HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 02/16/1982 i
Kent, Washington
February 16, 1982
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, Biteman, Kelleher, B. Johnson, J. Johnson, and
Moonev, City Administrator Cushing, Acting City Attorney Heavey,
Planning_ Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom and
Finance Director McCarthy. Also present: Administrative Assistant
Webby, Fire Chief Angelo, Hearing Examiner Burke and URS represent-
ative Abed. Councilperson Leahy was absent. Approximately 80
people were in attendance at the meeting.
PROCLA1ATION A proclamation was read by Mayor Hogan declaring
February 16, 1982 as a day of recognition of the
Fournier familv, owners of the Fournier Newspapers
for many years . The family, through its continued
interest in the issues, has helped to direct the
future of the valley cities and all citizens are
encouraged to express their appreciation for the
family ' s contribution to the community.
CONSENT BAILEY MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through
CALENDAR J be approved. B . Johnson seconded, motion
carried. Item I was removed at the request of
Councilperson Kelleher .
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5A)
Approval of 'Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of
the regular Council meeting of February 1, 1982
CORRECTING the date shown on the minutes from
February 2 , 1982 to February 1 , 1982 .
HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5F)
SANITATION Bill of Sale - Kent Cinema Six . ACCEPTANCE of the
Bill of Sale and Warranty Agreement for approximately
1099 feet of water main extension and 280 feet of
sanitary sewer extension constructed in the vicinity
of S.E . 256th & 104th Avenue S .E. for Kent Cinema
Six, for continuous operation and maintenance and
RELEASE of the cash bond after expiration of the
one-year quaranty oeriod and payment of any out-
standing bills against the project.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5H)
Garbage Rate Ordinance. ADOPTION of Ordinance No.
2339 , establishing new garbaqe rates and repealing
Ordinance No. 2332 passed February 1 , 1982 .
- 1 -
February 16, 1982
STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM roovements (4th Avenue to
LID 304 - Smith St. Imp
2338
Lincoln Street) . ADOPTION of Ordinance No.
LID 304)
providing for the co�destreetnimProvementst (on o adopted
property for the Sm
and REPEALING ordinance and which 3ordinance wcontaed
on February 1, 1982
an incorrect legal description.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5E)
ment LID 308 - S .E. 260th Street ImproveADOPTION4Of
Avenue S. E. to 108th Avenue S .E. )
Resolution No. 951 declaring the City' s intent to
form LID 308 and se
forPublinq the pcbWorkslic eDirector
for March 15, 1982 . proposed
has reviewed the events leading up to ng theith
pheppro-
improvements and
olvedan nwasmheldal eon1February 11, 1982 •
perty owners in halt con-
The project would include a two-lane
of the
crete roadway, sidewalk along storm sewer
road, water main throunhout the area, system, a
system with retention, an illuminating alongthe
sanitary sewer system and landscaping
roadway.
Reith Road had been held regard-
A,iteman noted that a meeting Cushin
ing the cutting of trees on Reith Road and g
noted that the attter2ould be discussed at the
workshop of February 2
ALLEY (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5C)
VACATION Alley Vacation Between North CentADOPTIONNofth
South of Pioneer Street. date
State, g ublic hearing
Resolution No. 19bu fortthe pepition filed by Scar-
for March 15, for the vacation of an alley between
sella and Hurt State south of Pioneer Street.
N. Central and N. ,
Ids
jl
North Park Storm Drainage,
were
Phase I , Bids . Thirteen
SSTORMro ect on February 11,
b opened for this p j
ecommendation of
DRAINAGE 1982 . In accordance with the r
the Public Works Director, PIOONEY MOVED that the
North Park Storm Drainage contract be awarded to
bid, plus alternate
King
Construction for the basic
"A" in the amount °onded,l28o91Onlcarrs a ied° contin-
gency. Biteman sec
- 2 -
February 16, 1982
EQUIPMENT 1982 Rotary Type, Three Bladed Mower. The following
RENTAL BIDS bids were opened on February 4 , 1982 for the above
item of equipment:
Bidder Bid Amount
ABC Rentals $4 , 792 .74
Turf & Toro 5, 450.87
Redmond Lawn & Tractor 5, 587. 50
Inasmuch as the low bidder did not meet bid specifi-
cations , it is recommended that the second low bid
of Turf & Toro Co. be accepted. B. JOHNSON SO JMOVED,
J. Johnson seconded. Motion carried.
1982 Tractor Loader Backhoe. Six bids were received
on February 4, 1982 as follows:
Bidder Bid Amount
Buck & Sons $14, 591. 63
Lakewood Lawn & Equipment 15, 202 . 61
Smith Tractor & Equipment 15, 891. 85
Redmond Lawn & Tractor 16, 816. 77
Sumner Tractor & Equipment 16, 865. 62
Auburn Lawn & Tractor 16, 917. 42
The low bid from Buck & Sons does not meet bid speci-
fications and it is recommended that the second low
bid of $15, 202. 61 from Lakewood Lawn Equipment be
accepted . Warranty work will be performed by local
John Deere dealers . MOONEY SO MOVED, B. Johnson
seconded. Motion carried .
RAILROAD Burlington-Northern Spur Crossing - 84th Avenue S.
FRANCHISE The proposed franchise ordinance which grants to
Burlington-Northern authority to construct, main-
tain and operate a railroad spur track at common
grade in the vicinity of 84th Avenue S. and S . 212th
Street was introduced at the February 1 Council
meeting . At the request of the Public works Director,
MOONEY MOVED that the passage of the proposed ordi-
nance be delayed for two weeks . Bailey seconded.
Motion carried.
SUBDIVISION Subdivision Code Amendments. On January 26 , 1982
CODE the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
consider a number of proposed changes to the Sub-
division Code. The Commission recommends approval
of the following Subdivision Code amendments:
3 -
I
February 16, 1982
SUBDIVISION
CODE
Section 1. 4 Definitions
Amend to read as follows :
2) Block. A group of lots , tracts, or parcels within well
defined and fixed boundaries. (Page 2)
15) Lot. A fractional part of divided lands having fixed
boundaries , being of sufficient area and dimension to
meet minimum zoning requirements for width and area.
The term shall include tracts or parcels . (Page 3)
29) Preliminary_Plat . A neat and precise drawing of a
proposed subdivision showing the general layout of
streets and alleys, lots , blocks , and other elements of
a plat or subdivision which shall furnish a basis for the
approval or disapproval of the general layout of a sub-
division. (Page 5)
32) Short Subdivision . The division or redivision of land
into four (4 ) or fewer lots , tracts parcels , sites , or
divisions for the purpose of sale , lease, or transfer of
ownership. (Page 5)
34) Subdivision. The division or redivision of land inter five
(5) or more lots , tracts , parcels , sites , or divisions
for the purpose of sale , lease , or transfer of ownership;
provided that subdivisions of less than five (5) parcels
may be defined as lot splits or short subdivisions.
(Page 5)
Section 1. 8 Exceptions
Amend to read as follows :
The provisions of this code do not amply to:
1) Cemeteries and burial plots while used for that purpose.
2) Divisions made by testamentary provisions, or the laws of
descent.
3) A division made for the purpose of adjusting boundary lines
which does not create any additional lot, tract , parcel ,
site , or division nor create any lot , tract, parcel , site ,
or division which contains insufficient area and cimension
to meet minimum requirements for width and area for a
building site.
4 -
1
February 16 , 1982
SUBDIVISION
CODE
4) Division of land use to condemnation or sale under threat
thereof, by an agency or division of government vested
with the power of condemnation. (Page 7)
SECTION II - PROCEDURES
Section 2 . 2 . 8 Final Short Plat Map
P.mend to read as follows :
5) Legal description of total parcel shall be shown on the
final linen. Legals for each newly created lot must also
be submitted to the Planning Department but do not have
to be on final linen. All legal descriptions shall be
metes and bounds descriptions reflecting within said
descriptions ties to all subdivision lines, donation
claim lines , and/or recorded plat lines . (Page 11)
Section 2 . 3 . 2 Preliminary Plat Procedures
Amend to read as follows :
5) Hearing Examiner Public Hearing
b) The Planning Department shall give notice in the follow-
ing manner:
(1) Three (3) notices of the public hearing shall be
posted on or adjacent to the land to be subdivided
at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing.
