HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 10/04/1988 City of Kent
City Council Meeting
Agenda
/o - 4-88
Office of the City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 4, 1988
Summary Agenda
IN zap
.. City of Kent Council Chambers
Office of the City Clerk 7 :00 p.m.
NOTE: Items on the Consent Calendar are either routine or
have been previously discussed . Any item may be
removed by a Councilmember . The Council may add and
act upon other items not listed on this agenda .
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
A. Employee of the Month
B. Budget Award
2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Union Pacific Realty Co . Street Vacation
3 . CONSENT CALENDAR
-" A. Minutes
B. Bills
C. Centennial Committee Appointment
D. Drinking driver Task Force Donations
E. East Valley Zoning Implementation - Planning Commission
F. Soos Creek Interlocal Agreement
G. Riverbend Golf Course Rezone - �Jordinange-
H. Artwork for Council Chambers
I . LID 297 Completion
J . Guiberson Reservoir Controls Completion
4 . OTHER BUSINESS
,." A. Zoning Code Amendment - Conditional Use Permits
B. Zoning Code Amendment Height Regulations _ Ordin�e,`"
C. Zoning Code Amendment - Community Commercial District
D. Procedure for Executive Sessions - Resolution
5 . BIDS
A. SR 516 Improvements
B. Asphalt Overlays
6 . REPORTS
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
ADJOURNMENT
n
it
1'
IrY'
V
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time,
make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly
heard .
A) Employee of the Month
/ B) Distinguished Budget Presentations Award
1
�L
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 4, 1988_
-+ Category Public Hearing
1. SUBJECT: UNION PACIFIC REALTY COMPANY - STREET VACATION
NO. STV-88-3
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This public hearing will consider an
application filed by Union Pacific Realty Company to vacate a
portion of 63rd Ave. So. south of 212th St . The City Clerk has
given proper legal notice.
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff report, map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff 9/28/88
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
Conditional approval
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING:,._-
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE HEARING,
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember IJ- seconds
to approve street vacation No. STV-88-3 with one
condition as recommended by staff and to direct the City
Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance upon receipt of
compensation
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No . 2A
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
September 28, 1988
MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members
FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Report and Recommendation on an Application to
Vacate 63rd Avenue South just south of S. 212th
Street
I. Name of Applicant
Union Pacific Realty Company
16400 Southcenter Parkway, Suite 305
Tukwila, WA 98188
II. Reason for Requesting Vacation
The applicant states, "Applicant' s subsidiary, Union Pacific
Land Resources Corporation, owns property on three sides of
this right-of-way and South 212th Street is on the fourth
side. It is understood that this right-of-way is no longer
required by the City; and applicants future development
plans will provide access to South 212th Street at a more
westerly location. "
III. Staff Recommendation APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS
After reviewing comments from the following departments
and agencies:
Public Works Department
Fire Department
Police Department
METRO
Puget Power
and conducting our own review, the Planning Department
recommends that the request to vacate 63rd Avenue South,
south of S. 212th Street as mentioned in Resolution No. 1181
and as shown on the accompanying map, be APPROVED with
the following condition:
1. Compensate the City at the full fair market
value of the vacated street. Compensation
shall be either in cash or real property of
at least equivalent value and as determined
appropriate by the Kent Public Works Department
(the City purchased this right-of-way in
conjunction with the widening of S. 212th
Street. As per State law, since it paid full
fair market value at the time of purchase,
the City is entitled to full fair market value
at the time of vacation) .
JPH:ca
Attachment
i
it
Ares ►4y0esfec!
4o be vacs 4ej-
pia
0
N � n
s
1�oSe ID 3 r d STD
At-ea ►-pq o"54,e 1 4-,o
be va�f� 'e, 17eo Z.I-�
200
WEST V A Z-Z-E:-
r 1
N
CONSENT CALENDAR
3 . City Council Actio
Councilmember moves, Councilmember
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through J b owed.
Discussion
Action
3A.1, Approval of Minutes .
? Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
r, September 20, 1988 .
M Ct
. Approval of Bills .
Approval of payment of the bills received through October 6,
.' 1988 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting
at 8 : 30 a.m. on October 14, 1988 .
J 1,� Approval of checks issued for vouchers :
Date Check Numbers Amount
8/25 - 8/31 64125 - 64148
8/31/88 64635 - 64638
9/2 - 9/9 64639 - 64649 $ 189, 103 . 17
9/15/88 64654 - 65159 1, 924, 231.43
$2, 113 , 334 . 60
Approval of checks issued for payroll :
Date Check Numbers Amount
9/20/88 109259 - 109851 $ 631, 664 . 54
Council Agenda
Item No. 3 A-B
Kent, Washington
September 20, 1988
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7: 00
p.m. by Mayor Kelleher. Present: Councilmembers Biteman, Dowell, Houser,
Johnson, Mann, White and Woods, City Administrator McFall, City Attorney
Driscoll, Planning Director Harris and Public Works Director Wickstrom.
Also present: Fire Chief Angelo. Approximately 50 people were at the
meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR WHITE MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through
J be approved. Biteman seconded and the motion
carried.
_ MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3A)
Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of
the regular Council meeting of September 6 , 1988.
WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3J)
Joint Reservoir Control Board. AUTHORIZATION for
the Director of Public Works to be appointed as
- City representative to the Control Board regarding
the operation of the jointly owned (Kent and Water
District 111 ) water reservoir at 124th Avenue and
approximately 28600 block.
STORM DRAINAGE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3F)
East Smith Street/East Walnut Storm Improvement.
ACCEPT as complete the contract with Site-Con, Inc.
for the East Smith/East Walnut storm improvements
and release of retainage after re-eipt of the
required releases from the State.
DRAINAGE Upper Mill Creek Detention Basin. Bids were opened
on September 14 with two bids received. The low
bid submitted by Volker Stevin Pacific was for
$713 , 460 , which was 26 percent over the engineer ' s
estimate. The Public Works Director recommends
that the bids be rejected and that the project be
readvertised. JOHNSON SO MOVED. Houser seconded
and the motion carried.
STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3E)
LID 320 - West James Street. ACCEPT as complete
th•e contract with Robison Construction, Inc. for
the West James Street improvements and release of
retainage after receipt of the required releases
from the State.
TRAFFIC CONTROL (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3D)
Exxon Oil Rebate. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to
execute Exxon Oil rebate agreement which gives the
City a $67 , 500 grant for upgrading and incorpora-
ting the State signals on SR516 (Willis Street) .
- 1 -
September 20, 1988
TRAFFIC CONTROL from West Valley Highway to Fourth Avenue into the
City ' s computerized signal central system, as
approved by the Public Works Committee .
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3G)
Fourth Avenue Signalization. ACCEPT as complete
the contract with UDL, Inc. for the Fourth Avenue
and S. 228th and Fourth Avenue and James Street
signalization and release of retainage after
receipt of the required releases from the State.
Fourth Avenue Issues. Jim Lambkee, 930 4th Avenue
North, noted that the vacant lot on 4th Avenue is
being used as a dump and asked that it be blocked
off. He noted that 1st, 2nd and 3rd Avenues are
barricaded, and that 4th Avenue should be also.
Lammbkee noted that there are no street lights , and
that the speed limit should be lowered from 40 mph
to 30 mph. He said that he has recently been in
an accident on 4th Avenue and that he has been the
victim of theft. Biteman noted that he had visited
the area and agreed with Lambkee. Biteman also
noted that Public Works personnel would visit the
area this week. He agreed that the 40 mph speed
limit should be reduced. Planning Director Harris
noted for Dowell that the area is zoned MRG north
of James. White suggested that this be referred
to the Public Works and Public Safety Committees
and that Lambkee be notified as to when this would
be discussed.
SIDEWALKS Neighborhood Pedestrian Improvements. Five bids
were opened on September 15 for the neighborhood
pedestrian improvement south of Willis Street. The
two lowest bids were found to be non-responsive and
the Public Works Director therefore recommends
that all bids be rejected and for a new call for
bids to be authorized. JOHNSON MOVED to reject all
bids and to readvertise for the project. Woods
seconded and the motion carried.
SURPLUS PROPERTY 106th Avenue S.E. This date has been set for a
public hearing on the sale of a house at 26801
106th Avenue S.E. , which has been declared surplus
to the City ' s needs. The Mayor declared the hear-
ing open. Upon a question from the audience,
Wickstrom noted that the property would be sold
through the bid process. BITEMAN MOVED to close
the public hearing and Johnson seconded. The
motion carried. JOHNSON MOVED that the property
- 2 -
September 20, 1988
SURPLUS PROPERTY declared as surplus be offered for sale to the
highest bidder for the value of the property as
determined by the Property Manager, plus admini-
strative costs. Biteman seconded. Motion carried.
