HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 12/03/1984 Kent, Washington
December 3, 1984
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at
7: 00 o 'clock p.m. by Council President/Mayor Pro Tem Johnson.
Present: Councilpersons Bailey, Biteman, Johnson, Kelleher,
Leahy, White and Woods, City Administrator Cushing, City Attorney
DiJulio, Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom
and Finance Director McCarthy. Also present: City Treasurer
Drotz , Fire Chief Angelo, Police Chief Skewes and Assistant City
Administrator Webby. Approximately 45 people were in attendance
at the meeting.
PROCLAMATIONS Free Enterprise Week. The week of December 9 to
15 was proclaimed to be Free Enterprise [week in
the City of Kent.
National Drunk & Drugged Driving Awareness Week.
Mayor_ Pro Tem Johnson declared the week. of
December 9 through 15 as National Drunk & Drugged
Driving Awareness Week in the City of Kent.
PERSONNEL Employee of the Month. A plaque was presented
to Fireman Mike DeHart, Public Information Officer
for the Fire Department, who has been selected as
the City' s Employee of the Month for December.
Drinking Driver Task Force. A Certificate of
Appreciation was presented to Ford Kiene, Chairman
of the Task Force, and Kathleen Groshong, Coordinator
for the program.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5N)
Exempt Employee Plan Ordinance. ADOPTION of Ordi-
nance 2512: An Ordinance of the City of Kent,
Washington exempting specific officers and
employees from overtime and compensatory time
benefits; establishing a Management/Professional
Employee Benefit Program; adopting new Sections
2. 40. 110 and 2 . 40 . 115 Kent City Code. The Council
approved the exempt plan and directed preparation
of the enabling ordinance at the regular meeting
of November 19, 1984 .
Resolution Honoring Nadine Burke. WOODS MOVED to
adopt Resolution 1038 commending Hearing Examiner
Nadine M. Burke. Kelleher seconded. Motion carried.
• - 1 -
December 3, 1984
CONSENT BITEMAN MOVED that the -Consent Calendar Items
CALENDAR A through 0 be approved, with the exception of
Item D, removed at the request of Councilperson
White. Woods seconded. Motion carried.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5A)
Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of
the regular Council meeting of November 19 , 1984 .
HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5G)
SANITATION Sewer Rate Increase. ADOPTION of Ordinance 2510
amending City of Kent sewer rates to reflect Metro
rate increases. Single family residential rates
will be $14 . 00 per month and other than residential
will be $1. 85 plus $1 . 35 per 100 cubic feet of
water consumption per month.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5H)
Sun Meadows Sanitary Sewer Extension. ACCEPTANCE
of the bill of sale and warranty agreement for
construction of approximately 5,048 feet of
sanitary sewer extension in the vicinity of
S.E. 279th and 128th Avenue S.E. ACCEPTANCE
of the improvements for continuous operation
and maintenance and AUTHORIZATION for the release
of the cash bond after expiration of the one year
maintenance period.
WATER LID 316 - 94th Avenue Water Main. This date has
been set for the public hearing on the creation
of LID 316. The City Clerk has given proper legal
notice. The public hearing was opened by Mayor
Pro Tem Johnson. Wickstrom explained that a
hearing had been held on the formation of this
LID on May 21 , 1984 . Because of the concerns
expressed, the situation was re-evaluated, and
a meeting was held on October 11 with the property
owners involved. He noted that the area was
originally served by the Hamilton Road Water Com-
pany and that in the late 1960 ' s the City took
over and connected the Company' s facilities to the
City' s system. The existing 4 inch main is old
and in poor condition and resulting in poor water
service and fire fighting capabilities. Requests
for additional service from this system have been
denied for a number of years. Wickstrom pointed
- 2 -
December 3, 1984
I
WATER out that the Hamilton Road Water Company agreement
had been reviewed and properties had been reassessed
allowing credits to some properties. The project
cost is estimated to be $237 ,784 , of which $103 ,951
is assessed to the property owners and $133 , 833
will be bourne by the City. He noted that the
Fire Department had reviewed the situation and
concluded that the existinq facility was inadequate
and that, on this basis, the City could override
the protests even if such protests exceeded 60%
of the total assessments. Protests received prior
to this meeting equal 4. 25%.
The Clerk noted receipt of a protest in the mail
from David Edmundson and Ann Johnson and further
protests were filed at tonig t s mee ing from
Patricia & Donald E. Hanson and from Marie Frisbie,
all of which have been filed for the record.
Patricia and Donald Hanson spoke for themselves and
on behalf of Marie Frisbie, objecting to the City' s
interpretation of the provisions of the agreement
with the Hamilton Road Water Company. Wickstrom
and DiJulio explained that the shareholders were
entitled to have one 90 foot frontage parcel free
of assessment, which the City interpreted to mean
one free service connection representing one single
lot.
DiJulio explained for Mr. Edmundson that the benefit
to the property must equal or be more than the
amount of the assessment. Tim Drangsholt spoke in
favor of the project, noting the need for adequate
fire protection and noting also that he could not
obtain service for his new house from the existing
water facilities.