(2) One (1) notice of the public hearing shall be given
in a newspaper of general circulation within the
county, and a newspaper of general circulation
within the area in which property is located, at
least then (10) days prior to the public hearing.
(3) Notice shall be given to all property owners within
a radius of three-hundred (300) feet of the exterior
boundaries of the property, subject of the appli-
cation. If the owner of the subject property also
owns property lying adjacent to the subject pro-
perty , the 300 foot radius must be taken from
the exterior boundaries of this adjacent owned
property. Such notice shall be sent ten (10)
days prior to the public hearing.
(a) The failure of any property owner to receive
said notice of hearing will not invalidate
the proceedings . (Page 16)
5 -
February 16, 1982
SUBDIVISION
CODE
Section 2 . 3 . 2 Preliminary Plat Procedures (continued)
Amend to read as follows :
6) Health Agency Recommendation . The health agencies respon-
sible for approval of the proposed means of sewage dis-
posal and water supply shall file with the City Council,
prior to the Council ' s consideration of the preliminary
plat, written statements as to the general adequacy of the
proposed means of sewage disposal and water supply.
(Applicant is responsible for submitting appropriate
application forms to the Seattle-King County Health
Department and for paying the health department review
fee. ) (Page 16)
8) Expiration Date . Preliminary plat approval shall lapse
three (3) years from the date of approval unless a final
plat based on the preliminary plat , or any phase thereof,
is suL)mitted within three (3 ) years from the date of
preliminary plat approval . One one-year extension shall
granted to an applicant who files a written request with
the City Council and Planning Department at least thirty
(30) days before the expiration of this three-year period,
if the applicant can show that he has attempted in good
faith to submit the final plat within the three-year
period.
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 one (1) year extension for
the filing of the next phase of the subdivision.
(Page 17)
The public hearing was opened by Mayor Hogan. There were
no comments from the audience and no correspondence has
been received. MOONEY MOVED that the hearing be closed.
Biteman seconded. Motion carried. B. JOHNSON MOVED that
the Subdivision Code be amended in accordance with the
recommendations of the Planninq Commission, Moonev seconded.
Motion carried .
6 -
February 16, 1982
HOUSI14G & 'Mayor Hogan reported that the Joint Policy Committee
COMMUNITY had met recently with regard to the Needs requests
DEVELOPMENT and that. Kent had received approval of its Housing
Repair request in the amount of $58 , 108 and of the
North Park Storm Drainage project in the amount of
$93 , 000 . She also noted that the proposed study
for the new Senior Center facility had received no
funding but that this matter would be discussed
further by the Parks Committee.
Minor Home Repairs . Receipt was noted of a letter
from Irene Bellman expressing appreciation to the
City for the excellent work done by Cheryl Ann
Coulter, the person in charge of minor home repairs
for the Citv.
FINANCE Cancellation of Stale Checks_. In accordance with
discussion held at the January 28 , 1982 Finance
Committee meetincl , the Finance Department has
drafted a reselution for cancellation of stale
dated checks (those checks that have been outstand-
ing for more than one year) . It has been standard
practice for the City to pass such resolutions but
it has not been done for the past two years . BAILEY
MOVED to adopt _Resolution No. 953 , Kelleher seconded.
'lotion carried .
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5B)
Approval of Bills_ . APPROVAL of payment of the bills
received through February 16 , 1982 after auditing
by the Finance Committee at its meeting at 4 : 00
p.m. on February 26 , 1982 .
WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5G)
South King County Water Purveyors Association.