PUBLIC/PRIVATE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3H)
" OFFICE BUILDING Public/Private Office Building Project Agreements.
AUTHORIZATION for the City Administrator to nego-
tiate on behalf of the Cityj agreements with Sound
Ventures, Inc. for the sale of City-owned property
associated with the development of a new office
building in downtown Kent. Further, the City Admini-
strator is authorized to negotiate a lease agree-
ment with Sound Ventures, Inc. for office space in
the new building to be developed. All agreements
negotiated by the City Administrator with respect
to this project are subject to final approval by
City Council.
" SOLID WASTE WUTC Waste Collection. It has been requested
that authorization be given to direct the City
Administrator to write a letter to the Washington
Utilities and Transportation Commission indicating
that the City of Kent prefers that two companies,
both of which are presently operating under tem-
porary certificates, be authorized to provide waste
collection service throughout the City of Kent on
a permanent basis . Such action on behalf of WUTC
would permit the current method of providing waste
collection service to continue in the City of Kent.
A draft letter has been distributed with the agenda
materials. McFall noted that the administrative
law judges had conducted a hearing for the WUTC
with respect to certification of territories for
the two applicant companies and have made a pro-
posed ruling, recommending to the WUTC that the
area of the city be split between the two companies .
A map was displayed showing the proposal, with Kent
Disposal serving downtown, Scenic Hill and the
lower part of EAst Hill, and Tri-Star serving the
rest of the City. McFall noted that this item
comes to the Council from the Public Works Committee
without a recommendation. The letter suggests
that the status quo be preserved, under which both
companies operate throughout the city. McFall
noted that it was not known whether the W'JTC would
consider the contents of the letter.
Upon questions from White and Woods, City Attorney
Driscoll stated that it is likely that it would be
- 3 -
September 20, 1988
SOLID WASTE necessary for the City to intervene in the proceed-
ings in order to have the letter considered, but
the letter would not commit the City to such inter-
vention. Biteman noted that the WUTC should be
aware of the City ' s feeling regarding the proposal
to divide the city between the two haulers .
It was determined by McFall that the proposal for
the letter came from Kent Disposal. BITEMAN MOVED
to direct the City Administrator to send such a
letter and Johnson seconded. White noted that the
City had decided to not endorse or support any of
the haulers and it would appear that this letter
would support two haulers. He suggested that the
City should let the WUTC do its work, since the
City had opted to go out of the garbage business.
Johnson opined that the letter would give the City ' s
support to the situation as it exists, allowing
the citizens to choose either of the two companies .
If the WUTC grants a franchise to one company only,
the City will have to live with that decision.
Dowell noted that the City sent a letter to the
WUTC on July 13 , 1987 encouraging favorable consid-
eration of the franchise application of Kent Dis-
posal. Subsequently, on July 21 the Council unani-
mously adopted Resolution 1141 which stated that
the City did not favor any of the three haulers ,
all of which had applied for certification. Dowell
objected to the Council appearing to now change its
"hands off" policy as far as the WUTC is concerned.
Biteman stated that he agreed with Dowell but that
we should let the WUTC know that we are happy with
the existing situation with two haulers serving
the city. Dowell pointed out that the WUTC had
held hearings for over a year which included testi-
mony from Councilmembers and the City Administrator.
Jack Davis, attorney for Tri-Star, opposed the
letter, stating that it would be considered as
opposition to his client. The City of Kent is not
a party to this contested proceeding before the
WUTC. The administrative judges have issued a pro-
posed order, which is now before the commission
under administrative appeal and exceptions are now
being filed. He stated that input from the City
will not be evidence in that proceeding. Resolu-
tion 1141 stating the City' s "no position" is part
of the record, as is McFall ' s testimony stating
that the City was taking no position for either of
the applicants. Davis stated that the WUTC has
issued an order denying the Rabanco application
4 -
September 20, 1988
SOLID WASTE based on Rabanco having not established that they
had obeyed the laws applicable to carriers and that
they had not established their financial fitness.
He suggested that issuance of this letter would be
an attempt to persuade the commission. If the City
desires to intervene, an official petition should
be filed to become a party to the proceedings.
Upon Johnson ' s question, Davis stated that he
opposes the letter inasmuch as all of the evi-
dence has been concluded and closed and the City
should not now be taking a position. He concluded
-- that since Tri-Star does not need such support,
that the letter is, therefore, in support of Kent
Disposal.
Jerry Graham of Tri-Star explained that the map
showing the 1957 boundaries of the City was used
by the commission and showed that the 1957 area
would remain in the authority of Kent Disposal and
the area annexed after 1957 would be granted to
Tri-Star. He stated further that Tri-Star had
applied for transfer of authority to give service
inside the old core area and if granted, Tri-Star
would overlap the Kent Disposal core area .
Biteman clarified for Dowell that the recycling
program was a separate item and not included in
this consideration, and it was clarified that the
letter had no reference to recycling. Gary Ewing
of Kent Disposal pointed out that an appeal has
been filed with 22 exceptions taken to the admini-
strative law judges hearing. He noted that the
City had expressed the desire to have competition
which is what they now have. Dowell referred to
the City ' s July 13 , 1987 letter supporting Kent
Disposal ' s application, and suggested that sending
the letter proposed tonight could be considered as
interference at this point. Ewing noted that at
prsent both companies were covering the city with-
out complaints about service. He stated that the
map under consideration by the WUTC would reverse
some of the areas now served by Tri-Star and by
Kent Disposal. He considered that the letter would
be in keeping with Kent ' s wish to stay neutral.
He noted that the City must be concerned with the
best service for the area and stated that Kent Dis-
posal had no problem with working with Tri-Star.
- 5 -
September 20, 1988
SOLID WASTE There were no further comments and upon Mayor
Kelleher ' s question, Driscoll noted any communica-
tion made would be an exparte communication which
was not illegal and the City may send such a letter
to the WUTC. The question is whether or not the
commission can, or will consider the letter. It
is likely that the City would have to intervene in
the proceedings for the commission to consider the
letter and it may be too late for such interven-
tion. Biteman' s motion to send the letter resulted
in a tie vote, with Biteman, Johnson and Mann vot-
ing in favor, Dowell, White and Woods voting
against and Houser abstaining. It having been
established by the City Attorney that he had authority
to vote in this instance, Mayor Kelleher then voted
in favor of the motion and the motion carried.
REZONE Riverbend Golf Course Rezone No. RZ-88-3. On
August 31 , 1988, the Haring Examiner recommended
conditional approval of a request by the Kent Parks
Department Riverbend Golf Course to rezone approx-
imately 2. 4 acres from RA, Residential Agricultural ,
to GC, General Commercial . The property is located
on Russell Road approximately 350 feet north of
Meeker Street. Fred Satterstrom of the Planning
Department pointed out the property location on
the map and noted that the southern portion is
already zoned GC. McFall noted that the rezone
will consolidate the zoning on the entire, five
acre tract to allow for commercial development.
WOODS MOVED to adopt the findings of the Hearing
Examiner and to concur with the Hearing Examiner ' s
recommendation of approval with one condition and
to direct the City Attorney to prepare the required
ordinance. Biteman seconded and the motion carried.
HOUSING AND COM- Housing and Community Development Block Grant - 1989
MUNITY DEVELOPMENT Program. This public hearing will consider adoption
of the 1989 Housing and Community Development Block
Grant Program.
Lin Ball of the Planning Department noted that the
program for 1989 is a two-level program consisting
of base level funding and higher level funding as
follows . The higher level funding is dependant
on the final federal entitlement budget and the
program has been reviewed by the Planning Committee.
She presented the following proposal:
- 6 -
September 20, 1988
HOUSING AND COM- CITY OF RENT 1989 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
MUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
AS RECOMMENDED BY THE COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF AVAILABLE FUNDS: $215,007/$227,948
LIMITS ON EXPENDITURES FOR ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN SERVICES:
1989 Human Services ceiling $ 25,500
1989 Planning and Administration Ceiling $ 10,200
Project Type Recommended Recommended
"Base Level" "Higher Level"
Funding Funding
1. Program Planning & Admin $ 10,200 $ 10,200
Administration
2. Housing Repair Housing $111,882 $113,170
service Program Rehab
3. North Park Tot Lot Rehab $ 24,275 $ 24,275
Rehabilitation
4. Special Populations Rehab $ 6,640 $ 6,640
Resource Center
Handicap Accessibility
5. South King County Acquisition $ 10,510 $ 20,820
Multi-Service Center
Transitional Housing
6. Kent/Renton Joint Rental Housing Rehab $ 10,000 $ 10,000.
" Housing Rehabilitation
7. Kaibara Park Phase III Public $ 10,000 $ 10,000
8. Kent Para-Transit Human Svc $ 3,650 $ 3,650
(Van-Go)
9. Kent Single-Parent Human Svc $ 2,770 $ 2,770
_.. Employment & Education
10. Kent Community Human Svc $ 12,450 $ 12,450
Health Services
11. DAWN Human Svc $ 6,630 $ 7,973
12. BN Railroad Depot
Design Historic Pres. S 6,000 $ 6,000
$215,007 $227,948
Mayor Kelleher declared the public hearing open.
