the meeting.
PROCLAMATION A proclamation was read by Mayor Hogan declaring
the week beginning February 8 , 1981 as Vocational
Education Week and Future Business Leaders of
America Week in the City of Kent.
CONSENT HAMILTON MOVED to approve the Consent Calendar
CALENDAR Items A through M with the exception of Item L
which was removed at the request of Councilperson
McCaughan. B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried.
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5A)
Approval of Minutes . APPROVAL of the following
minutes:
SPECIAL MEETING of January 26 distributed February 6
REGULAR MEETING of February 2 distributed February 6
SPECIAL MEETING of February 2 distributed February 9
HEALTH & LID 299 - Sanitary Sewer Improvements (Corner of
SANITATION James Street and West Valley Highway.
The following bids were received on February 11,
1981 :
Bidder Amount
Coluccio Construction Co. $50, 134 . 56
King Construction Co. 54, 125. 01
Allison Incorporated 55,029. 34
DiOrio Construction Co. , Inc. 583468
Russell Construction 4, 1625
6
Intermountain Construction 8, 36.. 29
,
Robison Construction 75,132..04
Madevco .,98806
99
Slead Tonneson, Inc. 79 79 , 988 .06
Tri-State Construction
i
February 17, 1981
HEALTH & It was noted that five of the bids received were
SANITATION below the engineer' s estimate of $64,207. 57. In
accordance with the Public Works Director' s re-
commendation, MOONEY MOVED that the bid of Frank
Coluccio Construction in the amount of $50,134 . 56
be accepted, B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried.
STREET (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5M)
VACATION Vacation of R. H. Witte Road. APPROVAL of the re-
quest of King County for the City to dedicate 12
feet of right-of-way to the County along the
eastern edge of 216th Avenue S.E. from S.E. 288th
Street to the Northern Pacific Railroad for future
use as a bikeway facility. The Public Works Direc-
tor had contacted King County about vacating a
portion of R. H. Witte Road in the vicinity of
216th Avenue S .E. , which road, while non-existent,
presently divides the City' s Kent Springs Water
Shed property. The County agreed, and required the
above described dedication.
FINAL PLAT (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5G)
Maple Wylde Final Plat. SETTING a public meeting
date of March 2, 1981 to review the Maple Wylde
Final Plat which has been received by the Planning
Department and is in compliance with the Subdivision
Code.
FRANCHISES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5K)
Teleprompter/Westinghouse Cable TV Merger. SETTING
of a public hearing date for March 2, 1981 in ac-
cordance with Ordinance No. 2093 which requires
that a public hearing be held for significant
changes in ownership of cable companies operating
under city franchise.
HOUSING& (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5J)
COMMUNITY Reallocation - 1981 Block Grant Population -Funds.
DEVELOPMENT ADOPTION of Resolution No. 917 revising the 1981
Kent Housing & Community Development Program as
follows:
2 _
February 17, 1981
HOUSING & PROJECT NAME AMOUNT OF FUNDS
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT Population Needs Joint
Housing Repair Service
Program $25, 000 $ 57, 800 ------
North Park. Strom
Drainage Construction 15, 000 93, 000 ------
Planning & Administration 50, 635 ------ ------
Downtown Core Improvements
Design 8, 706 ------ ------
Lake Desire Day Lodge ------ ------ $70,000
Self-Help Housing, if
funding approved* 66, 800*
TOTALS $99, 341 $150, 800 $70, 000
+66, 800*
PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5D)
RECREATION Russell Road Park Phase III. ACCEPTANCE of the con-
tract for Russell Road Park Phase III as complete,
in accordance with the recommendations of ORB and
the Parks Department and release of the retainage
upon receipt of the necessary releases from the
State.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5K)
Kent/King County Recreation Programming Contract.
ACCEPTANCE of the Kent King County contract for
1981 in accordance with the recommendations of
the Parks Committee. The amount is $25, 760, an
8% reduction from last year' s amount due to 1981
budget restraints. (This matter was held over
from the January 19 , 1981 regular meeting. )
Acquisition of Colony Park Golf Course. It was
determined that the necessary documents have not
all been received at this time and it is not known
whether the contract submitted is acceptable to the
seller. MOONEY MOVED that the matter be tabled
indefinitely and the matter referred to the next
workshop, B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried.
PLANNING (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5F)
COMMISSION Planning Commission Appointments. CONFIRMATION
of the Mayor' s reappointment of Barbara Bell and
Daniel Kelleher to the Planning Commission. Both
terms will expire in January, 1984 .
3 -
February 17, 1981
CITY HALL Old National Bank Remodeling for Engineering
Department Offices. The following bids were
received on February 17 , 1981 at 10: 00 a.m. :
Bidder Amount
(Including Alternates
1, 2 and 3)
Coleman Construction $43, 010. 00
L. J. Construction 45, 394 . 49
Biggins Construction 50, 303. 00
Tri-Land Construction 51, 645. 00
McKee Construction 55, 374 . 00
David E. Harris Construction 57, 491. 00
Hogman Construction 58, 539. 00
Glen Ford Builder 59, 480 . 00
Dinsdale, Morford & Sharp 60 ,135. 00
Davis/Son Construction 62, 250 . 00
C. G. Mirante, Inc. 62, 731. 00
Pioneer Construction 68,791. 00
Raymond Gourley Construction 68, 852. 00
Roxbury Construction 68, 895. 00
Anderson Construction 69 , 215. 00
Gordon Korsmo Construction 72► 289. 00
AWC, Inc. 80 , 215. 00
Rowley/Foushee Construction 80, 336. 00
Lincoln Construction 83, 248. 00
Barclay Dean NO BID
In accordance with the recommendation of the
Public Works Director, MOONEY MOVED to accept
the low bid of Coleman Construction in the amount
of $43 , 110 . 00 + tax. McCaughan seconded. Motion
carried. (Engineer ' s estimate: $70, 000)
PERSONNEL (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5E)
REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILPERSON McCAUGHAN.