APPROVAL of Kent' s inclusion in the South King
County Water Purveyors Association and participation
in the study. The South King County Water Purveyors
Association is a tentative organization made up of
Water District 75, Water District 111, Water District
105, Water District 124, and the City of Kent. Its
purpose is to develop short and long range goals
and alternatives for water sources. The Association
is proposing to undertake a preliminary feasibility
study to identify existing sources, inventory exist-
ing_ water rights, identify needs for the next 20 to
50 years , identify possible interties, and develop
7 -
February 16, 1982
WATER alternatives for short and long range supply. The
cost of this studv is estimated to be from $93, 000
to $110 , 000 , which cost would be shared by the
Association members based on the number of water
suppliers included in the program and the number
of services each supplier has . It is estimated
that Kent ' s share would be approximately $20, 000 .
The Public Works Committee has concurred with Kent' s
participation after review of the proposal . (Upon
solidifyina the Association, a formal agreement
would be developed per the study for which authoriza-
tion would be sought for the Mayor to execute the
agreement. monies required are available within
the unencumbered fund balance of the water fund. )
REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILPERSON KELLEHER
(CONSENT, CALENDAR ITEM 5I)
Policy on Water Supply. Kelleher noted that he had
expressed concerns over the proposed resolution
covering City water policies when the matter was
discussed at the last workshop and that these con-
cerns had been discussed with Councilperson Bailey
and City staff members. He noted that Section 2
had been added to the Resolution stating: " The
administrative staff of the City be and hereby
are directed to commence development for Council
review of strategies for future implementation of
the policy referred to in Section 1 ."
He expressed concern about two interpretations:
1 . That the policy could not, according to the
policy proposed in the resolution, be put
into effect by the Hearing Examiner or the
staff without Council approval of the imple-
mentation plan and
2 . That any such implementation plan would ad-
dress the issue as to who would be responsible
for making the determination that the City
had a water shortage.
Bailey clarified that the intent of Section 2 was
that these particular areas of concern would be
set forth in criteria which would be brought to
the Council to accept or deny in the future.
BAILEY MOVED to adopt Resolution No. 952 relating
to community development and adopting water policy
statements , Kelleher seconded. Motion carried.
- 8 -
February 16, 1982
WATER Seven Oaks Plat Well (Formerly Soos Creek) Vertical
Turbine Pump, meter and Control Valves . P�id open-
ing on this ecruip:-ent was at 10 : 00 a .m. on February
12, 19R2 with only two bids received for the entire
project .
Bidder Amount _
H . D . Fowler , Tnc. $33, 996. 13
Byron Jackson Pump 54 , 743. 36*
*Error in bid amount corrected by letter .
Wickstr_om explained that while E. D. Fowler , Inc.
was the apparent low bidder , Byron Jackson Pump Co.
had discovered an error in addition, makinq their
total bid $ 33 , 423 . 36 and the low bid. It was noted
that the City had been notified of the error within.
the 24 hour time limit allowed and that it was in
fact an error in addition . Wickstrom distributed
a packet to the Council containing the documents
supplied by Byron Jackson Pump. He noted that
the City had not notified H. D. Fowler, Inc. of
the error and that the time element for awarding
the bid was important so that the well could be
in operation by July and he therefore would not
like to have to issue a recall for this project.
The City Attorney expressed no concerns over award-
ing the bid to Byron Jackson Pump Co. since txie
error in addition was obvious and because the com-
pany had notified the City and its representatives
in ample time. The City Attorney also determined
that the City has the right to reject any and all
bids and to waive any irregularities in the bidding
procedure. She stated that there was nothing that
could be considered fraudulent in this instance.