Viola Keith, 6911 S. 129th Place, Seattle, Presi-
dent of Kent Soroptomist Club, thanked the Human
Services Commission and Council for considering
funding for the Single Parent Program. The pro-
gram provides education and job opportunities to
Kent women. Dee Moschel, 448 Alpine Way, President
of the Board of Directors for the Community Health
Centers of King County, stated that they appreciate
- 7 -
September 20 , 1988 -
HOUSING AND COM- the funding given to them in the past, which helped
MUNITY DEVELOPMENT them move into their own building. She noted that
the Center had had 400 additional visits in the
first six months of 1988, and that they are serv-
ing Kent ' s interests well. Sharon Atkin, 30901 E.
Lake Morton Drive S.E. , of the South King County
Multi-Service Center, noted that they provide rent
assistance, gas , emergency food, energy assistance,
emergency housing and transitional housing. She
requested help in leasing transitional housing
units , where people could stay for as long as three
months, noting that emergency housing is only for
two weeks. She asked for two years funding for
two units in Kent which would be coordinated with
their emergency housing as well as YWCA emergency
housing units. Don Anderson, Director of Van-Go
for the South King County Multi-Service Center,
thanked the Council for their support the last three -
years. He noted that the Van-Go program transports
people to the senior center three days a week and
pays the drivers salaries . They also provide trans-
portation to medical appointments and they drive
developmentally disabled adults to the work site
at the Kent Activity Center. He added that they
have recently been awarded dial-a-ride service
within the city limits of Kent five days a week,
which is available to the general public.
There were no further comments from the audience
and BITEMAN MOVED that the hearing be closed. Mann
seconded and the motion carried. WOODS MOVED to
approve the 1989 Housing and Community Development
Block Grant Program as presented. Biteman seconded.
Motion carried.
SHORELINE PERMIT Signature Pointe Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit No. SMA-88-4. On September 6, 1988, the
City Council closed the public hearing and tabled
the appeal by Triad Development of the Hearing
Examiner ' s conditional approval of Signature Pointe
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit No. SMA-
88 -4 . The appeal relates to Condition No. 2 ,
specifying a revised site plan to provide more
than one ingress and egress point to the project.
The property is located on 64th Avenue South, south
of Meeker Street at SR516 .
The Mayor noted that the motion is being removed
from the table. The City Clerk read the motion as
follows : JOHNSON MOVED to modify the findings of
the Hearing Examiner to disagree and to delete Con-
- 8 -
September 20, 1988
SHORELINE PERMIT dition No. 2. Biteman seconded. Upon Woods '
question about Condition No. 2, requiring more
than one ingress and egress, City Attorney Driscoll
stated that since the proposed condition does not
relate to the shoreline permit, the recommendation
exceeds the Hearing Examiner ' s authority. The
motion then carried unanimously. MANN MOVED that
the City Attorney, the Planning Committee and the
Public Safety Committee research initiating an
-.. ordinance addressing the need for more than one
ingress and egress point of entrance for such
future developments . Johnson seconded and the
motion carried.
ZONING CODE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3C)
AMENDMENT Zoning Code Amendment - M1 and M2 Zones. ADOPTION
of Ordinance 2803 establishing gymnastic schools
or similar uses as permitted uses in M1 and M2
zoning districts and establishing health and fitness
clubs and facilities as permitted uses in the M2
district.
ZONING - EAST Request for Review of Zoning. At the September 6,
HILL ANNEXATION 1988 Council meeting, William Carey submitted a
AREA C petition requesting that the Council review its
action of March 1 , 1988 in establishing the zoning
for Area C of the East Hill Well Annexation No. 2 .
Comments were heard and in accordance with Council
direction, a response was made, in the form of a
letter from City Administrator McFall, mailed to
all property owners in Area C and to all who had
signed petitions on this subject. The letter has
been made a part of the record.
William Carey distributed copies of a letter dated
September 19 , 1988 and then read it into the record,
responding to McFall ' s letter. Referring to Ordi-
nance 2469 Carey opined that the Council ' s decision
on zoning was based on invalid and erroneous recom-
mendations . He questioned the City interpreta-
tion that the Comprehensive Plan is merely a guide,
and opined that it was the basis for all zoning
decisions. He stated that the Plan is considered
by many as a statement of the City ' s intent regard-
ing future development. An attachment to Carey ' s
letter, entitled "Closing Remarks" was filed with
the Clerk. Copies were made and distributed to
the Council later. Carey read from the summary
stating in part, that the Council had not followed
City rules in making this zoning decision and that
such action should be rescinded.
9
September 20, 1988
ZONING - EAST Myron Vigoren stated that before the area was
HILL ANNEXATION annexed the residents were told by the City that
AREA C zoning would be in accordance with the Comprehen-
sive Plan. He stated that the property rights of
the property owners had been disregarded by the
City in zoning this property. Leona Orr stated
that half of those signing Carey ' s petition did
not live within Area C and of the 132 owners in
Area C only 45 had signed Carey ' s petition. She
commented that the residential zoning would pre-
serve the area as rural. Charles Spurgeon agreed
with Carey and Vigoren and noted that owners in
this area had to agree to not oppose annexation in
order to have City water made available to them.
Jim Orr stated that these comments should have been
made at the public hearing before the Hearing Exam-
iner a year ago, when those opposing multi-family
zoning gave testimony.
McFall noted that his letter of September 16 , 1988
to the property owners and petitioners stated that
there was no provision in the City Code covering
rescission of any action taken by the City Council ;
other than that an action could be rescinded at
the same meeting such action was taken. He noted
further that there was a 20-day appeal period but
that no such appeal was filed. The option is for
the property owners to apply for a rezone.
Dowell and Mann expressed concern over the legal
points raised by Carey and asked how best the Coun-
cilmembers could have their concerns addressed by
the City. DOWELL MOVED to consider Carey ' s legal
allegations at a workshop session. Biteman seconded.
City Attorney Driscoll noted that Carey has threatened
litigation and suggested therefore that discussion
of the specifics of this particular item be held
in executive session. She noted that general ques-
tions on issues of this nature relating to zoning
could be properly discussed at a workshop session.
This was acceptable to all and Dowell withdrew his
motion. White stated he would schedule a workshop
to discuss planning and zoning and later set this
item for the September 27 workshop.
No further comments were made and no action was
taken on Carey ' s request to rescind the zoning
action taken on March 1 , 1988.
10 -
September 20, 1988
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3I)
Supplemental Budget Appropriation. APPROPRIATE $500
to be used to pay a portion of air fare and/or lodg-
ing expenses for Officer Harry Hansen to attend
the International Public Safety Olympics. Officer
Harry Hansen has qualified to compete in the Inter-
national Public Safety Olympics in Australia in
October, 1988. Officer Hansen earned this honor
through his successful competition in the National
Public Safety Olympics wherein he earned six gold
medals and two silver medals in swimming events.
-• (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the
bills received through September 22, after auditing
by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 8: 30
a.m. on September 30, 1988.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
8/11-8/16 63620-63631
8/17-8/19 63963-63988
8/22-8/25 64106-64124 $244,190.04
8/31 64149-64634 565,374.82
$809,564.86
Approval of checks issued for payroll:
Date Check Numbers Amount
9/02/88 108652-109258 $638,019.75
REPORTS Council President. Council President White announced
that there will be a workshop on September 27at 7:00 pm.
Items to be discussed are a review of the artist ' s
selection for the Council Chambers fibre art pro-
je•--t, a review of the slide presentation developed
for the Parks & Recreation Gold Medal Award, a
report on the Human Services Roundtable and a
discussion on zoning issues and related items .
White presented a resolution for consideration
regarding executive sessions, providing that any
alteration to the Council ' s directions regarding
matters considered during executive sessions shall
be brought before the Council for reconsideration
prior to any change. Upon Biteman ' s question, City
Attorney Driscoll noted that the information dis-
cussed during executive sessions is confidential
- 11 -
September 20, 1988
REPORTS and is intended to remain private for the moment.
