Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 06/14/1988 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE D June 14, 1988 J UN Z U 1988 PRESENT: Jon Johnson Chief Al Bond CITY OF !CENT Judy Woods Jerry McCaughan CITY CLERK Berne Biteman Ed White Don Wickstrom John Bond Sandra Driscoll Stuart Murphy Brent McFall Warren Eck Bill Williamson Jim Klobuchek Alan Stoick Marion Zaratkiewicz Don Wickstrom introduced Ed White to the Committee as the new Transportation Planner. Ed states there is a concern on S 260th St - a section of roadway approximately one block long on the north side is curb, gutter and sidewalk on the south side there is a gravel shoulder. The roadway is approx 20 ft wide and the shoulder is approx 10 ft wide. There is a concern about vehicles when they are parked on the curb side in that they present some type of restriction for two way traffic. Traffic Division conducted several studies. During the am and pm the approximate vehicles that went through the neighborhood in the various directions from Military Rd onto 260th - the largest was during the pm with only 36 vehicles there. The am showed 25 vehicles. A 24 hour traffic count was also conducted. Judging from the results of all this information and doing visual surveys we do not really see that there is problem. Any potential conflicts would be very low in terms of the probability of anything happening. Berne Biteman states he has checked this out two or three times and on a Sunday there were 1/2 dozen cars on the curb side and recalls there were probably 10 cars *on the other side. His concern is the restrictions do not leave passage way for two cars thru. Traffic stipulates that the distance is approximately 700 to 800 feet. Are both sides of the street ever filled with cars? According to Biteman, one of the problems now is that people are by-passing the stop sign. However the traffic count shows only a total of 13 vehicles during the pm peak hours. which is 4 - 6:00 Mr. Murphy would like the parking to remain. Question to Sandra - what is the liability to the person who parks their car on the public right of way and gets hit, by another vehicle. There would be some liability. Biteman makes a motion to monitor the area for a while to see what can be done. Seconded by Johnson. ENTRY INTO CAMBRIDGE Marian Zaratkiewicz - Concerned about the public right of way. RE: entrance on 264th off Military Road. There is a meridian in S -2- the center of the entrance and on both sides we have a public right of way - at one point in time there was a seating arrangement . The brick structure (seating arrangement) is now gone by the man who lives adjacent to the public right of way. He has assumed responsibility of maintaining - on the left hand side of the right of way he has chained linked fenced that portion of the right of way into his property. On the opposite side he had wired closed the right of way on the right hand side. He has since taken the wiring down prior to Mrs. Karatkiewicz attending this meeting. The chain link fence remains in tact on the left hand side. Chief Al Bond responds: whatever is the street right of way of course will be dictated by the Street Dept. The rest of that area at this time - we plan to do nothing with it except maintain it the way it is now. The trees are there and the beauty bark is there and plans are to keep it that way - if the street gets widened then of course part of the public right of way will be used up for that. As the Council gave us permission some time ago, in a future date we may sell part of that off to single family residences. At that time we would have to survey and find out exactly where the public right of way is. Wickstrom requests a copy of the letter from Mrs. Zaratkiewicz to Mayor Kelleher indicating the gentleman's name. Biteman states that this has always been a good looking entrance from Military Road. He will stop by and talk to him. Committee concurs. USE OF PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT Entered in as part of record - Petition to Committee (see attached) from Jim Klobuchek with eleven additional signatures. Warren Eck, property owner in the area, using easement walkway (Bristol Court) for access to parking his motor home in his property. The access that we have is for pedestrian walkway and the adjacent property owner (Warren Eck) is using it for the vehicle access to the back of his yard to park his motor home. There is concern by other property owners about using that walkway for that purpose. Warren Eck explains his use of the walkway with his motor home stating he uses it for a total of three minutes just to get his motor home in and out moving at a very slow rate of speed. Mr. Klobuchek states that the point is the walkway was never constructed for motor vehicles - it is for children and people to use and if he has a motor vehicle he has to park it in front of his house - it is not safe and it's not constructed for that use. What happens when Mr. Eck drives his motor vehicle on the asphalt and because of it's weight it starts destroying the asphalt - who will have to pay for repairs? A petition submitted states that it was not constructed for that purpose. Bill Williamson clarifies that the ownership is in fee and is held by the adjoining property owners in Unit 70 and 71 one of -3- whom would be Mr. Eck. He has the underlying fee. We have a plat dedication whereby this particular access roadway was granted to the City of Kent for the declared and dedicated purpose of drainage, open space, and pedestrian walkway purposes respectively. So we have a priority of drainage, open space and then walkers for walkway purposes. So we, the City, maintains that as an access roadway. We have three purposes and the questions as I see it is the question of whether or not this applied for use would constitute a conflict