Classification and Pay Plan. McCaughan noted that
he was not in attendance when the salary survey
and reclassification plan was discussed at the
workshop meeting and stated that he wished to delay
action on it so he could study it further. Cushing
noted that it was hoped action could be taken at
this meeting so that the implementation target date
of March 1 could be met. He noted that the matter
had been discussed at two Finance Committee meetings.
4 -
i
February 17, 1981
PERSONNEL B. Johnson noted that the Finance Committee had
reviewed the matter extensively, that the con-
sultant had been in attendance, and that the
matter had been discussed at the workshop. Bailey
expressed concerns over the surveys submitted to
other cities to determine like pay for like jobs.
In response to Bailey ' s questions, Cushing noted
that they had received only eight responses out
of 18 requests from private industry. He also
pointed out that the information received from
these surveys was delivered to the consultant
and was confidential. McCAUGHAN MOVED to defer
action for two weeks, Bailey seconded. Mirk
pointed out that two members of the Council would
be absent at that time. Mooney suggested that the
matter be referred to the workshop and a deter-
mination made at that time. Cushing pointed out
that a great deal of time was involved in making
the necessary adjustments through the payroll system
so that changes could be implemented. McCAUGHAN
WITHDREW the motion, Bailey the second. McCAUGHAN
MOVED to refer the matter to the workshop to get
a concensus at that time. Motion failed for lack
of a second. HAMILTON MOVED to adopt Item 5L
which reads as follows: "Approval of the new
classification and pay plan as proposed at the
January 30 Finance Committee meeting and at the
February 9 workshop meeting. " B. Johnson seconded.
Masters pointed out that as a courtesy to McCaughan
implementation of the plan should be withheld until
his questions were answered. McCaughan stated that
he had reservations with regard to the costs involved
now and in the future and also referred to the cut-
backs and wage moratoriums which were being effected
at Federal and State levels . Cushing explained that
the implementation plan being considered was the
least expensive and that the cost amounted to
approximately $44, 000 for this year. Masters
stated that the Council had requested such a study
four years ago and that they were essentially bring-
ing the City into line with other industries and
into the proper perspective. The motion carried,
with McCaughan and Bailey voting no.
5 -
February 17 , 1981
EAST HILL On January 19, 1981 the Council adopted Resolution
MORATORIUM 913, providing that from and after January 19, 1981
no application for rezone, conditional use permit
or annexation shall be accepted by the City for
the East Hill area, and further providing that on
February 17 , 1981 a public hearing would be held
to determine whether a freeze on rezones, conditional
use permits and annexations should be imposed in
the East Hill area pending revision of the East
Hill portion of the City' s Comprehensive Plan. A
notice of this hearing was published on February 5.
The public hearing was opened by Mayor Hogan. The
Planning Department's Environmental Checklist on
the proposal was distributed with the agenda and
Harris noted that although it was assumed that the
moratorium would be for 8 to 10 months , it was now
anticipated that it would run from 12 to 14 months.
Harris noted that there were 300 acres zoned for
multi-family and that the vacancy factor for apart-
ments was 10%. He noted also 100 acres available
for commercial use.
Dick Bradwall opposed a moratorium and stated that
he doubted that such a proposal reflected the wishes
of the residents. He noted hd had been granted a
conditional use, but had not been aware that it
would expire in one year. It was determined that
he had reapplied on January 4, prior to the passage
of Resolution 913 and Harris noted that the provisions
of the resolution would, therefore, not affect his
application.
Jack Ewing stated that he had applied for a condi-
tional use permit on January 19 and the Planning
Department had determined that this application
was premature because a short plat approval was
required first. The short plat was heard on
February 12 and the conditional use application
resubmitted with the original check, dated January
19. Harris stated that he would check on this
but that an application for a permit did not neces-
sarily mean that it was accepted. Bob Clemens ob-
jected to this and stated that if Ewing could file
after the cut-off date that others should be allowed
to do so also. Mirk noted that if such an applica-
tion was accepted, it had been accepted in error.
6 -
February 17, 1981
EAST HILL Harry Williams stated that a moratorium did not
MORATORIUM seem to be a reasonable approach, and that if the
10% vacancy factor was true, owners would not be
able to get financing for apartment projects . He
noted further that there were not many conditional
use permit or rezone hearings before the Hearing
Examiner during the last six months. Harris
determined that the subject of the moratorium
was proposed by the Council and turned over to
the Planning Department.
Dan Moorman, owner of property on the Crow Road,
noted that with this proposal of a moratorium he
could not give information to a buyer who was
interested in building apartments. Ewing objected
to the proposed 12 to 14 months timetable and
stated that the Council should set a timetable
and stick to it. Harris noted that special people
would be hired to work on the East Hill Plan.
Moorman agreed with Ewing and stated that reasons
for the moratorium should be given. Mayor Hogan
noted that the East Hill Plan had been delayed
because of the time spent on the Valley Studies
and that residents had voiced many complaints
about traffic problems and water shortages.
It was determined for McCaughan that Resolution
913 imposed the moratorium and set this date for
the public hearing, and that at the time the
resolution was passed there were no applications
pending for the East Hill area.
There were no further comments and B. JOHNSON MOVED
to close the hearing. Mooney seconded. Motion
carried.
Bailey noted that a time span of 10 months had
been discussed at a workshop and that the Planning
Department should be able to do it in 10 months
with extra help hired for this purpose and with
input from the East Hill property owners. He
noted that large developers had agreed to abide
by the results of the Valley Studies and that
there were many problems on the East Hill. MOONEY
MOVED to direct the City Attorney to draft an ordi-
nance for the next meeting to impose the moratorium
7 -
February 17 , 1981
EAST HILL with a time limit of 10 months from the date of
MORATORIUM passage. B. Johnson seconded. Mayor Hogan noted
that Harris would deal with the problem of the
date of Ewing' s application. Motion carried.