Biteman suggested incorporating the confidentiality
issue into the resolution. White asked that the
City Attorney rework the resolution, including
input from Councilmembers, for the next Council
meeting.
Public Works Committee. Johnson noted that the
Public Works Committee would meet on September 27
at 4 : 00 p.m. in the Engineering Conference Room.
Planning Committee. Planning Director Harris
announced that there will be a meeting on the hous-
ing study regarding the 20% reduction resolution
at 7: 00 p.m. on September 28 in the Council Chambers .
He noted that the public is invited for citizen
input.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9: 15 p.m. -
Marie Je se , CMC
City Cler
- 12 -
r
ON
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 4, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: CENTENNIAL COMMITTEE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor ' s appointment of
Sally Ann Storey to the Kent Centennial Committee to replace Don
Campbell .
3 . EXHIBITS: Mayor ' s memo
4. RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
••- Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3C
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
DATE: September 22, 1988
TO: Jim White, City Counc' r sident
FROM: Dan Kelleher
SUBJECT: KENT CENTENNIAL COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT
For your information and confirmation, I have appointed SALLY ANN STOREY
to the Kent Centennial Committee to assist in local planning for Centennial
projects and programs , effective September 1988. Ms. Storey will replace
Don Campbell and serve out Mr. Campbell 's term through January 1, 1990.
Ms. Storey is an East Hill resident and has taken an active role in community
events coordinating the annual Parade of Stars event and other community
functions. Ms. Storey has served on the advisory board of the Kent Saturday
Market and was committee chair of tourism for the Kent Chamber of Commerce.
Her background includes past president of the Satellites - the Tacoma Stars
booster club and most recently served as Promotions, Marketing and Advertising
Director of Seattle International Raceway. Ms. Storey is currently President
of Good Storey Tours.
_. f
Kent City Council Meeting
1 't Date October 4, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. •SUBJECT: DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE DONATIONS
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acknowledgment of a donation of $1, 200 to
the Task Force from the Kent Chamber of Commerce Foundation.
These funds will be used for the parent education program
entitled "Preparing for the Drug (Free) Years" . - v- YwU:9
Acknowledgment of donations by Dr . Leland Dawson and Patterson' s
Optical for prizes in the "Keep a Friend Alive" design contest.
3 . EXHIBITS: None
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No . 3D
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 4, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: EAST VALLEY ZONING IMPLEMENTATION - PLANNING
COMMISSION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for : (1) the Planning
Commission to apply zoning as well as make zoning map amendments
as an area wide implementation of East Valley Zoning, (2) direct
the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance.
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo, Planning Committee minutes
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee 9/20/88
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
•. Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No . 3E
G
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
September 29, 1988
MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members
FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director
SUBJECT: PROTHEPOSAL TO IMPLEMENTING TZONIN TG o THE THE PLANNING CEAS COMMISSION
VALLEY STUDY
AREA
On September 20, 1988 the Council ' s Planning Committee considered
a staff proposal to allow the Planning Commission rather than the
Hearing Examiner to hold the public hearings on the implementing
zoning for the East Valley area. The Committee voted unanimously
to approve this proposal and to forward it to the Council for their
consideration.
The proposal is based on the fact that the implementing zoning is
an area-wide zoning action rather than a more narrowly defined
rezone action that normally falls within the Hearing Examiner's
jurisdiction. There are precedents for this proposal in that such
approval has been granted in the past for the implementing zoning
for the Agricultural program and more recently for implementation
of the Housing program.
- JPH:ca
KENT CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE
September 20, 1988 4 : 00 PM
Committee Members Present Staff Present
Judy Woods, Chair Charlene Anderson
Steve Dowell Lin Ball
Jon Johnson Mimi Castillo
Stephen Clifton
Others Present Jim Hansen
Jim Harris
Pete Curran Carolyn Lake
Chris Leady Greg McCormick
Fred Satterstrom �y
Dan Stroh
[Kent
VALLEY ZONING IMPLEMENTATION
Stroh stated the East Valley zoning implementation is a result of the
Council ' s approval of the East Valley Study. Major changes include a
ercial corridor along East Valley Highway and an office zone at 212th and
A public scoping meeting was held two weeks ago to discuss alternatives �.
implementation, including potentially a new commercial district in the
Zoning Code or designating GC, General Commercial, zoning with
ricted uses. Staff requests that as an area-wide zoning action, the
ning Commission be authorized to apply the zoning and make the zoning map
dments as well . The committee voted unanimously to approve this requestforward it to the City Council for consideration.
CHANGES TO HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT - 1989 PROGRAM
This an added item to the agenda. Lin Ball presented King County ' s
latest e ate of funds available for Kent' s 1989 Block Grant program. King
County has p ared a "base level" funding estimate of an additional $7 , 000
approximately a a "higher level" funding estimate of $12 , 000 more ($19 , 000
total) , which amo depends on the final federal budget. The Planning
Committee, at their st meeting, approved funding priorities for the
additional $7 , 000 ; thes include any additional public (human) services
funding would be provide I�to D.A.W.N. (approved by Human Services
Commission) , a maximum of $6 , 0 to the Burlington Northern Depot project,
and any remaining funds to the Ho ng Repair Program. Given the "higher
level" estimate, staff requests an a tional $10, 310 for South King County
Multi-Service Center Transitional Housin n order to fund two units for two
years and any remaining funds for the Hous Repair Program. The Planning
Committee unanimously approved the request r "base level" and "higher
level" funding as presented.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - SOOS CREEK
Fred Satterstrom stated that Auburn, Renton and Kent work e with the county
to develop an interlocal agreement for the Soos Creek a to define
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 4, 1988
rr � v Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: SOOS CREEK INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Mayor to sign an interlocal
agreement with King County to provide for cooperative planning
between King County and the City of Kent for the Soos Creek
community planning area .
3 . EXHIBITS: Interlocal agreement, staff memo, Planning Committee
minutes
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee 9/20/88
(Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc . )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3F
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
September 29, 1988
TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members
FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director
SUBJECT: PROPOSED SOOS CREEK INTERLOCAL PLANNING AGREEMENT WITH
KING COUNTY
On September 20, 1988, the City Council Planning Committee voted
to recommend the proposed Soos Creek Interlocal Planning Agreement
to the full Council. With concurrence by the full Council, the
Mayor would be authorized to enter into this agreement with King
County.
The Soos Creek Interlocal Agreement recognizes that planning and
.. land use decisions have extra-territorial impacts. Through inter-
governmental cooperation, jurisdictions have a better opportunity
to deal with these impacts and to influence the land use policy
direction of their neighbors. The Soos Creek agreement encourages
interlocal planning cooperation between the City of Kent and King
County. Specifically, the agreement allows Kent and the County to
review and comment on three areas of land use planning:
development plan review, comprehensive plan development, and code
development. In addition, the City and the County agree to work
cooperatively in the future to define potential annexation areas
and municipal service areas.
At the present time, the King County Council is also considering
adoption of this interlocal agreement. It is expected to be passed
by the Council shortly.
FS:JPH:ca
KENT CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE
September 20, 1988 4 : 00 PM
Committee Members Present Staff Present
Judy Woods, Chair Charlene Anderson
Steve Dowell Lin Ball
Jon Johnson Mimi Castillo
Stephen Clifton
Others Present Jim Hansen
Jim Harris
Pete Curran Carolyn Lake
Chris Leady Greg McCormick
Fred Satterstrom
Dan Stroh
EAST VALLEY ZONING IMPLEMENTATION
Dan Stroh stated the East Valley zoning implementation is a result of the
City Council ' s approval of the East Valley Study. Major changes i lude a
commercial corridor along East Valley Highway and an office zone 212th and
167 . A public scoping meeting was held two weeks ago to discu alternatives
for implementation, including potentially a new commerci district in the
Kent Zoning Code or designating GC, General Com cial , zoning with
restricted uses. Staff requests that as an area- de zoning action, the
Planning Commission be authorized to apply the z ng and make the zoning map
amendments as well. The committee voted unan' ously to approve this request
and forward it to the City Council for co deration.
oo;
CHANGES TO HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVE ENT BLOCK GRANT - 1989 PROGRAM
This was an added item to the genda. Lin Ball presented King County ' s
latest estimate of funds ava ' le for Kent' s 1989 Block Grant program. King
County has prepared a "bas evel" funding estimate of an additional $7 , 000
approximately and a "hi r level" funding estimate of $12 , 000 more ($19 , 000
total) , which amount epends on the final federal budget. The Planning
Committee, at the' last meeting, approved funding priorities for the
additional $7 , 00 , these include any additional public (human) services
funding would e provided to D.A.W.N. (approved by Human Services
Commission) , maximum of $6, 000 to the Burlington Northern Depot project,
and any re ining funds to the Housing Repair Program. Given the "higher
level" e imate, staff requests an additional $10 , 310 for South King County
Multi- rvice Center Transitional Housing in order to fund two units for two
year and any remaining funds for the Housing Repair Program. The Planning
Co ittee unanimously approved the request for "base level" and "higher
1 vel" funding as presented.