of those stated purposes. on the face of it, it does not appear that it would conflict - the question is would it interfere with the intent of that dedication. That's why it is here today. According to Mr. Eck, he has never had any problem with people walking because he uses it very early in the morning or late at night and there is always someone out in front watching. Mr. Eck also submits letters in his behalf. (See attached) Bill Williamson states the options: there are perhaps other considerations - Bill, Jerry McCaughan and Gary Gill, City Engineer inspected the property. There are some traffic engineering safety issues and that is whether or not this mobile which is probably 8 to 10 feet tall would pose a traffic hazard parked in front of the residence also, it is not against the zoning code to park a vehicle in the back parking lot. However if it is allowed, we would add certain terms and conditions and that is we would not want parking in the walkway. We would want it restricted to the number of times where the applicant could exit and enter this gate and for starters, I have come up with a number of ten that is we would not want it to be used as a driveway. If it is used at all, we would want to make sure that someone was watching so that no children would be entering the roadway. We would also want as a condition that if there is any damage to the walkway to this easement area he would be responsible for repairing it. The other condition is that if the walkway is used by the vehicle that the vehicle be insured, lastly the permittee would defend and indemnify the City of Kent. It's a judgement call, frankly, on whether or not this intermittent use which appears to Mr McCaughan and myself and the City Engineer to be very periodic, that is the number of times that the vehicle would actually enter and exit would be not more than 7 or 8 times a month. This walkway is only about 9 feet wide and that the vehicle would be approaching at a very low speed and then to be tuning carefully and so we don't have any speed problems but we don't want parking and we don't want more than intermittent use. It could be an acceptable permitted use if this Committee deems it to be that it should add at least 10 conditions which I have come up with, with Jerry McCaughan and the City Engineer. Biteman asks for the ruling on parking vehicles in front of one's house. Williamson states that there is a 48 hour rule in the City and if you park over the 48 hours you will be ticketed. Mr. Eck states there are also neighborhood covenants on this. . • i L -4- Biteman states that from letters, and from the Attorney's report (Bill Williamson) and so forth that a limited access with the conditions that Bill has stated, would be tolerable and asks Jim Klobuchek to accept it under conditions. Mr. Klobuchek states his concerns are if Mr. Eck damages the walkway with his motor vehicle, Mr. Eck will be held responsible for repair of same. Jon Johnson asks Mr. Eck if he accepts the conditions outlined by Bill Williamson to the Committee. Mr. Eck agrees to those conditions. Woods requests that Mr. Eck receive a list of those conditions. Bill Williamson states that Mr. Ecik would have to defend and indemnify and hold the City harmless and we would definitely want to be sure that the vehicle has insurance. Mr. Eck claims his motor vehicle is fully insured. Also, Bill Williams states that the City can revoke at any time with or without cause. If we felt that it turned out to be what we had not intended we could revoke that. Woods moves that we accept the Williamson recommendation. Committee approves. SURPLUS PROPERTY - ALLEN STOICK Property in question is located North of S. 244th Street between Summit and 94th Streets. Don Wickstrom comments - Mr Stoick is interested in purchasing property that is potentially subdividable on Summit - duplexed zoned property - submitted a proposed short plat to create three lots - two of the lots would access onto a piece of property (30 ft strip) deeded to the City and specifically mentions no consideration given monetary or otherwise which makes it not a valid deed. Mr. Stoick wanted to access however he cannot until that was resolved. We don't have any use for the property and we are recommending the property be declared surplus and Mr. Stoick can bid on it. Biteman so moves - Woods seconds. City Attorney, Sandra Driscoll states that the State Law mandates us to do it this way - we don't have options, Mr. Stoick will keep in contact with Jerry McCaughan for an update on this. Advertisement of the property will be held in approximately 60 days. TRAFFIC MITIGATION AGREEMENTS Don Wickstrom states the new act that is now effective which is a month earlier than we anticipated and we hod to modify our existing mitigation agreements to reflect the provision in the new act which puts a limitation on LID covenants and also prohibits anybody from agreeing that their property is special benefited. Mitigation agreements have been reviewed - upon recommendation we proceeded to implement the new act which is essentially developing a development fee system for road L -5- improvements in which the development then ways a development fee. The committee is recommending at least that one condition. Sandra refers to the changes - people acknowledge that this is to mitigate the impact but if there is a special benefit the way we will determine it is the way we have done it in the past - people who are owners of the property can make an objection to the assessment according to state law which is something different. We have added that language to comply to state law. All of Section 2 basically says you agree to not protest the formation, you can object at the assessment time as to whether or not you are specially benefited and whether or not the assessment is the appropriate assessment however