It was also determined for Biteman that the bids
had been opened at 10 : 00 a.m. on Friday, February
12 , 1982 . Upon Kelleher ' s question, Heavey stated
that there was no possible way to change the bid
after that time other than by determining that an
error had been made in addition and so notifying
the City, which had been done . Wickstrom noted
that the error was evident in the addition of the
figures on the page entitled Pump Estimate, sub-
mitted by Byron Jackson. Upon questions from Bite-
- 9 -
February 16 , 1982
WATER man and B. Johnson, Jess Abed of URS explained that
bidders have 24 hours to give notice if an error
has been discovered in their bid or if they wish
to withdraw their bid, and that if an error has
been discovered proof must be furnished within 48
hours , all of which was done by Byron Jackson Pump
Company. He noted that although the City Hall was
closed on Monday, he had been notified at the URS
office on Monday. Heavey confirmed that the bid
statutes do not state that the bid must be awarded
to the lowest bidder . B. Johnson noted that the
bids were now only a few hundred dollars apart and
if there was a cruestion, the award could be made
to Fowler. Wickstrom determined that the bids of
H. D. Fowler and Byron Jackson both met the specifi-
cations , but that the Jackson equipment was of the
same type being presentiv used and the Fowler pump
was not. BAILEY MOVED that the Vertical Turbine
Pump, Meter and Control Valves contract be awarded
to Byron Jackson in accordance with the recommenda-
tion of the Public Works Director, in the amount
of $33 , 423 . 66. Mooney seconded . Motion carried,
with Biteman voting nay.
APPEAL - Toby Heaton, supported by the signatures of 71 resi-
NATURAL dents of the area, has appealed the November 18 ,
LAND GROUP 1981 Hearing Examiner ' s decision to approve, with
P.U.D. seven conditions, the application of Natural Land
Group for a P.U.D.
The 52 unit residential P.U.D. is proposed to be
located on the west side of 94th Avenue S. at the
southwest corner of 94th and 228th. The site is
10 acres and is zoned R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Resi-
dential, which permits six units per net acre with
a minimum lot size of 7 , 200 sq. ft. Clustering
of units into groups of attached structures is per-
mitted through a P.U.D. Public hearings were held
by the Hearing Examiner on August 11, September 16
and November 4 .
A comprehensive packet of information including
verbatim transcripts of the hearings held by the
Examiner was distributed for the January 18 , 1982
Council meeting . On January 18 , the Council con-
tinued the hearing to this date upon the request
of the appellant. The hearing will be conducted
in accordance with Ordinance 2233 and Resolution
896 .
- 10 -
February 16, 1982
APPEAL - Mavor Hogan noted that appeals must be based upon
NATURAL the following:
LAND GROUP
P.U.D. Any specific errors of facts found in the
record
Any specific procedural errors
Anv omissions from the record
Any errors in interpretation of the Com-
prehensive Plan
Anv new evidence which might not have been
available at the time of the Hearing
Examiner ' s hearing
The Mavor noted that each person wishing to speak
would be limited to five minutes . (This was later
corrected to a total of 30 minutes for the appellants
and a total of 30 minutes for the applicant. )
Letters from the following citizens have been re-
ceived by the Council : Grace Moore, K. G. Guynn,
Earl Pitts, Mary Cleary, Pearl Everson, Lynn and
Roy Bollincrer , Alex and Theda Butenko, Mike and
Monne Ironside, Sharon Pitts, Ray Pleueger, Mr.
and Mrs. Greg Prater and Bert Temby.
The public hearinq was opened and B. JOHNSON MOVED
to accept the above mentioned letters for the
record. J. Johnson seconded, motion carried.
Mayor Hogan noted that the letters principally
dealt with the issues of traffic, changing the
character of the neighborhood with the introduction
of apartments or condominiums , and the concern for
the school children on the road .
Toby Heaton, representing the appellants, stated
that the appeal was based upon three contentions:
1) that the Hearinq Examiner ' s recommendation is
in direct conflict with the Comprehensive Plan,
2) that 94th Avenue S . does not provide adequate
access for the development, 3) that the City has
not demonstrated that there is an adequate water
supply for this P. U . D. nor has the city provided
for protection for current users against assess-
ments for a new water line.