Fto
TERLOCAL AGREEMENT - SOOS CREEK
ed Satterstrom stated that Auburn, Renton and Kent worked with the county
develop an interlocal agreement for the Soos Creek area to define
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1988
each jurisdiction's expectation of the others and to better coordinate
planning and development plan review among the four entities. There are four
areas to which the interlocal agreement speaks. 1) The county and City of
Kent agree to provide each other the opportunity to review and comment on
plans for development at a threshold level within their respective
jurisdictions. 2) The agreement spells out the county's and the City of
Kent' s roles in the planning efforts within each other' s jurisdiction. 3)
Each jurisdiction will consider the comments from the other jurisdiction on
code changes affecting the Soos Creek area. 4) The county and City of
Kent agree to work together on municipal service and potential annexation
area agreements. There is within the agreement a Duration, Termination and
Amendment section which provides a means for each jurisdiction to withdraw
from the agreement upon providing 30 days notice pursuant to legislative
action by either party. The timing of the agreement is crucial because the
county is in the process of doing a Soos Creek update.
Jim Hansen added that Auburn and Renton have passed virtually the same
language. The agreement is in County Council Committee and is expected to
pass. The interlocal agreement guarantees a successful planning effort in
the Soos Creek area, will lead toward the opportunity for the City of Kent
to work better with the county in the future, and provides an opportunity to
set the stage for annexation agreements for Soos Creek and beyond.
..,, Jim Harris stated that there is wording in the agreement about the process
of Soos Creek planning. Since that planning effort is underway, Mr. Harris
would like to bring this issue before the City Council at the earliest
possible time. Councilman Dowell noted the county has already informed the
City of Kent on one occasion that it cannot deal with the City because there
is no interlocal agreement; Jim Harris stated that is the issue with the
City's challenge of the county's Hearing Examiner process on a couple of
subdivisions. Mr. Harris stated this interlocal agreement might apply
partly in that circumstance although that particular issue relates more to
interlocal agreements regarding traffic mitigation. Mr. Harris replied to
.., Councilman Dowell that because the City has an ordinance relating to
provision of water and sewer service to areas outside the City boundary, this
agreement would not be used to require provision of service to areas where
the City does not desire to provide service.
The committee unanimously approved forwarding the interlocal agreement to the
October 4th meeting of the City Council . Jim Hansen added that the county
has improved immensely on letting the City of Kent know about planning
activities occurring within the county.
OWWWO
._• H ING EXAMINER APPROVAL OF EXCEPTIONS TO HE
COND SECTIO ZONING CODE ZCA-88-5
Jim Harris his was an added item to Mr. Harris clarified
fo cilman Dowell that when an applicant has a pro3ec nvolves
2
A COOPERATIVE PLANNING AGREEMENT BETWEEN KING COUNTY AND
KENT FOR THE SOOS CREEK COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA
WHEREAS, within their own jurisdictions, King County and Kent each has responsibility
and authority derived from the Washington State Constitution and state laws to plan for
and regulate uses of land and by law must consider the impacts of its actions on adja-
cent jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, King County and Kent recognize that planning and land use decisions can
have extra-jurisdictional impacts and that intergovernmental cooperation is an effective
way under existing law to deal with impacts and opportunities which cross jurisdictional
boundaries; and
WHEREAS, cooperative efforts can increase efficiency of government by minimizing
conflicts and providing more mutually satisfactory land use and planning decisions; and
WHEREAS, King County Comprehensive Plan policies PI-301 through PI-305 encourage
inlerjurisdictional cooperation and the use of interlocal agreements to implement solutions
to major planning issues; and
WHEREAS, King County and Kent desire to jointly achieve the effective management of
Impacts associated with new development, the efficient provision of needed levels of
urban service, the coordinated preparation of land use, functional and capital improvement
plans, and the delineation of appropriate potential annexation areas; and
WHEREAS, King County is initiating the update of the Soos Creek Community Plan which
Is within King County's jurisdiction but is partly within Kent's planning area;
NOW, THEREFORE, KING COUNTY AND KENT AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
I. INTRODUCTION
This Soos Creek Community Planning Area Agreement is envisioned as the first
In a series of cooperative planning agreements between King County and Kent.
Subsequent agreements Identifying Kent's Municipal Service Area and Potential
Annexation Area will be developed as an outcome of the county's and city's
cooperation in updating the Soos Creek Community Plan. These subsequent
agreements would be intended to implement the updated Soos Creek Community
Plan, once adopted.
11. PURPOSES
The purposes of this agreement are to:
A. Establish a cooperative relationship through which King County and Kent
can develop and maintain compatible land use policies, zoning and develop-
ment standards within the Soos Creek planning area; and
B. Provide a means by which King County and Kent will consider each other's
plans, regulations and policies in land use development, capital improvement
C:IAKNT 1 8/25/88
project planning and natural resource protection within the Soos Creek
Community Planning Area; and
C. Create a workable system for interjurisdictional communication and coor-
dination between the county and city throughout the processes of updating,
adopting and, subsequently, implementing the Soos Creek Community Plan;
- and
D. Minimize inconsistencies between the Soos Creek Community Plan, the King
County Comprehensive Plan and Kent's Comprehensive Plan; and
E. Increase the efficiency and reduce the costs of planning for the area by
preventing duplication of efforts by the Iwo jurisdictions; and
F. Promote a more predictable and certain process and produce more
understandable and long-lasting policies for residents, property owners, deve-
lopers and other agencies and jurisdictions; and
G. Increase the visibility of King County's and Kent's planning efforts, making
their decision-making more understandable to the public; and
H. Define the means by which King County will obtain Kent's cooperation in
achieving regional goals for: urban residential densities: the provision of a
° full range of housing opportunities; the protection of natural resources, rural
areas, open space and the environment; economic development; and historic
preservation; and
I. Provide the means for determining Kent's Municipal Service and Potential
Annexation Areas.
III. DEFINITIONS
A. GEOGRAPHIC AREAS:
1. PLANNING AREA is that portion of the Soos Creek Community Planning
Area outside Kent's city limits for which the city prepares or assists
the county in preparing land use policies as shown on the map
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2. IMPACT AREA is the area outside Kent's city limits within which new
development is likely to have an impact on the city.
3. MUNICIPAL SERVICE AREA is the area outside Kent's city limits which
is the composite of the city's sewer, water and fire protection
franchise areas, together with any areas for which the city has a
--• contractual obligation to serve. Municipal Service Area Includes those
areas the city currently serves as well as those areas for which there
are plans approved by King County for future service.
4. POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA is an area outside Kent's city limits
which the county and the city agree is logical to consider for annexa-
tion by the city. Such areas are determined by joint effort of the
C:IAKNT 2
8/25/88
• i
I
county's and city's elected officials and staffs. This effort also involves
a public hearing process to solicit the input of the general public, area
residents, property owners and affected local governments.
B. CODE or PLAN DEVELOPMENT is the preparation or major amendment of
any of these land use regulations or planning documents:
1. LAND USE REGULATIONS: Ordinances which adopt or make major
amendments to regulations controlling the development of land.
2. LAND USE PLANS: Planning documents which express goals, policies
and plans for land use, such as comprehensive or community plans.
3. FUNCTIONAL AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS: Plans for the pro-
vision of public facilities and services, such as water, sewer, transpor-
tation and open space plans.
C. PLAN PARTICIPATION is the involvement of the county or city in developing
the other's plans.
D. AGENCY NOTICE Is written notification mailed through regular post or hand
delivered from the county to city, or vice versa, which is given in a manner
consistent with ensuring timely exchange of information In considering each
other's plans and policies.
E. REVIEW AND COMMENT OPPORTUNITY is the provision of pertinent
materials for a reasonable amount of time during which a reviewing juris-
diction can review materials and prepare responses. The specific mechanics
and timeframe shall be determined administratively by the county and city
and shall provide for interagency discussion prior to the formalized proce-
dures and timeframes of local SEPA ordinances.
F. STAFF CONSULTATION is a commitment to give the other jurisdiction an
opportunity to ask questions and make comments at the staff level. The
reviewing jurisdiction has the opportunity to request a meeting to get
information and explanation and to indicate the relative compatibility of the
action or plan being considered with its own plans and policies. This
opportunity includes a commitment by the initiating jurisdiction to include in
its pertinent staff report the reviewing jurisdiction's timely submitted written
comments.