(Although references were made during the hearing
to a cut-off date of January llth for applications,
it was later determined that Resolution 913 estab-
lished the cut-off date as January 19 , 1981, the
date of the passage of the resolution. )
SUBDIVISION On January 12, 1981 the Planning Commission held
CODE a public hearing to consider a number of proposed
AMENDMENTS amendments to the Subdivision Code. The hearing
was concluded and the Commission recommends approval
of the proposed amendments, a copy of which has
been distributed. The proposed amendments read
as follows:
Underlined words are additions
Code page 4
Section 1. 4 DEFINITIONS
17) LOT FRONTAGE. The front of a lot shall be
that portion nearest the street except on a
corner lot in which case the front yard shall
be considered the narrowest part of the lot
that fronts on a street (except in industrial_
and commercial zones in which case the user
of a corner lot has the option of determining
which part of the lot fronting on a street
shall become the lot frontage. )
Code page 4
22) LOT, THROUGH. A lot that has both ends
fronting on a street. Both ends will be
considered front.
Code page 5
29) PRELIMINARY PLAT. A neat and precise drawing
of a proposed subdivision showing the general
layout of streets and alleys, lots, blocks ,
and restrictive covenants to be applicable
to the subdivision, and other elements of a
plat or subdivision which shall furnish a ba i
for the approval or disapproval of the genera_
layout of a subdivision.
8 -
February 17 , 1981
SUBDIVISION Code page 5 - (add new definition)
CODE
AMENDMENTS 35) SUBDIVISION PHASED. A subdivision which is
developed in increments over a period of
time. Preliminary plat approval must be
granted for the entire subdivision and must
delineate the separate divisions which are
to be developed in increments. The prelimi-
nary plat approval shall be conditioned upon
completion of the proposed phases in a parti-
cular sequence and may specify a completion
date for each phase. Final plat approval
shall be granted for each separate phase
of the preliminary plat.
Code page 5
36) TENTATIVE PLAT. A map drawn in accordance
with the same requirements as the preliminary
plat map, but submitted prior to preliminary
plat submittal.
Code page 9
Section 2 . 2 . 4 2) APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
2) The Short Subdivision Plat shall conform to
the following requirements:
a) (No Change) Shall be a neat and approxi-
mate drawing on reproducible material at
a decimal scale. The Plat map shall mea-
sure between 8-Z" x 11" and 18" and 22" .
b) Shall show how the proposed subdivision
will be served by streets and utilities.
Show how access will be provided to all
lots and location of sewer and water lines.
c) (New) Shall show all existing structures
and distances from any existing_ and pro-
posed lot lines .
d) Each application for a Short Subdivision
shall be accompanied by a current title
re ort.
9 -
February .17, 1981
SUBDIVISION e) (New) All short plats shall be surveyed
CODE b a land surveyor licensed in the State
AMENDMENTS of Washin ton. All exterior corners and
streets shall be monumented.
Code page 10
Section 2. 2 . 6 1) SHORT SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING
1) A meeting attended by the applicant or his
representative and the Short Subdivision Com-
mittee members shall be held within thirty
(30) days of the receipt of the application.
Said meeting shall be open to the public.
Code page ll
Section 2. 2. 8 FINAL SHORT PLAT MAP (This is a new
section; old 2. 2 . 8 becomes 2. 2. 9)
The final short plat map which is submitted for fil-
ing shall conform to the following:
1) Must be a reproducible map drawn to scale on
stablized drafting film or on linen tracing
cloth.
2) SIZE: 18" x 22"
3) Shall show all existing structures in relation
to lot lines .
4) Shall show utilities and streets and easements.
5) Legal description of total parcel shall be
shown on the final linen. Legals for each
newly created lot must also be submitted to
Planning Department but do not have to be on
final linen. All legal descriptions shall re-
flect within said description ties to all sub-
division lines, donation claim lines, and or
recorded plat lines .
6) Surveyor ' s certificate must appear on final
linen.
7) Certificates of approval by Chairman of Shor,
Subdivision Committee and King County Assess
must be provided on linen.
- 10 -
February 17, 1981
SUBDIVISION 8) Face of final plat linen must be signed
CODE by owner (s) of property.
AMENDMENTS
Code page 11
Section 2. 2. 10 (formerly Section 2. 2. 9) EXPIRATION
PERIOD
If the Short Plat is not filed within six (6) months
of the date of approval, the Short Plat shall be null
and void. Upon written request of the subdivider,
the Planning Department may grant one (1) extension
of not more than six (6) months. Such request must
be received by the Planning Department prior to the
six month expiration date.
Code page 14
Section 2. 3. 2 5) a) HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING
The Hearing Examiner shall hold a public hearing on
any preliminary plat and forward its recommendation
to the Kent City Council. The Hearing Examiner pub-
lic hearing shall be held within one hundred (100)
days of the Planning Department' s acceptance of the
application.
Code page 15
Section 2. 3. 2 8) APPROVAL PERIOD
(Delete entirely)
Code page 15 (Completely revised)
Section 2. 3. 2 9) EXPIRATION DATE (PRELIMINARY PLATS)
9) EXPIRATION DATE. Preliminary Plat approval
shall lapse one year from the date of approval
unless a final plat based on the preliminary
plat, or any phase thereof, is submitted within
one (1) year from the date of preliminary plat
approval . In the case of a phased subdivision,
final plat approval by the City Council of any
phase of the preliminary plat will constitute
an automatic extension of the preliminary plat
- 11 -
February 17, 1981
SUBDIVISION approval for the remaining phases of the
CODE subdivision for one (1) year from the
AMENDMENTS date of such approval. The City Council
may extend the time for submitting a final
plat for any subdivision, or any phase
thereof, provided that each such extension
shall not exceed one (1) year.