Fire Chief Angelo explained that the existing system
could not provide the required number of gallons
of water per minute to provide adequate fire pro-
tection. He also noted that there were far too
few existing fire hydrants.
White noted for the record that he was not the
James White listed in Assessment Item No. 114.
3 -
i
December 3 , 1984
WATER There were no further comments and the hearing was
closed. LEAHY MOVED to direct the City Attorney
to prepare the ordinance to create LID 316. Woods
seconded and the motion carried.
LID 309 - East Hill Water Mains. This date has
been set for the public hearing on the addition
of five properties to the LID and confirmation
of the final assessment roll . The City Clerk
has given the prover legal notice. The public
hearing was opened by Mayor Pro Tem Johnson.
Public Works Director Wickstrom explained that
this LID was initiated in May of 1982 and that
there were no protests at that time. He noted
that two parcels listed on the preliminary roll
were omitted in the ordinance creating the LID
and that the owners of three other parcels had
asked to be included in the LID. The purpose
of this hearing is to add these five parcels and
to confirm the final assessment roll. Wickstrom
stated that the original estimate was $95,963 . 38
and that the final amount is $122, 294 . 54 . He
pointed out, however , that the increase was
attributed to the added parcels.
Wickstrom explained that this project provided
for the installation of 8 to 12 inch mains to
provide a distribution main to existing customers
on the Kent Springs Transmission Main. Resolution
854 , passed in December, 1978 , rea_uired transmission
main customers to terminate their connections and
this project provides the necessary distribution
main for customers west of 132nd S. E. He noted
that all properties with potential use of the
facilities were included in the assessment roll
and that the city is financing the remainder and
is also funding oversizing above 8 inches.
He described the benefits to the properties as
follows:
1) Each parcel meets its responsibility for
water distribution main construction,
2) Each obtains a public water supply source,
3) Each is afforded an opportunity for addi-
tional services, and
- 4 -
December 3 , 1984
WATER 4) An attractive method of financing the improve-
ments is made available.
Wickstrom noted that connections to the Kent
Springs Transmission Line must be terminated
by June 1 , 1985 and that the lines provided by
this LID will then be the only source of water
supply. He explained the ten year method of
financing , and clarified for a man in the audi-
ence that charges-in-lieu of assessments could
be arranged for other properties within the
service area who were not part of the original
LID. A letter from Stanley LeBlanc of 26513 -
106th Avenue S. E. was filed for the record,
by motion. LeBlanc stated that the City' s
Transmission Main runs through a part of his
property and asked that his assessment payments
be delaved until the City abandons the line.
Upon questions from the Council, Wickstrom explained
that LeBlanc ' s connection dates back to 1909 , _
and that the property in a_uestion will revert
back to him when the City abandons the trans-
mission line. He noted further that all those
connected to the transmission line had been
notified in 1978 that they must terminate by
June 1 , 1985. There were no further comments
and LEAHY MOVED to close the hearing. Woods
seconded and the motion carried. KELLEHER MOVED
that the City Attorney be directed to prepare
the ordinance to include the additional five
parcels and to confirm the final assessment roll
for LID 309 . Woods seconded and the motion
carried.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5E)
Water Main and Road Extension Agreement. AUTHORI-
ZATION for the Mayor to execute an agreement with
William A. Looney_ for installation of water service
and a three-year time extension for installation
of necessary main and water system and road im-
provements.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 51)
Skyline Park Condominiums. ACCEPTANCE of the bill
of sale and warranty agreement for construction of
approximately 1 , 230 feet of force main, 310 feet of
5 -
December 3 , 1984
WATER gravity main, a 6 foot diameter wet well, and
a sanitary sewer lift station in the vicinity
of Military Road and South 222nd. Acceptance
of the improvements for continuous operation
and maintenance and authorization for the release
of the cash bond after expiration of the one year
maintenance period.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM[ 5L)
LID 309 - Charge in Lieu of Assessment. AUTHORI-
ZATION to levy a charge in lieu of assessment
against those properties which benefit and were
not assessed for the water line constructed in
conjunction with LID 309.
STREETS LID 300 - Crow Road and South 260th Street Im-
provements. This date has been set for the
public hearing on the confirmation of the final
assessment roll for LID 300. The City Clerk has
given the proper legal notice. The public hearing
was opened by Mayor Pro Tem Johnson and Public
Works Director Wickstrom noted that the LID was
formed in September, 1980 , and at that time pro-
tests totaled 7% of the proposed assessments.
He noted that the estimated total cost of the
project had been $1 ,172 , 298 and that the final
figure was $1 ,083 , 686 . The Clerk noted that
letters of protest had been received from. King
County on Assessment No. 3 and from Wayne Parker,
attorney for the American Legion, Assessment No. 2.
Both letters were filed as a part of the record.