IV. KING COUNTY'S RESPONSIBILITIES
A. Development Permit Review
STATEMENT OF INTENT: THE INTENT OF THIS SECTION OF THE
AGREEMENT IS TO INVOLVE KENT IN THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REVIEW IN ORDER TO DECREASE THE NUMBER OF
DISPUTES ABOUT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS BETWEEN KING COUNTY
AND KENT.
1. In reviewing the development permits listed in this section in the
PLANNING AREA shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A, the
C:IAKNT 3 8/25/88
King County Building and Land Development Division shall provide Kent
with AGENCY NOTICE, REVIEW AND COMMENT OPPORTUNITY, and the
opportunity for STAFF CONSULTATION before making a threshold
determination. BALD shall invite Kent's staff to participate in a tech-
nical screening meeting which will initially review the permit to deter-
mine if additional information is required before the threshold
,..• determination can be made.
2. All development permits which are not categorically exempt from
threshold determinations and EIS requirements under King County's
' environmental procedures are subject to this agreement, including but
not limited to:
a. Zoning reclassifications
b. Preliminary subdivisions, including short plats
C. Preliminary planned unit developments
d. Unclassified use and conditional use permits
e. Shoreline substantial development permits
f. Approval of any of the following:
I. more than 20 dwelling units
ii. agricultural buildings of 30,000 square feet or more
Ill. school, office, commercial, industrial, recreational, service and
storage buildings of 12.000 square feet or more
iv. parking lots for more than 40 automobiles
V. filling, grading or excavating of 500 cubic, yards or more.
B. Plan Development
STATEMENT OF INTENT: THE INTENT OF THIS SECTION OF THE
AGREEMENT IS TO INVOLVE KENT IN KING COUNTY'S UPDATE OF THE
SOOS CREEK COMMUNITY PLAN IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE CITY'S
CONCURRENCE WITH THE UPDATED PLAN'S POLICIES AND ZONING AND
TO OBTAIN THE CITY'S COMMITMENT TO HELPING KING COUNTY ACHIEVE
_.. REGIONAL POLICY GOALS IN THAT PART OF THE SOOS CREEK PLANNING
AREA WHICH IS KENT'S PLANNING AREA.
1. When it undertakes Plan Development in the planning area shown on
the map attached hereto as Exhibit A, the King County Planning and
Community Development Division shall provide Kent with AGENCY
NOTICE, REVIEW AND COMMENT OPPORTUNITY, and opportunities for
STAFF CONSULTATION and PLAN PARTICIPATION. During the Soos
Creek Community Plan's development the King County Planning and
Community Development Division shall:
a. provide an opportunity for Kent's staff to serve on the Technical
Resource and Advisory Committee with other agencies and juris-
dictions which have interests in the Soos Creek planning area;
b. recommend candidates who have been nominated by Kent for the
Citizen Advisory Committee to be appointed by the King County
Council;
- C. work with Kent staff to propose the issues the update will
address;
d. consider comments from Kent's staff on data, land use alter-
C:IAKNT 4 8/25/88
natives, the draft Environmental Impact Statement and capital
improvement project recommendations;
e. provide Kent the opportunity to discuss disputed issues in a good
faith attempt to resolve differences before the draft plan is
completed and submitted to the Executive;
f. work with Kent to define the boundaries of the city's potential
annexation area and the criteria by which to determine when
annexation of any part of that area is appropriate;
g. encourage Kent to adopt the policies and zoning of the updated
Soos Creek Community Plan for that part of the city's planning
area which is in the Soos Creek planning area;
h. work with Kent and all other suburban cities to compare county
and city development standards in order to determine whether or
not it is possible to develop one set of urban development stan-
dards that could be ultimately applied in the cities and the urban
areas of unincorporated King County.
2. King County shall provide Kent the following opportunities to participate
in the review of the Executive Proposed Soos Creek Community Plan:
a. Kent may comment on the Executive Proposed Plan at the King
County Council's first public hearing to introduce that plan to the
general public. Kent will receive notice of that hearing at least
fifteen days before it is held.
b. Kent may comment on proposed policies and area zoning at the
County Council Panel meetings during which the proposed plan is
reviewed. King County Council staff and/or Planning and -.
Community Development Division staff will Inform Kent staff of
the time, place and the agenda before each meeting.
C. Kent may comment on the Council Panel proposed Soos Creek
Community Plan and Area Zoning when the County Council holds
its final public hearing on the plan.
3. King County shall provide AGENCY NOTICE to the city when it initiates
planning for capital improvement projects, such as roads and surface
water management facilities, which are not categorically exempt from
threshold determinations and EIS requirements under King County's
environmental procedures. King County shall also provide Kent oppor-
tunities for STAFF CONSULTATION and REVIEW AND COMMENT.
C. Code Development
1. When it undertakes CODE DEVELOPMENT of the codes listed in this
section King County shall provide Kent with AGENCY NOTICE and
REVIEW AND COMMENT OPPORTUNITY.
2, The codes subject to this agreement include:
a. zoning code
b. subdivision and short plats
C. environmental regulations
d. shoreline regulations
e. development standards
C:IAKNT 5 8/25/88
D. Municipal Service and Potential Annexation Areas
1. King County shall work with Kent to define the city's POTENTIAL
ANNEXATION and MUNICIPAL SERVICE AREAS and to adopt interlocai
agreements between them which define how regional goals will be
jointly achieved within those areas.
2. King County shall support those annexations proposed by Kent that
comply with the adopted interlocai agreement for POTENTIAL
ANNEXATION AREAS.
✓ 3. King County will not support annexations proposed by Kent that would
prevent the achievement of regional goals for urban residential den-
sities, the provision of a full range o1 housing opportunities, the pro-
tection of natural resources, rural areas, open space and the
environment, transportation• economic development and historic pre-
servation.
V. KENT'S RESPONSIBILITIES
A. Development Permit Review
STATEMENT OF INTENT: THE INTENT OF THIS SECTION OF THE
AGREEMENT IS TO INVOLVE KING COUNTY IN KENT'S REVIEW OF
DEVELOPMENT PERMITS IN ORDER TO DECREASE THE NUMBER OF
DISPUTES ABOUT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS BETWEEN KING COUNTY
AND KENT.
1. When it undertakes review of the development permits listed in this
section within the city; Kent shall provide the King County Planning
and Community Development Division with AGENCY NOTICE, REVIEW
AND COMMENT OPPORTUNITY, and the opportunity for STAFF
CONSULTATION.
2. All permits which are not categorically exempt from threshold deter-
minations and EIS requirements under Kent's environmental procedures
are subject to this agreement, including but not limited to:
a. Zoning reclassifications
b. Preliminary subdivisions, including short plats
C. Preliminary planned unit developments
d. Unclassified use and conditional use permits
e. Shoreline substantial development permits
I. Approval of any of the following:
1. more than 20 dwelling units
ii. agricultural buildings of 30,000 square feet or more
iii. school• office, commercial• industrial, recreational, service and
storage buildings of 12,000 square feet or more
IV. parking lots for more than 40 automobiles
V. filling, grading or excavating of 500 cubic yards or more.
B. Plan Development
C:IAKNT 6 8/25/88
STATEMENT OF INTENT: THE INTENT OF THIS SECTION OF THE
AGREEMENT IS TO ENSURE THAT COOPERATIVE LAND USE PLANNING
BETWEEN KENT AND KING COUNTY WILL RESULT IN COMPATIBLE PLANS
AND AREA ZONING AND THE ACHIEVEMENT OF REGIONAL POLICY GOALS.
1. When it undertakes Plan Development, Kent shall provide the King
County Planning and Community Development Division with AGENCY
NOTICE, REVIEW AND COMMENT OPPORTUNITY, and opportunities for
STAFF CONSULTATION and PLAN PARTICIPATION.
a. Kent agrees to use its plans, policies, zoning and other regulatory
controls to encourage citywide achievement of regional goals for:
urban residential densities; the provision of a full range of
housing opportunities, including affordable housing; the protection
of natural resources, rural areas, open space and the environ-
ment; transportation; economic development; and historic preser-
vation.
2. During the Soos Creek Community Plan's development, Kent shall:
a. advise King County about its plans, policies, zoning and other
regulatory controls so that the Soos Creek Community Plan and
Kent's plans are as compatible as possible;
b. provide staff to serve on the county's Technical Resource and
Advisory Committee for the update of the Soos Creek Community
Plan. Kent's staff is responsible for providing county staff with
information about the city's goals, plans and policies and for
advising county staff about the compatibility of proposed updated
policies with Kent's plans:
c, provide the county data on existing conditions and growth and
development trends within the city upon which the land use
alternatives shall be partly based;
d. work with King County to define the boundaries of the city's
potential annexation area and criteria by which to determine
when annexation of any part of that area is appropriate;
e. consider adopting the policies and zoning of the updated Soos
Creek Community Plan for that part of Kent's planning area which
is in the Soos Creek planning area;
f. work with King County•and all other suburban cities to compare
county and city development standards in order to determine
whether or not it is possible to develop one set of urban deve-
lopment standards that could be ultimately applied in the cities
and the urban areas of unincorporated King County.