Any request for a time extension for the
submission of either a regular or phased
subdivision must be submitted in writing
to the Planning Department prior
he
expiration date.
Code page 18
Section 2 . 3. 4 . 2) a) (9) FINAL PLAT REQUIREMENTS
(9) A legal description of the land to be sub-
divided shall be shown on both the title
report and final linen. Legal description
shall be metes and bounds description re-
flecting within said description ties to all
subdivision lines, donation claim lines, and
or recorded plat lines.
Code page 20
Section 2. 3 . 4 6) EXTENSION OF THE FINAL MAP
APPROVAL DATE
(Delete entirely)
Dave Uhrich of Uplands questioned35, Subdivision
Phased, noting that the wording is unclear as to
the procedure if changes were made to one phase
of a plat. Mirk pointed out that each phase would
require Council approval, and stated that an addi-
tion could be made to the last sentence as follows:
"and any changes at the preliminary plat stage
would require Council approval. " MOONEY MOVED to
add this to #35. B. Johnson seconded. Motion
carried.
12 --
February 17, 1981
SUBDIVISION Uhrich had further questions relating to Section
CODE 2. 2.4 2} Application, Requirements NEW Item c)
AMENDMENTS and Section 2. 2. 8 NEW SECTION, Items 3 and 4 .
Harris determined that these requirements referred
to the area only within or abutting the short
subdivision. BAILEY MOVED to include the language
"within or abutting the short plat. " Mooney
seconded. Motion carried.
Uhrich asked for clarification on Section 2. 3. 2
5) , Hearing Examiner Public Hearing. Mirk clarified
that the change meant that the hearing before the
Hearing Examiner would be held no sooner than 35
days and no later than 100 days after the Planning
Department' s acceptance of the preliminary plat.
There were no further comments and MOONEY MOVED
to close the hearinq. B. Johnson seconded. Motion
carried. BAILEY MOVED to amend the Subdivision
Code, in accordance with the Planning Commission' s
recommendation, including the changes made tonight.
B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried.
ENVIRONMENTAL O'Brien Deferral Request. BAILEY MOVED that the
EXCISE TAX application by Robert O'Brien for deferred payment
of the Environmental Excise Tax be denied, B. John-
son seconded. Mr. O 'Brien addressed the Council,
noting that the deferral requested was an attempt
to conserve his resources. He suggested that in
fact the purpose of the ordinance was to ease the
City' s financial burden and that his position was
the same as the City ' s. O'Brien also suggested
that the additional $6, 000 tax was putting him in
the position of being assessed an additional $6, 000
for his development. Hamilton noted that under the
provisions of the ordinance, granting a deferral
was granting a special privilege and that this was
prohibited by the terms of the ordinance. Motion
carried.
Meadow Ridge Apartments Environmental Excise Tax
Exemption. MASTERS MOVED that the request made by
Meadow Ridge Apartments at the February 9 workshop
for exemption from the Environmental Excise Tax be
approved. The motion FAILED for lack of a second.
HAMILTON MOVED that the City split the difference
with the applicant and for the applicant to be
excused from one-half of the tax. Bailey seconded.
13 -
February 17 , 1981
ENVIRONMENTAL It was noted that the applicant has claimed that
EXCISE TAX the City' s delay in connection with LID 301 was
the reason the application for the building per-
mit for Meadow Ridge was delayed, causing it to
be subject to this new tax. Mirk noted that the
motion was not improper if the City finds special
circumstances in this case. In response to B.
Johnson' s questions as to staff review and agree-
ment, Mirk stated that staff did not agree that
Wickstrom had stated the plans for LID 301 would
be completed by a certain date but that it could
be possible. He noted that there was confusion
over the matter since many different people were
involved. Mirk confirmed for McCaughan that
this
that
was the only such request. Mooney suggested
the proposed environmental excise tax ordinance
had been discussed since last March and that there
had been no complaints about the delay of the LID
project. Masters stated that the documentation
of the activities submitted by Terre Harris at the
February 9 workshop leave some doubt as o who deseris
at fault and suggested that the applicant
ved
some consideration. There were no further comments
and the vote on Hamilton' s motion resulted in a
TIE, with Hamilton, Masters and Bailey voting in
favor, and B. Johnson, Mooney and McCaughan voting
against. Mayor Hogan voted against and the motion
FAILED. McCAUGHAN MOVED to deny the request for
exemption, Mooney seconded. A TIE resulted, with
McCaughan, B. Johnson and Mooney voting in favor
and Hamilton, Masters and Bailey voting against.
Mayor Hogan then voted in favor and the motion
to deny CARRIED.
COUNCIL/ BAILEY MOVED to remove from the table the matter
MANAGER of placing on the ballot the question of changing
FORM OF to the Council/Manager form of government which
GOVERNMENT was tabled on February 2, 1981 to the March 2nd
meeting. B. Johnson seconded. Voting resulted
in a TIE with Bailey, Hamilton and B. Johnson in
favor and Mooney, Masters and McCaughan against.
MOTION CARRIED when the Mayor voted in favor.