Parker addressed the Council noting that the pro-
perty was not benefitted, noting that access to
public roads had been reduced and that the steep
grade of the new driveway would make access
impossible during severe weather conditions.
There were no further comments and upon the recom-
mendation of Wickstrom, KELLEHER MOVED to continue
the hearing to December 17 , 1984 to allow staff
time to respond to the protests. Biteman seconded
and the motion carried.
TRAFFIC Extended Parking Hours. Bailey noted that the
CONTROL Greater Kent Business Council has requested un-
limited parking hours for the month of December.
DiJulio noted that Ordinance 2444 , passed in November
of 1983 allowed extended parking from Thanksgiving
to January 2 each year.
6 -
December 3, 1984
TRAFFIC S.E. 248th and Benson Highway. A letter has been
CONTROL received from the United Methodist Church express-
ing concern over the hazardous conditions at the
intersection of S.E. 248th and the Benson Highway.
KELLEHER MOVED to accept the letter for the record
and to refer it to the Public Works Committee.
Woods seconded. Motion carried.
4th & James Street. A petition has been received
containing 166 signatures requesting a pedestrian
overpass on James Street between Kent Commons and
the Park & Ride lot. A letter from Jeanne Foster
notes that children using the Commons Playfield
must cross James Street and cars do not stop for
pedestrians. Cushing noted that the Public Works
Director and Parks Director have been asked to
evaluate alternatives and that the matter would
be discussed at a workshop session. It was noted
that the Public Safety and Public Works Committees
would also be involved. The petition and letter
have been filed for the record.
POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5C)
DEPARTMENT P. D. Panda Van. ACCEPTANCE of the P. D. Panda
van donated by the Kent Police Officers.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 50)
Return of Seized Vehicle to Owner. APPROVAL for
the Police Department to return a seized vehicle
to the original owner for services rendered.
This item was discussed at the November 26 work-
shop.
FIRE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 511)
DEPARTMENT Fire Master Plan Ordinance. ADOPTION of Ordinance
2511: An Ordinance of the City of Kent, Washington
adopting the Fire Master Plan and amending Subsection
12. 12A. 510 D. Kent City Code (Ordinance 2494 ,
SEPA) in conjunction therewith. The Council
reviewed the Fire Master Plan and directed pre-
paration of the enabling ordinance on November
19 , 1984 .
PARKS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5D)
DEPARTMENT (REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILPERSON WHITE)
Liquor License. AUTHORIZATION for the Parks
Director to notify the Liquor Control Board that
- 7 -
December 3, 1984
PARKS the City has no comment on the application for a
DEPARTMENT liquor license by K. W. Morrill for the Athletic
Department Tavern to be located at 905 West Meeker
Street, which is located near Uplands Playfield.
White noted that he had mixed emotions on this
item but in accordance with his beliefs, he MOVED
that the City oppose the granting of a liquor
license next to a City park. Kelleher seconded.
Bailey noted that this had been discussed at a
Parks Committee meeting and that this park facility
was not a playground, but was a sports field. He
noted that this would be a restaurant, not just a
tavern. Upon questions, DiJulio noted that the
City' s comments to the State in the matter of
liquor licenses were solely advisory. The motion
failed, with only White and Kelleher supporting
it. LEAHY MOVED to adopt Consent Calendar Item
5D as submitted. Woods seconded and the motion
carried, with White dissenting.
Kaibara Park Contract. After advertising the
Kaibara Park Project twice and receiving no bids,
the Parks Department has negotiated a contract in
the amount of $15, 502 with Nu Ventures. A $17,478
H & CD Block Grant is available for the project.
WOODS MOVED that the Mayor be authorized to execute
a contract in the amount of $15, 502 with Nu Ventures
for construction of I'aibara Park. Leahy seconded.
Motion carried.
SENIOR Senior Center Project Management. AUTHORIZATION
CENTER for the Mayor to execute a change order to the
Matrix Management Group Contract for Jail Project
Management, adding Senior Center Project Manage-
ment Services in accordance with a proposal dated
November 20 , 1984. LEAHY MOVED for authorization
for the Mayor to sign the change order, Woods
seconded. Motion carried.
ECONOMIC City of Kent Economic Development Corporation -
DEVELOPMENT Associated Grocers, Inc. ion. Associated
Applicat
CORPORATION Grocers, Inc. has applied for Industrial Development
Bond financing through the City of Kent Economic
Development Corporation. Federal Income Tax require-
ments relating to the bond issue requires that a
public hearing be held on the proposed issue of
- 8 -
December 3 , 1984
ECONOMIC Industrial Development Bonds. Public notice of
DEVELOPMENT tonight ' s hearing has been given by the City Clerk.
CORPORATION Mayor Pro Tem Johnson opened the public hearing.
The Clerk noted that no correspondence has been
received. LEAHY MOVED to close the public hearing.
Kelleher seconded. Motion carried. The City Attorney
has advised that no further action is required.
