Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 09/13/1988 1 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE September 13, 1988 PRESENT: Jon Johnson Jim Hansen Berne Biteman Gary Gill Don Wickstrom Steve Elkins Bill Williamson Nancy J. Mann Brent McFall STEVE ELKINS WATER AVAILABILITY - 26305 79TH S (Steve Elkins and Moss Construction have same requests pertaining to water availability) Wickstrom explained that Moss Construction applied for a water availability to apply for a rezone in the County. The Planning Committee concurred with this. When we scrutinized the ordinance in detail there are no provisions for exceptions. Either comply with the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan or you don't get water availability. In order to comply with their request we would have to amend the ordinance or delete that section of the ordinance or amend the ordinance allowing for exceptions. We would need to establish a criteria for that or deny the request altogether. The other option was that in conjunction with the Planning Committee's review they wanted the Planning Dept. to review that area to see if our designation of multi-family would be what it should be in that area. (Video of the area reviewed at this time by Committee) Steve Elkins explains his purchase of the property three years ago indicated industrial zoning and that was the reason for purchase. Subsequently, at the time of beginning stages of development, he found a conflict between the City and County. Elkins makes comparisons with his property and several adjoining properties as industrial or agricultural. Wickstrom again explains the concern being, in order to approve the service we would have to amend the ordinance. He further explains that the ordinance states when servicing outside the City limits, the land use of that area must coincide with Kent's land use. In this case, our land use plan indicates this area as multi-family. If the ordinance is amended, it will have ramifications on the East Hill where we have differences in what County anticipates for the area vs. what we anticipate for the area. Gill explains that Moss Construction has purchased some property. In order to get into the County process for a building permit, they need an availability certificate from us. We cannot issue a water availability certificate without them executing the covenants for annexation, which includes the paragraph that stipulates consistency with our land use plan. We either have to amend the ordinance or take another alternative so that they can proceed. Elkins states he already has a building on the site zoned industrial. Explains he has water to the systern, adequate to run the line over to the next building because it is just a light warehouse. Has installed County approved commercial size septic system. He is being held up by the County on installing the second building because of the requirement of the water availability from Kent. Williamson states that amending the ordinance cannot be done on a site specific basis. There would have to be Uniform criteria because when dealing with property rights of this nature you are dealing with due process rights. Under the ordinance presently drafted, it is keyed to the comprehensive plan. Williamson further states that a rezone may be the appropriate action to take, on council recommendation. Hansen states that possibly the best approach to the problem is to have the Planning Dept. analyze this area and submit recommended changes for the comprehensive plan thereby addressing the needs for not only Elkins and Moss but for others in the near future as well. This could not be done in lose than three months time. Elkins explains there is a well on the property that had been disconnected by the previous owner. Since the well is in place, all he would have to do is reconnect to the well. And since Kent is not going to supply water at the present time he feels the County will accept this. Williamson advises to check with County on this. Nancy Mann of Moss Construction explains she put a down payment on a piece of property - without changing the aui*ting property using the house as an office and putting heavy construction in the back with a fence around the entire property. All of this was done on an assumption that the City would grant water to the site. Elkins requests the City to give him a letter to show the County that there is water to the buildings. Williamson will review this with Sandra Driscroll for her recommendations. Wickstrom clarifies to Biteman that if the Planning Dept does a comp plan change to change to industrial then everything would be fine. If we deleted this provision in the ordinance, than yes it would affect East Hill with a much higher density in multi- family. Biteman asks is the stipulation in thepordinance going to affect other pieces of property coming to us on ' the sphere of influence types of things. Wickstrom says it will. Williamson will work with Nancy Mann on her request for water availability. Committee concurred that an analysis should be made by the Planning Dept. on a comp plan change. Exxon Oil Rebate Agreement Wickstrom explains that the City has applied for $67,500 to apply toward the timing of the signals on SR 516 (Willis Street) from West Valley Highway to 4th Avenue. Application h ;been approved and Wickstrom requests Committee approval for the Mayor to sign the agreement. Committee concurs. 124TH Joint Reservoir Control Board Wickstrom requests authorization for appointment as City representative to the Control Board regarding the operation of the water reservoir at 124th Ave. which is jointly used by WD #111 and City of Kent. Committee concurs and will recommend appointment to Council. Recycling Issue Brent McFall explains since the last meeting, discussions have been held between City Administrator and representatives from Rabanco and we still have some issues to resolve ; on the contract but no difficulties are anticipated in doing that. , We can have that ready for review in the near future and have that on the Council Agenda then for ultimate action. The other issue is whether or not the City is going to send communication to the WUTC with respect to the service area of the two companies and what we would like to see as the WUTC's decision on that. At your last meeting, you ultimately determined., that you would like to have this go before the Council with no recommendation from the Committee. Biteman comments - your original thought of leaving things as they are in terms of the garbage pickup, having a single recycler because of the size of the City, would resolve the question. Approval by Biteman and Johnson to place on Couno�l agenda. 4,;