BAILEY MOVED that the matter be tabled indefinitely,
B. Johnson seconded. McCaughan stated that he would
not support the motion since the matter has been
under discussion for two or three years. He also
resent
noted that while he had nothing against the p
- 14 -
i
February 17, 1981
COUNCIL/ operation of the City it was his opinion that the
MANAGER City should be going to the form of government
FORM OF suggested and would be willing to support a
GOVERNMENT motion to that effect. Bailey pointed out that
the reason he was proposing the motion was because
the full Council would not be in attendance in March
and it was his belief that the matter should have
the attention of the full Council . He also stated
that if the City was going to consider changing
the form of government that all forms should be
considered by the voters. He noted that he had
no argument with McCaughan' s comments at this time
but suggested that if J. Johnson were in attendance
he felt he would support the motion to defer the
matter indefinitely. Bailey stated that he had
had comments from the community against such a
proposal and noted that the present form of govern-
ment was functioning well. He commented on the
lack of public demand for consideration of such a
change. Bailey suggested that there might be
some time in the future that it would be expedient
to change the form of government but that there
was no guarantee that the other form would work
any better. Bailey further stated that until he
had some indication that the public wanted to
consider the change he would not support calling
for a special election, noting that such an elec-
tion would cost the City $7 , 000 to $10 ,000 and
would attract few voters to the polls. Upon
Masters ' question, Bailey suggested that a notice
in the utility bills could be used to poll the
citizens. Masters noted that the matter had been
discussed for four years and suggested that the
Council should not determine this, that the citi-
zens should make their wishes known at the polls .
B. Johnson noted that she had had no input from
the public to indicate any interest in changing
the present form of government, and could see no
reason to disturb the entire community. The vote
resulted in a TIE with Hamilton, Bailey and B.
Johnson voting in favor of tabling the matter in-
definitely and Masters, Mooney and McCaughan voting
against. Mayor Hogan declined to vote on the issue,
and Mirk determined that lacking enough votes for
passage, the motion FAILED. He further determined
that this matter had been removed from the agenda
for March 2nd, by the action taken tonight.
- 15 -
February 17 , 1981
VALLEY Valley Studies. On February 2 , 1.981 at the
STUDIES special meeting of the Council the hearing on
the Valley Studies was continued to the regular
meeting of February 17 . A new packet of inform-
ation entitled "Valley Studies, Approved by the
Kent City Council, January - February, '� 1981" has
been prepared by Planning Director Harris. This
NEW "Green Book" contains the actions taken by
the Council at the nine special public hearings
conducted in December, 1980 and January and February,
1981. The book was distributed to the Council on
February 9 and has been available in the City
Clerk' s office since February 10 , 1981. At the
February 2 special meeting, it was noted that the
input from Harris would be reviewed on February
17 but that the Council would not be taking offi-
cial action on the studies at tonight' s meeting.
The continued public hearing was reopened by
Mayor Hogan. Harris distributed copies of a
memorandum dated February 17, 1981 which suggested
proposed changes and modifications to the Valley
Studies. The memo has been made a part of the
record. He referred to four specific items which
the Council should consider. Harris referred to
page 12 of the new green book relating to Amend-
ments to the Zoning Code and noted that the Council
had approved the wording contained on page 12;
however, the Council ' s desire was to bring the
matter back before the Council to clarify the
language used in the statement, i .e. , the language
under discussion was " . . .development is sufficient
to generate the revenues necessary to build and
operate sewer, water and drainage facilities re-
quired by the project. " He noted that the staff
recommendation was that the following language
be used for the MA and RA zoning districts:
" . . . the proposed development is sufficient to
generate the revenues necessary to provide muni-
cipal services (including but not limited to
police, fire, streets, water, drainage and sewer)
required by the project. "
B. Johnson questioned whether a residential area
could be expected to support those services. Harris
- 16 -
February 17, 1981
VALLEY pointed out that the wording gives the Hearing
STUDIES Examiner and the Council the opportunity to look
at whatever action is taken and be able to see
what would be paying its way and what would not.
BAILEY MOVED that the suggested wording be adopted.
McCaughan seconded.
Joel Haggard expressed concerns over the proposed
changes and noted that the revised
book
redlanguage
and
that shown in the new g paragraph 2 on
page 12 reflected some deletions from that appear-
ing on page 5 of the January 19 , 1981 minutes,
specifically . . (the language of this first sen-
tence being consistent with Goal 1 Policy 8 as
amended by the Council at an earlier hearing. ) "
He suggested that the revised language as presented
by Harris tonight could present real problems for
the City. He noted
that
oflthe the
municipal revenues
serviceswere
to totally support all
listed, that anyone with sufficient funds could
develop. Haggard stated further that single family
development would be precluded by this language.
There were no further comments and the MOTION
CARRIED, with Masters and B. Johnson voting nay.
Harris then referred to the Green River Corridor
Policies, #2 , appearing on page 16 of the new
green book and pointed out that the Planning Com-
mission had recommended that Policy #2 read as
follows:
"Adopt the Green River Corridor Plan ' s 'Unique
and Fragile Areas' map as officially recognized
areas to be preserved in the Corridor. "
Harris noted that the Council had tabled this
policy until action had been taken on the Unique
and Fragile Areas and that this policy is no
longer necessary, since the Unique and Fragile
essenti-
Areas approval as reflected on page
ally does what Policy #2 was asking for. B. JOHNSON
MOVED that Policy #2 be deleted and the rest of
the policies renumbered accordingly. Masters
seconded. It was determined for Bailey that the
map had been adopted. MOTION CARRIED.
- 17 -
February 17 , 1981
VALLEY Harris then referred to Policy No. 4 of the Green
STUDIES River Corridor Policies as stated in the minutes
of January 12, 1981 on page 2 , reading as follows :
"Adopt a resolution designating the Frager Road
as a Scenic and Recreation Drive not intended to
provide access to new developments. "
Harris noted that by leaving Russell Road out as
a scenic road it now in effect becomes a regular
street when the intent was that someday it would
be closed to vehicular traffic but remain open
for pedestrians and bikes . He suggested that the
wording be changed as follows :
"Adopt a resolution designating Frager Road and
Russell Road as Scenic and Recreational Drives
not to provide access to new development. This
designation to be in effect until either street
is closed to vehicular traffic at which time they
shall be used for pedestrian and bicycle purposes.