City of Kent_ Economic Development Corporation -
H & H Company (Continental Mills, Leasee) Appli-
cation. H & H Company (Continental Mills, Leasee)
has applied for Industrial Development Bond financ-
ing through the City of Kent Economic Development
Corporation. Federal Income Tax requirements re-
lating to the bond issue require that a public
hearing be held on the proposed issue of Industrial
Development Bonds. Public notice of tonight' s
hearing has been given by the City Clerk. Mayor
Pro Tem Johnson opened the public hearing. The
Clerk noted that no correspondence has been re-
ceived. KELLEHER MOVED to close the public
hearing, White seconded. Motion carried. The City
Attorney has advised that no further action is required.
ALLEY (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5F)
VACATION Vacation of .Alley. ADOPTION of Resolution 1039
setting a public hearing date for January 7 , 1985,
to consider vacation of a portion of an alley
located south of Willis Street between South
Central and South Bridges. (This was discussed
in conjunction with the Seven-Eleven rezone) .
PRELIMINARY (CONSENT CALENDAR 5K)
PLAT Kent 241 Div. 2 Preliminary Plat No. SU-84-1
(The Lakes) . APPROVAL of setting the date of
December 17, 1984 for a public meeting to consider
the Kent 241 Division 2 Preliminary Plat. The
Hearing Examiner has recommended approval with
conditions.
SOLAR (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5P)
ACCESS Solar Access Program. SETTING the dates of
December 10, 1984 for a Council workshop and
December 17 , 1984 for a public hearing for the
City Council to consider the recommendations by
the Planning Commission to amend applicable
sections of the Kent Zoning Code and the Kent
Subdivision Code relating to preservation and
protection of solar energy access.
9 -
December 3 , 1984
COMPREHENSIVE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 50)
PLAN/ZONING East Hill Commercial Planning and Zoning Amend-
X114ENDMENTS ments. ADOPTION of Resolution 1040: A Resolution
of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington
amending the City' s Comprehensive Plan, East Hill
Plan Component, by redesianatino certain areas Com
munity Commercial and Office, amending the Trans-
portation Element of the East Hill Plan, deleting
Policy 8 of the Public Facilities Element of the
East Hill Plan, and directing the Planning Com-
mission to conduct further studies relative to
commercial designations within the East Hill Plan.
and
ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 2513 : An Ordinance
of the Citv of Kent, Washington, relating to
planning and property, rezoning with conditions,
various parcels of property on Kent' s East Hill,
located generally in the area bounded by S.E. -
232nd Street on the north, S.E. 248th Street on
the south, 98th Avenue S. on the west, and
112th Avenue S.E. on the east (East Hill Zoning) .
Both in accordance with City Council approval of
East Hill Commercial Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Amendments on November 19 , 1984 .
REZONE Randall Rezone Ordinance (RZ-80-3) . This rezone
was conditionally approved by Council motion on
September 2, 1980. The Planning Department has
advised that the conditions necessary for the
rezone have been met. The Citv Attorney has
prepared Ordinance 2516 , an Ordinance
of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to
planning and property; rezoning, with conditions,
approximately 2. 0 acres located north of South
260th Street and west of 101st Avenue S.E. from
CC, Community Commercial to MR-M, Medium Density
Multifamily Residential. (Robert Randall Rezone/
RZ-80-3) . KELLEHER MOVED to adopt Ordinance 2516 ,
Biteman seconded. Motion carried.
- 10 -
December 3 , 1984
ZONING Agricultural - General Zoning Amendment. On
AMENDMENT August 6 , 1984 the City Council passed a motion
to hold a public hearing to consider proposed
A-G (Agricultural-General) zoning for certain
properties located north of S. 277th Street,
west of the Valley Freeway (SR 167) and east of
the Test Valley Highway and Kent City Limits.
The Planning Department has completed the environ-
mental review of the proposal and has properly
notified all affected properties. The proposal
was discussed at the November 26 , 1984 City
Council workshop. Satterstrom reviewed the
motion of the Council at the August 6 meeting
and also noted that the Council directed the
accomplishment of four other items. He referred
to these items as follows:
1) Directed staff to prepare an A-G (Agricultural-
General) zoning district. He noted that the
language to the purpose statement was offered
by the City Council at that time, and that
the A-G zone prepared by staff and included
in the Council ' s reuort as Appendix B reflects
the intent of the City Council.
2) Council requested that an environmental. review
be accomplished and completed on the proposed
A-G zone. Satterstrom noted that the review
has been conducted and a Declaration of Non-
Significance was issued on November 8 .
3) Public notice was given to all of the affected
property owners in the area.
4) Planning Department and Planning Commission
were directed to prepare and make recommenda-
tions to the Council on compensation proposals.
Satterstrom noted that this was also accomplished
and the recommendations of the Planning Com-
mission were discussed at the workshop last
week.
Satterstrom went on the exulain that the proposed
A-G zone contained in Appendix A affected approxi-
mately 150 acres , noting that it was located in the
- 11 -
December 3 , 1984
ZONING extreme southern part of the City down to S. 277th
AMENDMENT Street and involved all or part of 47 properties.
