Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 03/20/1990 D PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MAP 2� 6 19190 CITY OF i"r EN T MARCH 20, 1990 C,TY + 71, PRESENT: Steve Dowell Carolyn Lake Leona Orr Fred Satterstrom Don Wickstrom Lyle Price Gary Gill Bruce Malcolm Ed White Jim Rust Bill Williamson Elsy Rust The Lakes Subdivision Parking Bill Williamson distributed copies of correspondence received from John Driggers a copy of which is attached. Williamson reviewed the history of the development of The Lakes. As a requirement of the rezone, short plat and subsequent plats, the City -was to be deeded a 60-foot easement for public street purposes. At the time of acceptance, the City did not have minimum road standards. The City authorized a landscape maintenance agreement between Centron and Schneider Homes. That document and the improvements accepted by the City on a bill of sale became the roadway standards for Lakeside Boulevard West and Lakeside Boulevard East. Those plans included the two bicycle paths and the median roadway design for which the City has the right to go in and remove but not the obligation to maintain. Williamson stated the bicycle lanes are public street improvements but there are private property rights attached as Centron and Schneider Homes are obligated to maintain them. Williamson referred to RCW 35.75.020 which states it is unlawful to park on bicycle lanes. Williamson stated that in his opinion it has always been unlawful to park on the bicycle lanes regardless of the presence of any "No Parking" signs. The City has not enforced this however. The Centron Company is in foreclosure on these properties. Carolyn Lake advised the Committee that University Savings has taken over Centron's interests and have not determined if they are going to manage it themselves or sell the property. Williamson stated there is some potential risk of damage claim if we do tear out the median. Williamson stated that Schneider Homes has not returned his calls so we do not know if they would consent to removal of the median. Williamson stated the Mayor and Council do have authority to declare an emergency and remove one of the bicycle lanes. Wickstrom stated that even removing one of the bicycle lanes would not provide sufficient width and something would need to be done with the median. Wickstrom presented two options. One option is to remove the island which would generate approximately 38 stalls at a cost of approximately $125, 000. Another option is to Public Works Committee March 20, 1990 Page 2 of 2 eliminate the bicycle lane and narrow the island which would generate approximately 26 stalls and cost $25,000. Responding to Satterstrom's question, Mr. Malcolm stated that everyone in the complex is now using their garage for parking a vehicle. They have rented storage space or built lofts for what they had previously kept in the garage. Satterstrom stated the Planning Department is in the process of taking to Council a proposal to look at the multifamily parking standards. Dowell asked how long it would take to do this. Satterstrom indicated it would be about three months. There was discussion whether the undeveloped property could be used for additional parking. One option would be for Council to authorize the revisions to the median and removal of the one bicycle lane on an emergency basis. We would need the consent of Schneider Homes and University Savings Bank. Another issue is the cost involved which should not be borne by the City and should be the obligation of the owners as well as the condominium owners. It was determined there were 110 units in the complex which would bear the $25,000 cost for the one option. It was determined that Wickstrom would review the revision plans with the Fire Chief to determine if their needs would be met. The proposed plan and costs would be forwarded to Mr. Malcolm who will present it to the homeowner's associations to determine if they would be willing to pay for the improvement. Once we have a response back from them, the attorney can resolve the legal issues. HOV Lanes I-5 Wickstrom informed the Committee that he had spoken with Jon Johnson about this item pointing out the problems with' his proposal and he indicated he would not pursue it. Wickstrom continued he had also contacted the State and they are working on a program for HOV lanes. King County Backyard Composting Program The King County's program was described to the Committee. King County will be making this program available to Kest residents the latter part of 1990. The Committee unanimously agreed. Public Works Committee March 20, 1990 Page 3 of 3 Puget Power Undergrounding Agreement - S 2 8th betNeen 62nd Avenue South and 64th Avenue South Wickstrom explained this agreement related to undergrounding on S. 228th. Uplands has already issued a check to the City for what would be the City's share of the costs associated with the undergrounding for Van Doren's Landing. These charges relate to the tariff charges associated with the work. Uplands has agreed to pay the City's charges plus any other charges involved. The Committee unanimously approved the Mayor's signature of the agreement and acceptance of the check from Uplands. Citizen Skateboarding Concerns Ms. Yadavongsy who had contacted the City regarding this item was not present to discuss it with the Committee. Any discussion was delayed until she could be present. It was determined this item is also on the Parks Committee agenda. MEMORANDUM `' r TO: Mr.Williamson,Deputy City Attorney MAR FROM: John DriggersQt'� SUBJECT: Bridgewater Parking Problem DATE: March 16, 1990 FACTS When the original plans for the four phases of the Bridgewater development were approved by the city,the parking requirements were 1.8 spaces per unit. Schneider Builder.,the developer,built Phase I with one outside parking space per unit and one garage space per unit. Dedicated handicapped spaces were assigned to specific units--there were no separate handicapped or visitor parking spaces allotted. Bridgewater, phase I consisted of two and three bedroom homes. Becauise,of the popularity of the three bedroom design, Schneider increased the number of three bedroom homes in phases II-IV. The city recently decided to begin enforcing no-parking on the dead-end road that leads into the Bridgewater development(see attached map at TAB A).The no-parking rule shad existed earlier, but had not been enforced. Visitors and residents had been parking on both sides of the road. The city predicated its decision on a legitimate,need for public safety. Park lug on the road made access by large emergency vehicles--and high speed access by emergency vehicles of any size--difficult or impossible. The city's action resulted in leaving no visitor parking for the residents of Phase I, and little or no visitor parking for the residents of phases H-IV (Note--each phase is a separate development, controlled by a separate homeowners association). The closest parking is at Russell Park,two- three blocks away. The city is currently investigating a long-term solution to the parking problem. QUESTION PRESENTED Is there a short-term compromise that; 1) will allow some visitor parking; 2) will guarantee emergency vehicle access, 3) will not be counter-productive with respeato the existing