MOONEY MOVED that the suggested revision be adopter
Bailey seconded. In response to a question from
the audience, Harris noted that when the closures
were effected they were not limiting it to just
bike and pedestrian traffic and that some consider-
ation would be given to horse trails, and that this
would be brought back to the Council for considera-
tion. In response to questions from McCaughan,
Harris noted that the Russell Road referred to
started in the vicinity of the Russell Woods, and
that a definition was listed in the green book in
the Corridor Plan and the Shoreline Master Program.
John O'Rourke referred to the limitation of access
to the Frager Road, noting that his client has
property abutting the existing road and suggested
that the revision would totally limit any access
to Frager Road for any use that does not presently
exist. Mirk determined that this was merely a
policy stating that these roads are not intended
to be used for access but that would not apply if
there was no other access to property. MOTION CARRIED.
Harris then referred to Green River Corridor Special
Interest District, appearing on page 31 of the new
18 -
February 17 , 1981
VALLEY green book, No. 15, stating that Number 15 per-
STUDIES mits rail service within 250 feet of the Green
River. However, when reviewing the Green River
Corridor Special Interest District' s regulations
in their entirety, it appears that, with rail
so close to the river, that the "special" part
of the Corridor ceases to exist.
He noted that the staff requests that the City
Council defer final action on #15 until a full
presentation can be given to the Council by the
staff to show what the staff feels will be the
detrimental effects of rail within 250 feet of
the river. Harris read further from the memo ,
as follows:
"The staff' s main concerns are with the types of
buildings that are inevitably built along rail
spurs. Evidence existing in the Valley today
indicates that rail-served buildings are generally
of the same monotonous design with few or no
offsets, little in the way of landscaping (beyond
a minimum required by the City) and by necessity,
must all be oriented directly to the rail service. "
Harris added that the staff was asking that the
matter be deferred to the March 16, 1981 meeting.
Mooney noted that it was his impression they were
going to finalize the matter at this meeting and
direct the attorney to draft the necessary resolu-
tions for adoption at the March 2 meeting. It
was determined that the first meeting in April
would be the first meeting when the entire Council
would be in attendance. Harris suggested that a
hearing be scheduled for April 6 and that no rail
be allowed to be built in the 1000 ft. corridor
until the public hearing is conducted. McCaughan
suggested that it was not fair to the developers
to put the matter off for a longer period of time.
Dave Uhrich noted that he first heard of this pro-
posal tonight and commented that they had been
discussing the matter for over two years and that
numerous changes had been made regarding lot sizes,
the size of the buildings, truck loading zones,
landscaping, and making sure that no rail service
showed from the river. Mooney noted that it was
his impression that rail would be back 250 feet
- 19 -
February 17 , 1981
VALLEY from the river plus an additional 50 feet from
STUDIES the end of the building for the rail spur. Harris
stated that rail service is limited 250 feet from
the river. Bailey noted that it was intended that
there would be no rail service within 250 feet
of the river plus an additional 50 feet from the
end of the building. Uhrich noted that they had
made a proposal to the Council for donation of
property and additional landscaping which the
Council had chosen not to incorporate in the
Green River Special Interest District. He noted
that they had agreed to keep the rail service
50 feet from the end of the building and also
agreed to keep buildings 50 feet back from the
200 ft. corridor. He also noted that the land-
scaping required 25 feet. Masters questioned
whether part of the discussion had centered around
placement of the building. Harris determined
that #15 was the same as set forth in the minutes.
It was also determined that under the Special
Interest District regulations it was not possible
to construct any building within 200 feet of the
river and that this would make it at least 225
feet from the river, including 25 ' for landscaping.
Hamilton expressed disappointment that the Planning
Department had not presented a better defense
against the rail spurs when the matter was brought
before the Council and that this was something
the City would have to contend with forever. He
suggested that the Planning Department should
have another chance to present its case. HAMILTON
MOVED to defer the matter to the April 6 meeting
for a public hearing. Bailey seconded, noting
that he was reluctant to do so even though it
did merit some consideration. He noted that his
intent was that there be no rail spurs within 50
feet of the end of the building on the riverfront
side. Masters raised questions as to plans that
were in progress and noted that until they adopted
the Study nothing could be done. Haggard suggested
that a clear reading of the minutes showed that
the intent of the Council was that no rail service
be closer than 250 feet of the river, and no closer
than 50 feet of the riverfront side of the building.
He suggested that changing this section to read
275 feet could solve the problem. Harris expressed
20 -
February 17 , 1981
VALLEY concerns with the Southcenter_ Corporation Park
STUDIES lots noting that rail service might be as much
as 500 feet in that area.
George Kresovich, attorney for Arrow Development,
expressed concerns about holding up the adoption
of the Valley Studies , and noted that they would
like to see the studies completed since it was
important to his client. He suggested that if
it was necessary to delay for this item, that
the rest of the studies be adopted. There was
no further discussion and Hamilton' s MOTION to
defer #15 of the Green River Special Interest
District to April 6 for a public hearing resulted
in a tie with Masters, B. Johnson and McCaughan
voting against and Bailey, Mooney and Hamilton
voting in favor. The motion carried when Mayor
Hogan voted in favor.
Hamilton referred to page 7 Item Al of the new
green book and questioned whether L-5 was north
of S. 212th and 1000 feet from the river. Harris
clarified that it was specifically shown on the
map on page 9 .
Masters referred to various items which she wished
to have clarified or corrected in the new green
book, as follows :
Page 3, Policy 8 noting that according to the minutes
of January 15 , 1981 the word "clear" had been de-
leted. MASTERS MOVED that the word "clear" be
deleted from the green book to coincide with the
action of the Council on January 15, Mooney seconded.
MOTION CARRIED.