He pointed out that the existina zoning in the
area was R-A or M-A, with approximately 130 acres
being zoned M-A, and approximately 20 acres zoned
R-A at the present time. Referring to the land
use in the area, Satterstrom noted that 58 acres
are vacant at the present time, 52 are in some
sort of agricultural use, 29 in a category termed
Rural Residential and about 12 acres are Urban.
Satterstrom clarified that the difference between
the A-G district and the M-A zoning is contained
in the purpose statement, with the uses in the
existing M-A zoninc- being retained through the
proposed A-G zoning. Satterstrom further clarified
that the existing M-A zone is an interim type of
zoning which indicates a transition toward more
urban development in the future, while the intent
of the proposed A-G zone is to take a pro-active
posture with respect to agriculture and remove
that sort of interim connotation with existing
uses and regulations remaining the same. The
public hearing was opened by Mayor Pro Tem Johnson.
The Clerk noted receipt of a letter from Mary
Williams. [GOODS MOVED to make the letter part of
the record, Biteman seconded. Motion carried.
Ray Schaapue of 26504 West Valley Highway, noted
that he was new to the area and asked that the
background be clarified for him again. Satterstrom
reveiwed the difference between the existing zoning
and the proposed A-G zone and noted that in the
existing M-A zone only agricultural uses, very
low density residential uses and industrial uses
directly related to an agricultural process, such
as a cannery, are permitted. Ile further noted
that the proposal for A-G zoning does not change
the allowed uses nor does it propose to change
any of the use regulations such as setbacks or
height limits, etc. The difference is in the
purpose statement, to encourage farming activities
in the area and the long-term production of agri-
culture and agricultural related industries,
rather than purporting to be a. holding zone for
urban development.
12 -
December 3 , 1984
ZONING John P. Demarco, 6323 121st Avenue S.E. , Bellevue,
AMENDMENT noted that his family owned a 3z acre parcel of
land which had also been under discussion last
year. He suggested that A-G zone was the same
as A-1 zoning. Mr. Demarco noted that the people
in the A-1 designation expected to receive com-
pensation from King County under the Farmlands
Preservation Bill, but cTuestioned if it was correct
that the people added to the A-G zoning would not
be compensated unless this was done by the City
of Kent. Mr. DeMarco also noted that M-A zoning
was intended to be interim zoning and it was the
understanding of the property owners that when
sewers were put in place, the areas in question
could be used for higher and better development
than one house per acre or for farmlands.
Johnson suggested that the purpose of the meeting
tonight was not to consider the issue of compensa-
tion, but rather to contend with the zoning of
the lands. Mr . De"4arco again referred to the
hearings last year and noted that at that time
they were not interested in being part of an A-1
zone because the compensation offered by King
County was not deemed adequate, based on the
holding time already in effect. He suggested
that the decision to oppose the proposed A-G
zoning would be base' on what the proposed com-
pensation would be .
Harris explained that the hearing before the Council
at this time had nothing to do with compensation
but rather was being held at the request of the
Council for staff to come back with the proposal
regarding the A-G zoning and to take testimony
to determine if the Council concurs with the
staff recommendations. He clarified that the
issue of compensation was not advertised as part
of the public hearing toniqht nor o,,as it intended
to be part of the hearing. Mr. Demarco said that
it had been mentioned that the compensation
issue was discussed at a workshop,
and concluded, therefor(- , that it. mus
be part of this hearin.q . Harris clarified again
that the staff ' s directions were coming from. the
13 -
December 3 , 1984
ZONING Council with regard to the A-G proposal . John-
AMENDMENT son also noted that while the Council was con-
siderinq_ the compensation issue it 1raas not a part
of this public hearing. At the request of
arris, Satterstrom noted that A-1 and A-G zones
are not the same and R-A and M-A were not the
same. He explained that A-1 was basically R-A
with a different purpose statement and the pro-
posed A-G zone is essentially M-A with a different
purpose statement. He noted that the M-A zone
allows certain industrial uses that are directly
related to agr ict�lture and t1 fc-,r er R-A,
mho
existing A-1 zone, Noes not. . . it only allows
low-density residential. Satterstrom reiterated
that the hearing was not on the issue of agri-
cultural compensations. He noted that staff had
prepared a report which had been reviewed by the
Planning Commission and that it proposes certain
things to be done to try to offset any impact,
physical or otherwise, which might result from
rezoning to A-1 or to any other zoning designation.
Satterstrom further clarified that the compensation
was to be in the form of regulatory measures,
either deregulating A-1 or A-G zoned lands , or
allowing certain provisions in development pro-
posals and that it was not financial compensation.
He noted that if the staff was directed to pre-
pare any amendments to the existing regulations
then it would become a part of this hearing at
some point or a part of the Council ' s proposal.