Heaton Quoted from the Comprehensive Plan, noting
that the land use maT), revised in 1981 , shows this
- 11 -
F ebruary 1.6 , 19R2
APPEAL - area as r,:,sidentia, 'a-iricu.lturo, defined as single
NATURAL family rpsident'J �, ]. , on one acre lots . Tho Ki.nr,
LAND GROUP Countv plan desi(Mates the. areas north and south
P.U.D. of this proposed P. ( . D. as residential/agriculture
also and permits 2-3 houses per acre, or 3 . 6 units
per acre for P.U.D. s . He stated that of the 10
acres in this proposal , six are in steep slopes ,
leaving only 4 acres for the development of 52 units .
He noted that the Planning Department had estimated
that only 17 to 20 single family_ residences could
be built on this site. Heaton stated that the
Hearing Examiner had ignored the land use policy
for the area as defined in the plan.
Referring to 94th Avenue S. , Heaton stated that it
is a local access street for 115 residences, although
it does not meet the county standards for a local
access road. He stated that the width varied from
18 to 23 feet, had no shoulders, no lights , six
right angle turns and a speed limit of 25 mph, and
enumerated the improvements which would be required
to meet the standards for a collector arterial
street. He pointed out that if this road was in-
side the City of Kent, it could not meet the require-
ments . Improvements to upgrade the road to an arte-
rial collector status would have to be undertaken
by the county. He estimated that the proposed P.U.D.
would increase the traffic by approximately 60% .
Heaton noted that the City has had a water supply
problem in the past and currently has a moratorium
on supplying service to any new customers outside
the city limits. He stated that this problem was
not properly addressed at the hearings, nor was it
resolved whether the developer would attempt to
assess existing users for the new water line re-
auired by the P.U. D. He noted that the decision
was based on the legal zoning and the strict inter-
pretation for P.U .D. rea_uirements . Heaton stated
that the guidelines set up in the comprehensive plan
had not been followed , that the legal definition
for a collector arterial had been ignored, and that
the Planning Department had recommended against the
proposed P.U.D. He pointed out that condominiums
in this single family residential neighborhood
would change the character of the neighborhood and,
depending upon the economy, condominiums could
12 -
February 16, 1982
APPEAL - become rental units. Heaton noted that the proposed
NATURAL development is within the city limits, but that 94th
LAND GROUP Avenue S. is not and that the City of Kent is not
P.U.D. taking any responsibility for the condition of the
road. He stated that the development is not in the
best interest of the citizens of Kent and asked that
the Hearing_ Examiner ' s recommendation to approve
the P.U.D. not be accepted by the Council.
Ray Pleueger commented on the danger to school child-
ren as pedestrians if the traffic on this inadequate
road was increased .
Tom Goeltz, attorney for the applicant, stated that
the proposed development is a well planned project,
that the services of professionals had been provided
in planning, traffic engineering, landscaping and
soils analysis. He noted that the Hearing Examiner ' s
decision was based upon facts after three public
hearings and that the applicant had agreed to the
seven conditions contained in the Examiner ' s recom-
mendation to approve the P.U. D. He pointed out that
the development did not require a change of zoning,
and that the density proposed was in conformance
with the P.U.D. code. Goeltz stated that the open
space and pedestrian trails required by a P.U.D.
had been provided in the plan and further that such
provisions were not required in residential develop-
ments . He referred to the findings and conclusions
of the Hearing Examiner, and noted that 70% of the
site would be in open space, with 40% in natural
vegetation. He stated that the implementation of
the Comprehensive Plan is through the zoning code
and that the Examiner had found that all requirements
had been met under the P.U.D. code.
Regarding traffic , Goeltz noted that 94th Avenue S.
has the capacity to handle the additional traffic
which the P.U.D. would generate and that King County,
Kent' s Traffic Enaineer and Dave Hamlin, Traffic
Engineer for the development had all agreed to this.
He stated that the development of condominiums would
generate less traffic than if the area was developed
in single family residences and that 45 single family
homes could be built on the P.U. D. site, meeting all
of the code criteria .
13 -
February 16, 1982
APPEAL - With regard to eater service, Goeltz stated that this
NATURAL was covered in the hearings and clarified that the
LAND GROUP developer would bring an 8-inch line to the site,
P.U.D. which would in fact upgrade the service to the area.
