Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 09/16/1992 CITY CLERK PUBLIC WORKS COMr SEPTEMBER 16, 1, PRESENT: JIM WHITE MAY MILLER JIM BENNETT ED WHITE PAUL MANN TIM LAPORTE DON WICKSTROM KEVIN LINDELL TOM BRUBAKER MR. & MRS. RUST GARY GILL . LARRY STOUGARD PAMELA NEWCOMER Triangle Apartments - Access Issue on 4th Avenue Tom Brubaker commented that after his review, he did not see any strong legal basis at all for the developer to impose any liability on the City. He commented he did not find that the City had promised access on 4th but that we had required that the neighborhood be protected from impact and offered 4th as a possible alternative. If they have any recourse it should be from the State since the State is denying access. A secondary issue, which Brubaker stated he could not recommend, is whether the City can use its condemnation authority to provide the developer with separate access so long as they pay the costs. Brubaker commented it is arguable that the City can but it is just as likely we would be facing litigation. Wickstrom added that the long term concern is that this is vacant property zoned multifamily and will ultimately develop. If there is no access off 4th, Council needs to consider how they want the property to develop. It was industrial at one time and was changed to multifamily. If there is no access, Wickstrom suggested, Council might want to look at the zoning. Jim White asked if the City had issued a permit for the project. Wickstrom stated the State had originally allowed them to cross the limited access and then reversed that decision. Gill stated that Engineering had completed their review of the plans. Building had completed plan review up to a point where red-lined plans had been sent back for corrections. Building was waiting for the developer to revise their plans in order to do the final review. Jim White stated he was not comfortable allowing traffic to access either on 3rd or 2nd. Those are substandard streets and not fair to the single family neighborhoods. It was clarified for Jim Bennett that the project would be subject to codes existing at the time they submitted for a permit if they have not allowed their submittal to expire. If they let the project drop and then reapply, the new codes would be applicable. Responding to Jim White's question, Wickstrom indicated that we had not told them they couldn't use 3rd or 2nd or 1st. But we would tell them which of those streets we would allow to be used for access and they would have to make improvements for their type of use. The developer, however, feels their development would not be marketable with any access other than 4th. Brubaker explained that the question before the Public Works Committee September 16, 1992 Page 2 Committee is whether the City is willing to commence a condemnation proceeding or other action to obtain access off 4th. The Committee agreed that the City should not take such action. Jim White stated that if the property were going to develop in the future he would not feel comfortable with access either on 1st, 2nd or 3rd. He suggested this be sent to the Planning Committee to address the zoning of the area. Paul Mann added that emergency services need to be addressed as well. Wickstrom stated he had received a call from one of the residents of the area who indicated the developer had given them a letter stating he would not use either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd for access. Bicycle Advisory Board Request - 196th Corridor Larry Stougard, chair of Kent's Bicycle Advisory Board, stated that the Advisory Board had concerns about the bicycle facilities on the 196th Corridor. He stated that King County will be building bike lanes on their portion of the corridor but Kent does not plan for bike lanes on the middle portion. He continued that there would be no connection to the Interurban Trail and Green River Trail. He continued that the Advisory Board would like to see a continuation of the bike access lane. At the least they would like to see access from the Interurban Trail and make the southside sidewalk a multiuse trail for both bicycles and pedestrians. He alluded to the CTR program and Boeing's support to encourage bicyclists as well as Metro's pilot program to provide bicycle access on busses. Jim White asked if the Advisory Board's intent was to make every street and thoroughfare bicycle accessible. Mr. Stougard indicated it was not but providing a safe lane at specifically spaced intervals such as the corridors is a logical answer to moving the people on bicycles from the east hill. Jim White asked if an alternative of providing bicycle access on 212th would be considered. Mr. Stougard stated the Board would probably be open to look at it. The concerns would be that the County would be funneling bicycles on 196th and they would have to then figure out how to get over to 212th. White referred to staff memo indicating that providing bike lanes on this 1 mile section would cost approximately $5 million. LaPorte reviewed for the Committee and Mr. Stougard that the ASHTO design criteria for bike lanes is that they are 10 feet in width providing dual lanes. Referring to Mr. Stougard's suggestion that the sidewalk on the bridge section be a shared facility, LaPorte again referred to ASHTO criteria which recommends against that. Wickstrom further pointed out that this portion of the corridor is a retrofit of the road in an existing developed area. Bike lanes will be provided on portions of the west leg but the middle leg is being fit into an existing high density warehouse development. We are having trouble fitting just the basic road without doing extensive damage to the properties. Ok Public Works Committee September 16, 1992 Page 3 If we widen it further we will end up having to purchase a warehouse. He continued that HOV lanes on 212th are included in our six year plan. The County will be budgeting funds and we hope to budget funds in next year's budget to do a feasibility study for HOV lanes on 212th. He commented he thought that would be a more appropriate corridor. for a cross tie. He stated that we can tie the Interurban Trail into 196th but it will parallel the buttress of the fill and tie into the road. Wickstrom added that this is the most expensive section of the 196th Corridor. The cost of the west and east legs of the corridor doesn't equal the cost of the middle corridor. To add additional width would in likelihood kill the project as we do not have funding available. Bennett confirmed that if a bike lane were not provided on this portion that bikes could still use either the traffic lanes or the sidewalk. LaPorte added that providing a bike lane would not insure their safety due to the volume of the truck traffic in the area. Stougard stated that providing access to the Interurban Trail and possibly signing the sidewalk for bicycle use would probably be satisfactory. The Committee suggested that the Advisory Board continue to work with staff on this alternative. South County Area Transportation Board Wickstrom explained this is a board assembled to coordinate the various regional transportation projects. Initially the County will be providing the staff. Long term, the cities and County would be sharing these costs. Jim White added that the real purpose of the Board is to put additional emphasis on transportation for south county. Jim White indicated he would be willing to act as the City's representative on this Board. The Committee unanimously recommended adoption of the resolution and Jim White serve as the City's representative on the South County Area Transportation Board with Don Wickstrom as the alternate. Other Items Mrs. Rust again asked for clarification of the City policy of employees not using City vehicle for personal use during working hours. May Miller stated that the policy does allow use of City vehicles for personal use such as lunch when it is cost prohibitive for the employee to bring the vehicle back to City Hall. Jim Bennett added that it has to be properly managed by the Department Heads. It was clarified for Mrs. Rust that the policy was developed as a result of citizen complaints and concerns about the use of City vehicles.