Bob Hogan_, P4yers Group, 2600 Westin Building,
Seattle, 98122 , noted that Myers Group owned
approximately 40 acres known as Kent Land Investors
in the corridor being considered. He noted that
he had been in attendance at the August 6 meeting
with regard to the change of R-A zoning to A-1
zoning , and asked that the documents submitted
at that meeting be made part of this hearing,
noting a letter from the attorneys for the company
summarizing the history of the property and refer-
ring to its lack of suitability for agricultural
uses. He also asked that the Planning Commission
recommendations from the earliest stages of the
City' s agricultural preservation program be made
- 14 -
December 3 , 1984
I
ZONING a part of the record. He noted that at that
AMENDMENTS time the hearings had excluded the area under
consideration tonight but that the area was
later included by the City Council. He asked
that all information be reviewed when making
the decision.
Hogan also noted that a Declaration of Non-
Significance had been issued, rather than an
Environmental Impact Statement, stating that
a full EIS would have given the property owners
an opportunity to make further presentations
regarding the environmental assessment process.
Satterstrom responded to his question by noting that a
letter from the County was on file regarding
the A-1 zoning issue which stated that the County
does not consider the zoning when consider-
ing eligibility for the agricultural preservation
program. WOODS MOVED to make the letters and
reports requested by Mr. Hogan part of the
record, Bailey seconded. Motion carried.
Joel Haggard, Suite 17 , 10720 Olive Way, Seattle,
Washington, noted that he was attorney for the
Myers Group and also represented the property
owner immediately south of the Myers Group,
containing the bulk of the current undeveloped
land in the proposed AG area. He noted that he
had received from his clients copies of a series
of memos and intended to raise concerns or offer
suggestions with regard to a number of issues.
He referred to a memorandum from the Kent Planning
Department dated November 21, 1984 and another one
dated November 16, 1984 , the City of Kent' s Deter-
mination of Non-Signicance and the notice from
the City indicating that the purpose of the public
hearing tonight was to rezone certain properties.
Haggard expressed concern that the topic of com-
pensation could not be discussed or anything else
that relates to zoning when the proposed action
before the Council tonight is zoning and the
Planning Department memos refer to compensation.
He also referred to Satterstrom' s statement that
the Planning Department was there because the
Council had asked them to be in attendance to
discuss four things and noted a request to zone
15 -
December 3 , 1984
ZONING specific parcels of property was not included.
AMENDMENTS He suggested that compensation was an appropriate
subject to be discussed. He also suggested that
nobody attending the August 6 meeting would have
known except for the notices that came out that
the Council wanted to rezone particular parcels
of property. He expressed some concern about
the haste involved and suggested that it might
be more appropriate to spend more time on this
issue.
Haggard referred to Satterstrom' s statement that
there was really no difference between the M-A
and the A-G except for the purpose statement.
He suggested that if this was true there were
problems because there were some developed
parcels in the area, including the State Depart-
ment of Transportation, as well as some residences.
He suggested that the Department of Transportation
Building would be rendered a non-conforming use
and would not be allowed to expand. He questioned
where this .fact was addressed in the Non-Signifi-
cance Statement. Iie asked what the difference
was between constructing a building to be used
for an agricultural type processing facility and
some other type of appropriate industrial activity,
such as high-tech or some type of manufacturing.
He suggested that the only difference seemed to
be that agricultural processing industries use
substantial volumes of water and suggested that
the DNS totally ignores that fact. He noted that
although the report refers to utilities currently
available, water is not currently available to his
clients ' property. He also noted that the DNS
stated that agricultural development of the pro-
perty would require sanitary sewers and improved
water services but that no difference is expected
for the demand for such utility extensions under
current or proposed zoning. Haggard suggested
that if the DNS had been circulated, and comments
invited , this discrepancy could have been brought
to the attention of the Council . He noted that
while it was necessary to invite public comments
for an EIS , this was not necessarily true for a
DNS, however, he maintained that the purpose of
16 -
December 3 , 1984
ZONING the State Environmental Protection Agency was to
AMENDMENTS have full disclosure and to provide for a process
of discussion and input. Haggard suggested that
it would be appropriate for a public process to
involve the property owners and staff to get the
correct facts on the impact on the properties.
Haggard further noted that the Kent Planning
Department memo of November 21 , 1984 stated on
page 2 that "surface water drainage problems
impair the area ' s potential for agricultural
production. " Haggard suggested that the staff
was telling the City what the record had stated
for four years. . .that this might not be the best
land for agricultural production. He opined that,
instead, the staff was suggesting that the land
could provide agricultural facilities where they
process agricutural products. Haggard again re-
ferred to Appendix A to the Planning staff report,
noting that it stated the purpose of the A-G
zone and what could be done in that area. He-
noted that he was not arguing whether there
should be an A-G classification in the Code nor
was he arguing whether the City should have a
zoning classification that requires that the
land be kept in agricultural use. He stated that
his questions related to the fact that the Council
in its directions to the staff did not ask for
the zoning of these parcels of property to A-G.