3. Kent shall provide AGENCY NOTICE to the county when it initiates
annual planning for capital improvement projects such as roads and
surface water management facilities. Kent shall also provide King
County opportunities for STAFF CONSULTATION and REVIEW AND
COMMENT.
C. Code Development
C:IAKNT 7 8/25/88
When it undertakes CODE DEVELOPMENT of the codes listed in this
section Kent shall provide the County with AGENCY NOTICE and
REVIEW AND COMMENT OPPORTUNITY.
2. The codes subject to this agreement include:
_ a. zoning code
b. subdivision and short plats
C. environmental regulations
d. shoreline regulations
e. development standards
D. Municipal Service and Potential Annexation Areas
1. Kent shall work with King County to define the city's POTENTIAL
ANNEXATION and MUNICIPAL SERVICE AREAS and to adopt inlerlocal
-• agreements between them which define how regional goals will be
jointly achieved within those areas.
2. Kent agrees that It shall negotiate with King County to adopt a
POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA interlocat agreement as part of the
process of reviewing any major annexation proposal.
3. Kent agrees that it shall only Include within it's POTENTIAL
ANNEXATION AREA lands which conform to the following criteria:
a. The area is designated by King County Comprehensive Plan Map
as urban. Transitional areas can be included it redesignated to
urban through the adopted Soos Creek Community Plan.
b. Agricultural districts, as designated on the Comprehensive Plan
Map, shall not be included, unless continued management of the
resource would be maintained or enhanced, through a legally
binding agreement with Kent.
C. Rural Land as designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map shalt
not be included.
d. Areas which contain environmentally sensitive or other features
which are addressed by King County protective policies and/or
regulations may be included if Kent's environmental polices
and/or regulations would provide the same or more protection or
if Kent agrees to adopt the more restrictive policies and/or regu-
lations of the county for the areas. Environmentally sensitive or
other features include but are not limited to: wetlands, steep
slopes, floodways, landslide areas, coal mine hazard areas, erosion
hazards, shorelines, designated open space, and historic sites on
the county's register.
~ V. ADMINISTRATION OF THIS AGREEMENT
The responsibility for administering this agreement shall rest jointly with the King
County Executive and the Mayor of the City of Kent through their respective
designees. Within ten (10) days of the signing of this agreement, the designees
shall inform each other of the name and address to be used in correspondence
C:IAKNT 8 8/25/88
regarding this agreement. King County and Kent shall each be responsible for
their own costs Incurred pursuant to this agreement unless some other contrac-
tual arrangements are made.
VII. DURATION, TERMINATION AND AMENDMENT
This agreement shall become effective on the date of Its mutual adoption by the
parties and shall remain in effect until terminated in writing after thirty (30) days
notice pursuant to legislative action of either party. This agreement may be
amended only by express written agreement of both parties pursuant to legisla-
tive action by each.
KING COUNTY CITY OF KENT
Tim Hill Dan Kelleher
King County Executive Mayor
C:IAKNT 9 8/25/88
Kent City Council Meeting
Date_ October 4, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: RIVERBEND GOLF COURSE REZONE - ORDINANCE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Ordinance No . rezoning a
certain portion of the Riverbend Golf Course property from RA,
Residential Agricultural to GC, General Commercial .
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Council, 9/20/88
(Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3G
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, relating to land use and zoning,
amending the zoning of a portion of the
,. Riverbend Golf Course generally located on
Russell Road approximately 350 feet north of
Meeker Street from RA, Residential
Agricultural, to GC, General Commercial.
WHEREAS, an application for rezone of a portion of the
Riverbend Golf Course was filed on June 23, 1988 for the property
- ligenerally described above and particularly described in the
attached Exhibit A, incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the applicant requested that the property be
rezoned from RA, Residential Agricultural, to GC, General
Commercial; and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing to
consider the rezone of the property on August 17, 1988; and
WHEREAS, following the public hearings and consideration
of all reports and testimony submitted into the record on the
proposed rezone and the staff recommendation, the Hearing Examiner
for the City of Kent rendered her Findings, Conclusions, and
,.. Recommendations for conditional approval on August 31, 1988, in
City of Kent Parks Department Riverbend Golf Course: Findings and
Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent; and
WHEREAS, on September 20, 1988, a hearing was held before
the City Council at 7 o'clock p.m. in the City Hall of the City of
Kent, upon proper notice given; and
WHEREAS, the condition of the recommendation that the
City be deeded the necessary property to provide certain
right-of-way has been met in that it is City-owned property; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT WASHINGTON DOES 0 S
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Findings, Conclusions, and Conditional
Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner as set forth in City of
Kent Parks Department Riverbend Golf Course: Findings and
Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent, which
is on file with the Kent City Clerk, are hereby adopted and the
Findings, Conclusions, and Conditional Recommendations are
concurred with for this site.
Section 2. Zoning for this site, generally located on
Russell Road approximately 350 feet north of Meeker Street, and
legally described in attached Exhibit A, incorporated by this
reference herein, is hereby changed from RA, Residential
Agricultural, to GC, General Commercial .
Section 3. The rezone is subject to the condition that
the City be deeded the necessary property to provide a half-street
right-of-way of 30 feet as measured from the existing right-of-way
center line of Russell Road including a 35 feet right-of-way
radius at the intersection of Meeker Street.
i
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage,
approval and publication as provided by law.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ISANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY
- 2 -
i
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 4, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
- 1. SUBJECT: ARTWORK SELECTION FOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS
{
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval selection of artist Dana Boussard
for the Kent City Council Chambers Fibre Art Commission. Project
jury members included: Christie Houser, Judy Woods, Kent City
Council ; Sue Jones , Grace Hiranaka, Merrily Manthey, Kent Arts
Commission; arts professionals Fred Bassetti (architect Kent City
Hall) , Larry Metcalfe (artist/instructor Seattle Pacific
University) and City Administrator Brent McFall .
3 . EXHIBITS: None
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Art Selection Jury, 8/26/88 and Kent Arts
Commission 9/27/88
(Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc . )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $5,000 _
SOURCE OF FUNDS: City Art Fund (Ordinance
2552 )
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves , Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No . 3H
I n
� t Kent City Council Meeting
�? Date October 4, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: LID 297 - MEEKER STREET IMPROVEMENT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept as complete the contract with
Scarsella Brothers for construction of LID 297 - Meeker St.
Improvements and release of retainage after receipt of the
releases from the State.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from the Director of Public Works
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 31
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
September 29, 1988
TO: MAYOR KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON WICKSTROM
RE: L.I.D. 297 - MEEKER STREET IMPROVEMENTS
This project constructed street improvements on Meeker Street from
West Valley Highway to Russell Road. The contract was awarded to
Scarsella Brothers on March 4, 1985 for the bid amount of
$1, 557, 310. 66 .
While construction has been completed for some time, acceptance of
the project was delayed until the City was able to settle a claim
with the contractor. The final construction costs were
$1, 680, 835. 87 with total project costs of $2, 303,714 . 92 . It is
,... recommended the project be accepted as complete -and retainage
released after receipt of the releases from the State.
Y Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 4. 1988
Category Consent Calendar.
1. SUBJECT: GUIBERSON RESERVOIR CONTROL MODIFICATIONS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept as complete the contract with Omega
Contractors for the Guiberson Reservoir Control Modification
Project and release of retainage after receipt of the releases
from the State .
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from the Director of Public Works
4. RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc . )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No . 3J
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
September 29, 1988
TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: Guiberson Reservoir Control Modifications
This project included the construction of a valve and meter
building with related appurtenances for the Guiberson Reservoir.
The project was awarded to Omega Contractors for the bid amount of
$167 , 849 in November of 1986.
Construction was actually complete some time ago; however, due to
changes in personnel and project management, final acceptance was
not requested. Final construction costs are $202 , 615. 07 . It is
recommended the contract with Omega Contractors be accepted as
complete and retainage released after receipt of releases from the
State.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 4, 1988
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. ZCA-88-6, HEARING EXAMINER
CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: On July 25. 1988 , the Planning Commission
recommended to the City Council that KCC Section 15 . 09 .030E be
amended to allow the Hearing Examiner discretion in approving,
denying or conditioning exceptions to development standards
including height of unique structures , signs and setbacks, when a
.- conditional use permit is required . On September 6, 1988 , the
City Council referred the recommendation to the Planning
Committee, who on September 20, 1988 voted unanimously to
recommend approval of this amendment .