long-term solutions being considered, and 4) will be available at little cost? BRIEF ANSWER Yes. If the city maintains the no-parking rule on the inbound lane and no-parking within fifteen feet of the development's entrances on the outbound lane,then the inbound lane provides sufficient guaranteed access for emergency vehicles and the limited space-left for parking on the outbound lane provides some visitor parking. DISCUSSION In the discussion that follows, I will focus on the issues of public safety,precedent, and attitudes/personalities. The paramount issue is that of public safety. It is uncontested that emergency vehicles require access to the Bridgewater development and that the access allow for timely response to emergencies. It is also uncontested that the city has an absolute right to establish and enforce whatever rules are necessary to guarantee that access. But when the city establishes rules that unduly burden the owners and occupants of the property the city is trying to,protect,then the city must look to all of the alternatives to determine if there is some scheme that will allow the city to guarantee access for emergency vehicles without placing an undue burden on residents. The city must also include in this balancing test,the question of liability. If the city is not cautious enough in developing a scheme to meet both the city's duty and the resident's demand not to be burdened unnecessarily by the rules,then the city could be liable for damages if emergency services could not be provided because of the scheme developed by the city. In this case we are looking at an access road that is currently about 150 yards long, with entrances into four separate developments. The access road has a large center civider and bike lanes on each side. If the inbound side is always clear of parked vehicles,then tmer$ency vehicles would have the largest possible high-speed access into all of the developments. Because there is a center divider, allowing parking on the opposite side of the street would not affect emergency access. Because the access road is only 150 yards long and a dead-end,this inbound lane could also be used for high-speed exit--if that remote possibility were ever a requirement: Because of the center divider, the widest access emergency vehicles will ever have is only one lane wide. The city could fulfill its duty by dedicating the inbound lane for emergency vehicle acss end,still allow some on- street parking on the opposite side. The next issue is one of precedent. Certainly the city must not adopt a piecemeal approach to public planning and land use. Any short-term solution adopted for the benefit of Bridgewater residents could return to haunt the city if other landowners point to the Bridgewater temporary solution as a rational for adopting the same rules in their own area. This treat is not unique. Every time a variance is granted it opens the door to the city's land use planning, making the long- term plan vulnerable to attack. The response is that a formalistic approach to land-use planning serves neither the city or its residents. Individual cases require individual analysis, based on individual merits. The land use plan must serve both the city and its residents. Consequently,the city must review requests for individual exceptions and judge these requ$s�s on there merits. In this case the city should consider a request for short-term relief by Bridgewater residents on its merits. If the request is approved, the only precedent established is that of considering requests by citizens for relief on a case-by-case basis. Future requests by other citizens would have to be examined on the facts in their case. The final issue I will address is that of attitudes and personalities. Based on my impressions (and therefore perhaps what follows is skewed by my biases), there seems to be several emotional and personal perspectives that bear on this problem. First, there are those in the city administration who feel that the Bridgewater residents got what they deserved. This attitude is a mixture of the following views: 1) condominium residents are lower-class citizens and do not deserve the same considerations that other Kent homeowners might get, 2) Seattle condominium owners have parking problems,why should Kent condominium owners expect any different, 3) the city approved the plans before the development started,if the Bridgewater residents didn't realize (or the builder misrepresented) the parking situation--tough luck. Of coin when these attitudes are communicated to the Bridgewater residents,their"dander goes up,"leading to the second set of attitudes. The condominium owners feel discriminated against, abandoned by the city, and cheated out of the benefits they feel they deserve by virtue of paying property taxes. The third set of attitudes comes from the representatives of the Kent public safety,agencies. They leave some city administrators and most of the Bridgewater residents with the pespective that there is no room for negotiation--solutions not developed or proposed by the publicAdety agencies will simply not be considered. It is the "not invented here" attitude. The final set of attitudes are shared, albeit from opposite perspectives,by both city officials and this Bridgewater residents. These views stem from the question, "How did we get in this mess in Ohe{first place?" Naturally, the city planning officials see no possibility that they may have approye4 a stupid plan--after all"it works just fine for apartment complexes." Residents respond that apartments have vacancies that , provide for extra parking,unlike condominiums which rarely have vacacies. Further, apartments include a mix of studio, one and two bedroom, and a few three bedroora units;while All ,r , condominiums usually have two and three bedroom units exclusively. T ;s means that condominiums will generate a greater need for parking. This seems so olious that the condominium residents are left wondering about how the plan ever got approved--either someone in planning did make a mistake or someone in planning intentionally approved the plan knowing it was bad. If it was an intentional approval, then why...? Did anyone violate the public trust...? And so the dialogue goes on,with fingers pointed in all directions and everyone saying, "It is not my fault this happened,it is because of something you did." In our case, the counterproductivity of all of these attitudes is obvious of the face. They all lead away from the real issue;is there any short-term solution for the parking problem while the city develops a long-term solution? The only hope,with regard to the attitui*that have developed as a result of this problem,is that perhaps the residents and the city officia;lp,Pan,both put these views behind them and work dispassionately for both a short-term and a long-lerm solution. CONCLUSION If the city allows for parking on the outbound lane of the access road and prohibits parking on the inbound lane,then the need for emergency vehicle access will be meet: This policy should be adopted only as a short-term solution and only for as long as the access road is a short, dead-end street. S. DRIGGERS 5736 South 238th Court,E-1 Kent,WA 98032 (206)859-8519 7- 7 1 IJ -l-r CA ? ri Li ro '` 10 LA 41- ......... ................... Nat,\\A 7, n N N