He asked for a clarification on the fundamental
difference between the two types of manufacturing
facilities . He stated that the question was
whether these properties should be zoned A-G
and that the Council needed more information,
including_ whether there should be compensation,
monetary or otherwise. He questioned the lack
of a full EIS, when one was done previously for
the other properties at the time of the August 6
meeting. He noted that he had pointed out incon-
sistencies in the DNS. He requested that the
Council consider all of the information, input
and policy decisions , before deciding to zone the
properties in question.
Satterstrom responded by noting that in the interest
of being brief he had probably committed an error
by not saying that the Council did direct what area
17 -
I
December 3, 1984
ZONING was to be proposed for agricultural and that it
AMENDMENTS was part of the Council ' s directive. Referring
to the Department of Transportation Building,
he noted that the facility was not now non-conform-
ing, that it had been built under MA zoning and
that it would not be non-conforming under A-G.
Responding to the difference between M-A and A-G,
allowing agricultural industry in an M-A zone,
he suggested that they should debate the merits
of the existing_ PI-A, not the merits of the proposed
A-G. He noted that the M-A zoning was created
several years ago as a holding zone to encourage
agricultural uses, or at least not discourage
them, and it was also to allow certain agricultural
related industrial uses until such time as it
might be converted to urban uses. He pointed out
that land use configuration would still be allowed
in the proposed A-G zone. Satterstrom then pointed
out that non-agricultural types of industry would
not be permitted, either in the M-A zone or in
the proposed A-G zone. He reminded the Council
that King County has purchased over a square mile
of development rights right across the street from
the area being discussed tonight. He noted that
staff was assuming there might be a need in the
future for this type of industry directly related
to agriculture.
Bailey questioned the difference between an agri-
cultural processing plant and a high-tech industry.
Satterstrom responded by noting that the environ-
mental impacts of an agricultural industry and of
a light manufacturing industry might be quite
similar , but that one is supportive of the area
in which it is located and one is not.
Jack Allbritton, 1627 Eastlake Avenue S. , Suite 300,
Seattle, Washington, owner of a small parcel in the
area, concurred with comments made by Joel Haggard
and noted that Michael Carpinito also agreed. He
noted that he was not aware of any workshop and
that he had received. notice of this meeting only.
He suggested that the meeting was scheduled in
haste. He referred to statements by Satterstrom
18 -
December 3 , 1984
ZONING indicating that all the area is agricultural and
AMENDMENTS not being used for any form of manufacturing..
He noted that the reason the area was mostly
pasture land is because it is now in holding
pattern . He also indicated that there were
many owners who would like to proceed with some-
thing that would be more of an intensive use of
the land. He concluded that many industries
locating in this area were overlooking Kent and
suggested that Kent would be a good place for
some of the high-tech industries .
There were no further comments and WOODS MOVED
to close the public hearing. Biteman seconded.
Motion carried .
Bailey referred to discussions over the Urbana
rezone several years ago which covered much of
the same area. He noted that it was his under-
standing that the rezone was denied because of
the lack of utilities in the area , and that there
was a split vote at the time regarding the rezoning
of the Urbana properties for industrial uses. He
suggested that at this time approximately the same
argument was before the Council and maintained
that there was insufficient reason for proceeding
under the A-G classification. Bailey also noted
that when the Council adopted the Farmland Preser-
vation Act of Kent , staff and the Planning Commis-
sion were directed to consider compensation.
Referring to the document furnished to the Council
at this meeting , he noted that there was a reference
to compensation but there was nothing in the pro-
posal that indicates how that compensation issue
will be addressed , whether in land or in rights
that would be granted under certain circumstances.
He also noted that there was nothing in the report
that satisfied his concerns about A-G and M-A
zoning being the same. Bailey also expressed
concerns about the inconsistencies in the Declara-
tion of Non-Significance. He suggested that the
action contemplated was of significance to the
property owners . Bailey also indicated that three
years ago it had been determined that land in that
area was not necessarily suitable for agricultural
19 -
December 3 , 1984
ZONING uses on a large scale basis. He noted that it
AMENDMENTS was his belief that if the Council moved in the
way the matter was presented tonight, in the
future the Council ' s actions might be considered
capricious and he suggested that the matter should
be returned to staff and possibly the Council
should sit down with the property owners involved
and give them an opportunity to make known their
particular feelings on the matter. Leahy directed
questions to Satterstrom, noting that he had a
number of concern= and referred to Mr. Haggard' s
statement that an EIS was done for the lands
formerly considered for agricultural use and
yet was not deemed necessary for the parcels
being considered at this meeting. Satterstrom
noted that the EIS was prepared for the four zoning
alternatives that affected the west and south sides
and involved 560 acres of formerly R-A and MRM
zoned land. The area under consideration at this
meeting was not part of that EIS, and the area
was approximately 1/4 the size of the area con-
sidered previously. He also noted that the present
area was better defined in terms of a single action
rezoning from M-A to A-G. Satterstrom also pointed
out that the decision of whether or not an EIS
is required is a procedural process whereby an
environmental checklist is completed and the
responsible official then decides whether there
are significant adverse environmental impacts to
necessitate an EIS. In the case in question, the
official decided that the anticipated environmental
impact was not great enough to warrant a full EIS.