He noted that existing residents could, if they
wished, connect to this line, but that there would
be no assessments for those who now had adequate water
lines . The expense of the new water line would be
borne by the developer with provisions for late-
comer charges . Goeltz pointed out that although
the Planninq Department recommended against the
P.U.D. , none of the reasons given were those objec-
tions posed by Heaton.
Biteman noted that he had visited the site and asked
about using S. 228th for access to the P.U.D. Goeltz
stated that this had been proposed , but that the
qrade was too steep for emergency vehicles . Upon
Bailey ' s question, Goeltz reported that some of the
open space was on the slopes , but that 35% was not
and this had been designated as areas for recreation,
both active and passive. Bailey noted he had
visited the site and asked for clarification. It
was then shown on the site drawing that an area
the size of two football fields had been allocated
for this purpose, none of which was on the slope.
On Kelleher ' s question, Goeltz opined that part of
the sloped area had a grade of 2 to 80 .
Jim Brinkley noted that he wished to correct the
misconception that the opponents all lived outside
the city limits . Earl Pitts opined that the reason
that S . 228th was not considered was a matter of
economy, and, that such access would be expensive.
He noted that an extensive feasibility study had
not been done on this proposal and that an easement
for this route of access could be obtained. Ken
Darby noted that 94th Avenue S . is only 18 feet wide
in some places and was a hazardous walk for
school children . Cliff Hill noted that the developer
had estimated a peak load of approximately 180 cars ,
and that no one would want to live on a residential
road carrying that kind of traffic . He suggested
that a road could be developed with a grade that
would ac.comodate emergency vehicles . Mike Kato
stated that he was opposed to the project, and
further that if the P. t1. D. is approved restrictions
should be placed on the placing of any advertising
- 14 -
February 16 , 1982
APPEAL - sign. Roy Bollinger expressed concern over the
NATURAL traffic�% which ��?ould flow to the north and then
LAND GROUP down to Central , where there is only a blinking
P.U.D. traffic light .
Heaton pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan
is a policy document rather than a legal document.
He noted that the land use map, updated in 1981,
showed Residential/AcTriculture zoning for this
area and it would therefore he assumed that the
City intended for it to be so zoned. The proposed
development would , tii j-efore, be incompatible with
the existing neighborhood . He objected to references
to the "capability" of 94th Aveni_ie S . , stating that
it did not meet the functional criteria for an
arterial collector street. Heaton noted that City
Engineer Gill had mentioned at the hearings that
the City had sufficient water for this development,
but that the newspapers frequently wrote of Kent' s
water supply problems .
Goeltz noted that the record showed that the County
regarded 93r.d/94th Avenue as an arterial col--
lector street and that it had been functioning as
such . Bailey asked if the street would qualify
as an arterial collector if it were entirely
within the Kent city limits. Wickstrom opined
that it would probably be classified as a neighbor-
hood collector. Upon questions from Kelleher and
Bailey, Burke explained that the relevant question
was whether the traffic generated by the development
would overburden the existing facility and that the
County designated 94th Avenue S . as an arterial
collector without defining the design criteria.
She noted that the evidence submitted at the hear-
ing indicated that the road had the capacity to
carry the additional traffic generated by the devel-
oper . Upon Sharon Pitts ' auestion, it was determined
that all of the Councilmembers, as well as Hearing
Examiner Burke had driven on 94th Avenue S . in the
vicinity of the proposed development.
Kelleher asked Heaton to comment, and he stated that
the definition of the word capacity is misleading
and that the question was not volume, but whether
the road could safely support the amount of traffic .
- 15 -
February 16, 1982
APPEAL - He reiterated that much of the road had onlv 30 to
NATURAL 40 foot easements, it contained many right angle
LAND GROUP turns and that there seemed little likelihood
P.U.D. that the road could ever be upgraded to support
the kind of traffic generated by this development.