Referring to page 2 of the new green book, Masters
noted that at the December 22 meeting when Goal 3
was discussed, a reference had been made in the
old green book under Objective 3 , Policy 5, to
"See Figure 13. " Masters suggested that some
designation of Figure 13 be included and it was
determined that this was the Landscape Corridor
Map as shown on page 6. MASTERS MOVED that this
designation be added to Policy #5 on the top of
page 2 of the new green book, Mooney seconded.
Motion carried.
21 -
February 17, 1981
VALLEY In response to questions from Master's regarding
STUDIES the Land Use Map as shown on page 4 of the green
book, Harris noted that this was what would be
included in the final adoption and that it covered
the area that was discussed during the course of
the hearings. He explained the various zoning designations and that this was the land use approved
by the Council; that this was the map that would
be put into the Valley Floor Plan. Harris stated
that the map included everything that was the
subject of discussion. He also suggested that
if the Council felt something was missing they
should advise the Planning Department and noted
for Masters that the combination of the maps on
pages 4 and 5 covered the entire study area.
Harris further explained for Haggard that the
resolution adopting the Valley Floor Plan would
contain a map showing all the new designations.
Masters raised questions on the area that was
to be designated Light Industrial to the South
and Harris indicated this was the area of the
Foster Plat and that it still carried this design-
ation, but that the Plat was not in the study area.
Haggard concurred that the final map should show
all the area covered by the Valley Studies and
the zoning amendments. He noted that he would
like the opportunity to comment on the Resolution
adopting the Studies when it is prepared.
Referring to Item #3 on E29e 13, Masters suggested
that there could be a problem with the location
of the building on the lot and it was determined
that this was in reference to the Transition Area
Combining District. Harris determined for B.
Johnson that the buildings would be almost square
since the length was limited to 200 feet and could
not exceed one acre in size. MASTERS MOVED that
Regulation No. 3 be changed to read "Building
frontage adjacent to residential zones shall not
exceed 200 feet. " Mooney seconded. Motion CARRIED
with Hamilton and B. Johnson voting nay.
In response to questions from Masters regarding
the Transition Area Combining District map shown
on page 15 of the new green book, Harris noted
that the map showed the boundaries of the transitio-
22 -
February 17, 1981
VALLEY area and noted further that the map would be
STUDIES further clarified. Masters referred to the
first paragraph on page 30 of the new green
book covering the Green River Corridor Special
Interest District Regulations and
noted thattedthe
the Council had, on January 22. principle
1000 foot Special Interest District in p L
and that this was reflected in the first sentence
at the top of the page. MASTERS MOVED to delete
the additional language as follows :
"The outer boundary may be somewhat less than or
greater than 1 , 000 feet where the districtbopunod-
ary can be better defined by an existing or
posed street right-of-way or other major physical
feature (see Figure 13 , Green River Corridor Plan) .
' The first 200 feet of the corridor consists of
the Shoreline Master Program. "
Mooney seconded. Bailey stated that he could see
no problem with the language but Masters stated
it was an addition by staff. Bailey stated that
it had been agreed that the area could be 1000
feet more or less and it was determined that
Hamilton' s motion was to adopt it in principle.
In response to McCaughan' s question, Masters
stated that her objections to the language included
in the new green book was based on the fact that
it was not part of the motion. the MOTION TO DELETE
FAILED with Mooney and Masters voting in favor and
B. Johnson, Bailey, Hamilton and McCaughan voting
against.
Referring to Regulation No. 4 on page 30, Masters
stated that the words "on riverfront lots" had been
should be as reflected
omitted, and that the wording 4 . MASTERS
in the January 22 , 1981 minutes on page
MOVED to change No. 4 to read as follows:
"Loading docks shall not located
on"river
sides of buildings on rive
s.
Mooney seconded. MOTION CARRIED.
Referring to Regulation No 6 on page 30, rMASTERS
book
pointed out that the wording
in the new 1981
was incorrect as reflected in the January22,
23 -
February 17, 1981
VALLEY —,, minutes on,;page.. 5 and MOVED to change the wording
STUDIES to read as follows:
"In order to. avoid development which creates a
"wall"_ of buildings on rive front lots the build-
ing facade ,faging. the river shall be limited to
2(10 feet.
Hamilton_seconded. .. MOTION CARRIED.
Referring to Regulation No.± 12 on page 31 of the
new, green bopX.,: ,MASTERS MOVED that the word
"regulation" be changed to ,"requirements" as
shown in _the January 22, 1981 minutes. Hamilton
seconded. Motion carried.
Haggard .and.. Uhr,ich requested that the Planning
Department Staff Rep.oxt. for. April 6 be furnished
to them prior to the meeting. Harris determined
that? i.t woul_d; be- ready about a week prior to that
date and that he would mail copies.
Hagga-rd, .noted that . on page 2, Goal 1, Objective 1,
t
was an existing objecive and would not be added to
the Resolution. He further commented on item c)
on page 8 entitled East. Side, #1) reading as
follows:
"1) Designate a 200 foot buffer strip or equiva-
lent around the perimeter of the City lagoon
in Site L-15 to be ,preserved and managed to
support wildlife habitat, specifically migrat-
ing water fowl. This buffer strip may be used
to accommodate the main trunk channel for sur-
face water management. "
Haggard contended that if the buffer strip was to
be used for the main trunk channel, it could
not be preserved for a buffer strip. He suggested
that this item°be- changed . to add the words "where
feasible" for clarification. In response to B.
Johnson' s question, Wickstrom confirmed that the
lagoon may be moved. Haggard suggested that the
word "preserved" might be too strong. Haggard
pointed ;out that the drainage channel would have
to get into the lagoon and that it would be necessar-
24 -
i
February 17, 1981
VALLEY to go through the 200 foot buffer strip. Harris
STUDIES noted that if it did in fact become necessary
for the drainage channel to go through the area
the matter could be considered at that time.