Leahy commented that some of the questions that
had been raised had merit and suggested that for
the benefit of the audience and the Council the
questions should be reviewed. He referred to
comments about the Council ' s directions to staff
with regard to specific parcels of property in the
study area and questioned how the area was defined.
Leahy questioned the rationale for designating the
particular area and Satterstrom noted that previous
to that time, under the comprehensive plan amendment,
the Council had added the area to its comprehensive
plan designation of agriculture and the next step
was to propose the implementation of zoning for that
area.
20 -
December 3 , 1984
ZONING Kelleher stated that the rationale for including
AMENDMENTS that particular area of land was that this was
the portion of land which had been recommended
by staff in their Alternative No. 3 for preserva-
tion in agricultural use and which the Planning
Commission had decided that they did not want to
include.
White noted that he had several questions also
and suggested that the meeting should be continued
to allow time for discussing the matter with staff.
WHITE MOVED to continue the public hearing to
January 7 , 1985 , Kelleher seconded. BAILEY MOVED
to amend the motion to direct members of the
Council to submit written questions to the staff,
so that staff may be properly prepared at that
time to reply. Woods seconded. The amendment
carried. The motion as amended carried.
BUDGET 1985 Budget Ordinance . A public hearing on the
1985 City Budget, including Federal Shared
Revenue Funds , was conducted at the November 19
regular Council meeting. The Council then met in
workshop on November 20 and 26 to finalize the
Budget. The Budget changes are reflected in
the Budget Ordinance. KELLEHER MOVED to adopt
Ordinance_251_4 adopting the City' s 1.985 Budget,
including the reduction of the utility tax from
2 . 5% to 2 . 0% on City operated utilities. Woods
seconded . BAILEY MOVED to amend the motion to
include directing the staff to present a proposal
for a further reduction in the second quarter of
1985 . Biteman seconded the amendment. It was
determined that Bailey' s amendment would not
actually become a part of the ordinance and it
was further clarified that an amount was not
specified for the further reduction proposal .
Bailey' s amendment carried. LEAHY THEN MOVED
to further amend the motion to delete Section 3
of the Ordinance, pertaining to wage adjustments.
Woods seconded and Leahy explained that he wished
to abstain from voting on this portion, since his
wife was a City employee. Leahy ' s amendment
carried, and the main motion, as amended, carried.
WHITE MOVED to adopt Ordinance 2515, providing
for wage adjustments for 1985 for nonrepresented
City employees . Bailey seconded and the motion
carried, with Leahy abstaining.
- 21 -
December 3 , 1984
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5B)
Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the
bills received through December 4 , 1984 , after
auditing by the Finance Committee at its meeting
at 4 : 00 p.m. on December 14 .
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM. 5J)
Accounts Receivable Write Offs. AUTHORIZATION
to write off $23 , 868 . 85 in outstanding accounts
receivable for financial statement purposes and
to transfer the accounts to the City Attorney
for possible legal action. Over $15 ,000 repre-
sents outstanding utility accounts from 1974
and over $4 , 800 represents nuisance cleanup
charges . The State Auditor ' s Office, the City
Attorney and the Finance Committee concur with
this action.
LID 283 Segregation Request. The Public Works
Department has rece d a segregation request
for Assessment No. 1 of LID 283. The Property
Manager has verified the request and all fees
have been paid. It is recommended that the
request be approved. KFLLEHER MOVED that the
segregation request for Assessment No. 1 of LID
283 be approved and the City Attorney directed
to prepare the resolution, [Moods seconded.
Motion carried.
Special Council Meeting for December 10, 1984
at 6 : 30 p.m. AUTHORIZATION to set December 10,
1984 at 6 : 30 p.m. for a special Council meeting
for the purpose of considering the offer of
Shearson Lehman/American Express Inc. , Foster
and Marshall Division to purchase bonds for LID
283, and to consider adopting the Bond Ordinance
and to take such other action necessary concerning
LID 283 .
COUNCIL Parks Committee. Bailev announced a meeting of
COMMITTEES the Parks Committee at 2 : 00 p.m. on December 13 .
Public Safety Committee. Biteman noted that the
Public Safety Committee would meet at 4 :00 p.m.
on December 4 .
- 22 -
December 3, 1984
I
COUNCIL Suburban Mayors Association. Cushing noted that
COMMITTEES the Suburbaii Mayors Association would meet on
Wednesday, December 5 at 6: 30 p.m. at Hotspurs
in Kent.
A[-,TC Legislator's Dinner. Cushing reminded the
Council of the AWC dinner for local legislators
to be held on Thursday, December 6 at 6: 00 p.m.
at the Turtle Too in Auburn.
ADJOURNMENT WHITE MOVED that the meeting be adjourned at
9: 50 p.m. , Woods seconded. Motion carried.
Marie Jensen, CMC
City Clerk
23 -