He pointed out that the drawings submitted by the
developer were not to scale and so the various
grades mentioned by the applicant were not supported
by the drawings . Don Utley noted that when it snowed
cars would be parked on 94th creating an additional
hazard.
There were no further comments and BAILEY MOVED to
close the hearina . J. Johnson seconded, motion
carried. Burke noted that the existing zoning
allowed this type of development, and that there
was no evidence at the hearing that the traffic
would overburden the road . She noted that Traffic
Engineer Poston had addressed this issue and that
City Engineer Gill had addressed the question of
water supply, all of which is contained in the
transcripts of the hearings. She noted there was
no evidence of soil erosion and that the proposal
met all the standards and criteria for a P.U.D.
Mayor Hogan noted that the city is in the same situ-
ation as the county in trying to obtain funds to
improve streets . Bailey concurred and noted that
the Hearing Examiner ' s recommendation was correct and
within the confines of the law. Upon his questions,
Wickstrom noted that a " functional road" is one for
which the existing design has a certain level of
capacity. He stated that the city maintained that
portion of the road that was within the city limits ,
and that the traffic signal proposed for 84th Avenue
S . at S. 228th would also signalize the freeway on-
ramp and that installation was expected in April .
With reference to the developer ' s statement that
the traffic would go north from the development,
Wickstrom noted that the county roads close to the
city limits were not always fully maintained.
In answer to Kelleher ' s question, Wickstrom noted
that the proposed P.U. D. had no frontage on the
roads so the developer could not be required to
participate in an LID, nor could we require the
developer to improve a road which is outside the
- 16 -
February 16, 1982
APPEAL - cit_V limits. He determined for B. Johnson that those
NATURAL residents who already had water service would not
LAND GROUP have to share in the cost of the new water line to
P.U.D. be installed by the developer, but there would be
a late-comers charge for new residences . He noted
that the present water line was inadequate.
Harris determined for Kelleher that the Comprehensive
Plan map was out of sequence with the Zoning Code
and that the update of the zoning code would con-
sider this inconsistency, with the Council having
inn_ ut as to compiling goals , objectives and policies
to determine how a proposed development might fit
in with the general existing vicinity.
Mayor Hogan noted the options of the Council were
to approve, deny, modify or remand to the Hearing
Examiner and that denial or modification required
that the reasons be clearly stated.
J. JOHNSON FOVED to deny the appeal, noting that he
was sympathetic to the residents of the area but
that he could find no errors in the transcript
and that the Hearing Examiner ' s recommendation
was correct in accordance with the P.U.D. require-
ments . Mooney seconded . Bailey and Kelleher con-
curred, noting that in order to find for the appel-
lants, the Council would have to present certain
findings of fact, and based on the record this
could not be done . Biteman noted that the Council
was bound to follow the law. B. Johnson concurred
with the comments already made and noted further
that she had read all of the testimony, but could
not find that errors had been made. J. Johnson' s
motion to deny the appeal carried unanimously.
COUNCIL Finance & Personnel_. It was noted by B. Johnson
COMMITTEES that the minutes of the Finance Committee meeting
of February 12 reflected the discussion on ways
to fund the hazardous material inspections . The
matter of business license fees would be taken up
during the budget process this year.
Public AJorks . Mooney reported that the Public Works
Committee would meet at 8 : 15 a.m. on February 17 .
He noted that representatives of the Water Con-
sortium met last week with a representative from
Mr. Revelle ' s office to discuss pipeline 5.
- 17 -
February 16, 1982
COUNCIL Parks Committee. Bailey noted that the Parks staff
COPSMITTEES would :yet up a meeting schedule for consideration
of ways and means to secure funding for the senior
center . Bailey noted further that Mr. F. L. Sanders
of the Washington Theater Oroan Society had not
addressed the Council ' s questions in his recent
letter, and therefore no action would be taken.
ADJOURNMENT B. JOHNSON MOVED that the meeting be adjourned at
10 : 00 o ' clock p .m . , Kelleher seconded. Motion
carried .
Marie JenseT?, CMC
City Clerk
- 18 -