John Barr noted that they owned property adjacent
to the lagoon and referred to a discrepancy on
the top of page 7 of the new green book, Unique
and Fragile Areas, No. 1 reading as follows:
"l. Designate all officially mapped ponds,
marshes and/or swamps, riparian woodlands,
undike shorelines, flooded wetlands and
200 feet around the city lagoon as Unique
and Fragile Areas . Wetlands defined as
Other Wetlands shall not be defined as
Unique and Fragile Areas.
He suggested that the words "or equivalent" be
added to No. 1 after the words "200 feet. "
HAMILTON SO MOVED, B. Johnson seconded. Motion
carried.
Barr also suggested that 7A, 7B and 7C on pages
7 and 8 be changed for clarification to read:
A) West Side OF GREEN RIVER
B) South OF GREEN RIVER
C) East side OF GREEN RIVER
HAMILTON SO MOVED, B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried.
HAMILTON MOVED that the hearing on the Valley
Studies be closed, McCaughan seconded. Mirk
noted that the hearing could be reopened on
April 6 to consider Item 15 on page 31 . Motion
carried.
MOONEY MOVED that Item 15, page 31 of the new
green book be set for public hearing for April 6,
1981. Bailey seconded. Motion carried. HAMILTON
MOVED that the staff be directed to draft the
necessary resolutions for the Valley Studies for
the March 2, 1981 meeting. Mooney seconded.
Motion carried.
It was determined for Haggard and Uhrich that the
material for the March 2 meeting would be available
on the Friday preceding the meeting.
25 -
February 17, 1981
KENT VALLEY A contract has been prepared with KVYS for ser-
YOUTH SERVICES vices to be provided during 1981. The contract
contemplates a payment of $32, 603 in accordance
with the amount authorized by the City Council
in the 1981 budget. The contract also requires
monthly activity reports together with financial
reports. A copy of the proposed contract has
been distributed to the Council. MASTERS MOVED
that authorization to sign the contract be with-
held to the next meeting as she has submitted an
inquiry to Edna Goodrich. McCaughan seconded.
Cushina noted that KVYS is anxious to have the
contract signed, as they have not yet received
payment for January. Masters stated that her
questions related to the Goals & Services listed
on the attachment to the proposed contract,
specifically as to how the services performed
could be measured, as an indication of the overall
productivity. B. Johnson noted that this question
had been asked over the past several years. Motion
carried.
Cushing suggested that the matter go to the work-
shop on February 23 and Mayor Hogan asked if the
funds could be paid while Masters ' questions were
pending. Cushing noted that the auditor ' s office
had insisted on a contract before funds were paid.
Linda Pederson, Acting Director, stated that it
is difficult to find concrete measurements and that
the Board of Directors of KVYS was struggling with
this. She noted that without the contract the
Service did not know what services they were to
provide.
BUDGET (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5C)
1980 Budget Adjustments. ADOPTION of Ordinance
No. 2274 approving the final budget adjustments
for 1980.
COUNCIL Finance & Personnel - Related Employees. B. JOHNSON
COMMITTEES MOVED for Council approval to hire Brian Church,
a CETA employee, son-in-law of Property Manager
Jerry McCaughan, noting that the two would not be
working in the same area. Hamilton seconded and
the motion carried, with McCaughan abstaining.
26 -
February 17, 1981
COUNCIL Public Works. Mooney noted that not much water
COMMITTEES had been found in the drilling explorations. He
asked Harris about the progress on the City' s
application for a grant for use in controlling
water quality in the streams in the area. Harris
noted that tentative approval had been received.
Mooney noted that several oil spills had occurred
recently and that the grant was important. He
stated that matters to be discussed at the Public
Works Committee meeting at 8 : 15 on Wednesday,
February 18 would include: 1) Water Status 2)
Eastside Watershed Project 3) Proposed Valley
Studies Drainage LID.
Public Safety. B. Johnson noted that the Massage
Parlor ordinance would be discussed at the February
23 workshop and would be brought to the Council
on March 2 . She noted that the Committee would
not meet in March.
Parks Committee. Bailey noted that the Parks
Committee would meet at 8 :15 a.m. on February 25th.
He commented on the Kent/King County Recreation
Contract approved tonight, noting that support
of the School District contributed to the success
of this program.
Administrative Reports . Mayor Hogan noted receipt _
of a letter from the Central Puget Sound Economic
Development District asking what projects Kent
wished to submit for EDA funding. She also noted
receipt of a bulletin from the National League of
Cities noting that the President' s suggested cuts
included EDA funds. She noted that we might like
to resubmit an update of the downtown project and
suggested that this could be discussed at a work-
shop to see if other projects would be proposed.
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5H)
Senior Center Building Account_ . ADOPTION of Ordi-
nance No. 2275 establishing a Senior Center Build-
ing Account as recommended by the Parks Committee
and further discussed at the February 9, 1981 work-
shop.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5I)
55.
Transfer of Funds from Guaranty Fund to LID 2 to
AUTHORIZATION to pay the amount of $1, 560 42 to
27 -
February 17 , 1981
FINANCE LID 255 from the LID Guaranty Fund to pay princi-
pal and interest due February 1, 1981. An error
has been made in that assessments collected for
LID 255 must have been credited to another LID
which could have occurred any time during the
last twelve years. A report will be made as soon
as an internal audit is completed.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5B)
Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the
bills received through February 23, 1981 to be
considered by the Finance Committee at its meet-
ing at 3 : 00 p.m. February 27, 1981 .
COUNCIL Both B. Johnson and Bailey noted that they would
ABSENCES not be present for either of the March Council
meetings.
B. JOHNSON MOVED that the meeting be adjourned
at 11: 30 o 'clock p.m. , Hamilton seconded. Motion
carried.
Marie Je n, CMC
City Clerk
28 -