you do have this financial obligation which goes to meet this particular condition under the SEPA Compliance and it's for mitigation purposes. One way to meet that financial obligation would be to participate in an LID and pay your money thru that. Another way to meet it would be if we could put together a local transportation program that Don described. We also added the language that says that this agreement can only last for a ten year period because again, that's what the State Law requires. Don states that what we have is several developments that are pending signing a mitigation agreement. We have some documents in escrow that they are willing to sign the old one, but now with the now, state law the old one is no longer valid. What the committee agreed to is essentially the one item that we have concurrence on, is that we should proceed to a development fee proposal. 'these conditions here address the fact that the agreement has to be modified to meet state law requirements. Sandra states that What we added was that if we do put together a local transportation program you can meet your obligation in this agreement thru participation on payment of those impact fees. Don states that with the 10 year limitation the agreement says that after 10 years if no LID has been paid you have to pay at that time. We had to amend the agreement to address the now state law in order to allow these developments who have committed to executing the agreement. Committee concurs. LID 335 Wickstrom states that this is for the improvement of 208th Street from E Valley to the Valley freeway. We have covenants on it, the road is in need of maintenance so perhaps we should at least proceed with an LID. We do have covenants that would technically support formation of an LID but we have also, #s� „ local property owners that represent about 200 of the ass. and we want some indication at this point of formation `" is definitely against the project. Woods suggests a letter to 4o out regarding the formation. Biteman suggests sending a registered letter saying the committee is about to make a decision on this LID. Committee agrees. -6- CLARK/HANGO AGREEMENT Woods moves to accept the Clark/Hango Agreement. Johnson also favors. SEGREGATION OF ASSESSMENT 3 LID 297 Would it be possible to include the segregation of the five acres at Russell Road. This is on the golf course side at the corner of Russell Rd and Meeker to be sold off and in fact the City now has a buyer for that. McFall states that we reserved that for sale for commercial development and we need to segregate that assessment out. Woods so moves to approve this segregation of Assessment #3 plus the five acres. Seconded by Johnson. Committee approves. PUGET POWER AGREEMENT Agreement with Puget Power for undergrounding Smith St. - Woods so moves - Committee approves PUBLIC WORKS TRUST FUND The agreement they had sent back when we asked for an extension had the wrong date in the agreement and gave us a year shorter and this just corrects that problem and gives us until 1989. We need authorization for the Mayor to sign the extended agreement. Woods moves - Committee approves. Biteman makes a correction on minutes of May 10, 1988 Committee meeting regarding striping - "Biteman moved that twelve intersections be selected using the post striping and reflective signs. " Committee agrees on the correction. 4 � i _ RUC _u6&J - 2 _ n�c �l�--t� - ►_��' 1p�'l- AS A 2a->" -- t AtJ�c?L _ jM le t4 Lcj` ' eW --------- - - '� �'� ��3a Cep-v►a� �J f� Y V- lei 4vb101n 17 may Cnn1a-elo , ifn?jF6kJT �C6192 0 '- TO THE 03 E OF 19 6C -5 tolq Tl� &I, tolgelmij /iAj,o vko (z EC IC . �-e e- ' 5To feFl< c- 0 � THE i�Z /Wio/2Nomf oa:J TNf 12F192 SECToaJ rNe t k oPe f2 r� . L H9vE TtiFSSF- /D TifC/fL T11 !F P19 TH W 1) Ik e- Mlc2l 0- 1-Y-) rf� nee2M rrov P L v e a-L , fiNo Tint H&)E T84�cU Cfilft TO 138- I. iHFl r IUo etflk.olZCAJ R26 / AJ gl9je nj S r/fa� /fAUL- tcJlTH i H c U5�- or Tlf e P197-H HT U�l1-Y AluD A)o m ��tiJ 11196/ pxllct g 9T 12 '7� i5 K nbi Pfik emG E lJJ S 16 Ft T OF THE 'I ?714--V Hfit)E- �5 HowN TriA- i Trf�c 0 V�rJ�I 4� ot) 1'6 9-604�)00 n bW 0 e:�- Tb IrIlcc-. er.5-1- clr /)D Df11f2 Nc16 #1636/ZS ol�5Tec1 T"D 7-/Jf� % 6 F 7-#E d( C�- .cS S P19� TH AZ)AC �EC & 1)j1f i1j1U`E ii 1N I UH/Cl� 7Ttf f-Y -, UJ IT. tea ve!;r rok- fi pec" em lioqlA &jl9 , v ' •.ice � � June 13th, 1988 To whom it may concern, Warren and Lori Eck live at the end of a cul de sac known as "Bristol Court" directly across the street from us . The Eck's have always been overly cautious] as we all are on this street, of children and pedestian traffic due to the fact we have this community easment at the end of our street. This easment borders theEck's south property line connecting the school grounds with "Bristol Court" . The Eck' s have a very nice motorhome which I suggested could be parked behind their home out of view of all property owners . They thought it was a good idea and very carefully looked things over and checked with other neighborrm for their feedback prior to givin% it a try. All the neighbors I know have no open objection to it. Warren has since, installed a gate system in the rear side of his fence to accomodate their motorhome. When they are going to use the motorhome, which is very seldom, they very cautiously and carefully drive it up the paved easement making sure not to interfere with anyone wanting to use the easement at that time. My wife and I feel very comfortable with the ,Eck's use of the easement for this purpose and see no reason why they %puld not be allowed to continue. Sincerely, Jim & Nancy Guse 26726 Bristol Court Kent, Wa. 98032 (206) 859-1383 e�I /el •� �� ��-,� �� J ;���, � -cam .�=4'Q, �.�., � �—�T—� /�-f`�•2�•G� /u-�?-`Lc' Vr-�c-cYG.t.-J G�-�-•--���• �/ f` t lid � C " <'—V-•rt_,C.�' C%-,7i f,�, .�eiYr-��-r'�2iL�_P_-7e�,N�,�.��. 'r-C� 43,.