3 . EXHIBITS: Planning Commission minutes , staff memo, City
Council minutes (8/16/88) and (9/6/88) , Planning Committee minutes
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission 7/25/88 Planning
Committee 9/20/88
(Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember_414A+�/ moves, Councilmember ZA/V--seconds
to approve zo(4missitn
g cod amendment No. ZCA-88-6 as recommended by
the Planning and Planning Committee and to direct the
City Attorney prepare the amending ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No . 4A
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
September 29, 1988
MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members
FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director
SUBJECT: HEARING EXAMINER DISCRETION REGARDING HEIGHT, SIGNS,
ETC. WHEN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED
On July 25, 1988 the Planning Commission recommended to the City
Council that the Hearing Examiner be authorized to consider certain
exceptions to development standards under the conditional use
permit section of the zoning code. The Council reviewed the
Commission' s recommendation on August 16, 1988 and referred it to
a Council workshop which was held on August 30, 1988. The matter
was next before the Council on September 61 1988 and at that
meeting was referred to the Council 's Planning Committee.
The Planning Committee met on September 20, 1988 and voted
unanimously to recommend to the Council to uphold the Planning
Commission' s recommendation. The minutes from the Committee
meeting are attached.
JPH:ca
Attachment
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1988
each jurisdiction' s expectation of the others and to better coordinate
planning and development plan review among the' four entities. There ar four
areas to which the interlocal agreement speaks. 1) The county an ity of
Kent agree to provide each other the opportunity to review and omment on
plans for development at a threshold level within the ' -. respective
jurisdictions. 2) The agreement spells out the county' s nd the City of
Kent' s roles in the planning efforts within each other' s, ' risdiction. 3)
Each jurisdiction will consider the comments from the of er jurisdiction on
code changes affecting the Soos Creek area. 4) Tbo county and City of
Kent agree to work together on municipal service. and potential annexation
area agreements. There is within the agreement a uration, Termination and
Amendment section which provides a means for eZ jurisdiction to withdraw
from the agreement upon providing 30 days Mice pursuant to legislative
action by either party. The timing of the reement is crucial because the
county is in the process of doing a Soos eek update.
Jim Hansen added that Auburn and R ton have passed virtually the same
language. The agreement is in Cou Council Committee and is expected to
pass. The interlocal agreement rantees a successful planning effort in
the Soos Creek area, will lead ward the opportunity for the City of Kent
to work better with the county n the future, and provides an opportunity to
set the stage for annexation greements for Soos Creek and beyond.
Jim Harris stated that t re is wording in the agreement about the process
of Soos Creek planning. Since that planning effort is underway, Mr. Harris
would like to bring is issue before the City Council at the earliest
possible time. Coun lman Dowell noted the county has already informed the
City of Kent on on occasion that it cannot deal with the City because there
is no interlocal greement; Jim Harris stated that is the issue with the
City' s challeng of the county' s Hearing Examiner process on a couple of
subdivisions. Mr. Harris stated this interlocal agreement might apply
partly in th circumstance although that particular issue relates more to
/improved
al reements regarding traffic mitigation. Mr. Harris replied to
a Dowell that because the City has an ordinance relating to
of water and sewer service to areas outside the City boundary, this
would not be used to require provision of service to areas where
does not desire to provide service.
ittee unanimously approved forwarding the interlocal agreement to the
4th meeting of the City Council . Jim Hansen added that the county
roved immensely on letting the City of Kent know about planning
es occurring within the county.
HEARING EXAMINER APPROVAL OF EXCEPTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS UNDER THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SECTION OF THE KENT ZONING CODE (ZCA-88 5)
Jim Harris stated this was an added item to the agenda. Mr. Harris clarified
for Councilman Dowell that when an applicant has a project which involves
2
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1988
\ both a variance and a conditional use permit, this proposal allows the
1 Hearing Examiner to consider both issues. Councilman Dowell stated the
proposal expedites consideration of a development when both a variance and
conditional use permit are required. When just a variance is required, the
issue would still go before the Board of Adjustment. The committee
unanimously approved forwarding the Planning Commission recommendation to the
City Council at their meeting of October 4 .
,.,
REGULATORY REVIEW - PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITIES #ZCA-88-1
Ch ' rwoman Woods had talked with Councilmen Johnson and Dowell to discuss
allo 'ng public storage facilities in the CC, Community Commercial, zoning
distri and mitigating the impact of unsightly facilities. Jim Harris
stated t t if the Planning Committee recommends such facilities, staff would
like to ha e applied standards for those facilities.
Stephen Clif n distributed a list of standards which had been developed
after discussi between staff and the applicant at the Planning Commission' s
direction. Desi was a major concern. Mr. Clifton passed around photos of
the Totem Lake min' -storage facility.
Mr. Clifton clarified or Councilman Dowell that if approved, public storage
facilities would be al wed in a CC, Community Commercial, zoning district
only as a conditional u e; further, there would be additional standards
applicable to public stora \remnaining
ities. Discussion occurred on the proposed
standards. Councilman Dowestioned the proposed language under "Use"
to determine if it accompwhat is intended, i.e. , to remove public
storage from street frontMr. Harris suggested rewording to allow
access to public storage f from the primary street frontage but to
have commercial along thet frontage and public storage in back.
Councilman Dowell is conth a proliferation of public storage
facilities might occur a prim y street frontage such as Benson
Highway. Mr. Curran agrhat st ct standards to prevent such an
occurrence would be appro . Mr. rran suggested wording to limit
frontage to access with thining fron e for commercial/office use.
Mr. Curran suggested allowing applicants to determine their needs for
security, e.g. , fencing, but to require appropr' to screening. Mr. Harris
agreed the fencing must be compatible with CC orgy,potential CC uses. Mr.
Clifton described the landscaping requirements for f ont, side and rear yards
and indicated extensive screening with a chain link\als
uld not be as
much of an impact as viewing a solid wood fence with material.
It was agreed that this issue would be brought back toning Committee
at their meeting of October 4 to finalize language awould be taken
to the City Council meeting that same night. The recommendat n would be to
approve the appeal and direct the City Attorney to prepare the required
ordinance, including the proposed standards.
3
September 6 , 1988
SHORELINE PERMIT It was determined for Council that the access road was
- APPEAL 24 feet wide, plus sidewalks . Mary Williams of 25331 --
68th Avenue South, stated that if preserving the shore-
line were the issue, the development would not be
allowed at all. She pointed out that a good road should _
e required and favored the Hearing Examiner ' s con-
d tion. Leona Orr, 24909 114th Avenue S,..E. , stated
tha there seemed to be some confusion as to which
areas the Hearing Examiner had jurisdi/tion over. She
asked to have some explanation made ;zr the public.
She noted, further that she did not flavor such a develop-
ment so c Nse to the river.
There were d� further comments "d the hearing was
closed by moti'b�i. JOHNSON MOV�rto modify the findings
of the Hearing E�Caminer to di�oagrea and to delete Con-
dition No. 2 . Bi�eman secon ed. Johnson stated that
it was his opinionA,�that the)Hearing Examiner had exceeded
her authority in att'14,chin 4this condition. He noted
that no such condition wa mentioned during the SEPA
process, even though th 1proposed density was higher
at that time. He stat hat the issue here was grant-
ing of the shoreline ylermA,, Dowell expressed concern
over the 24 ft. roa ut ag ed with Johnson and Bite-
man. WHITE THEN MOVED to tab for two weeks , Woods
seconded and the otion carried'\ithhJohnson and Bite-
man dissenting. �
i
ZONING CODE Gymnastics Schgols in M-1 and M-2 Zoil-ing Districts (ZCA-88-T")
AMENDMENTS On August 22 , athe Planning Commission commended
approval of Zoning Code amendment to a`lalow as an out-
right perm" ted use gymnastic schools or similar uses
in both t M-1 ( Industrial Park District ) and M-2
(Limited ndustrial District) . Also recommended was
the inc sion of health and fitness clubs and facilities
in the -2 district as an outright permitted use.
WOODS OVED to approve Zoning Code Amendment No. ZCA-88-7
as r commended by the Planning Committee and to direct
the ity Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance.
White seconded and the motion carried.
WiNnF.wwwcYAY:iww 1bw '..f.M Mtn l'M r...
Hearing Examiner Approval of Exceptions to Devero .mendt "•
Standards Under the Conditional Use Permit Section of
the Zoning Code No. ZCA-88-5. On July 25, 1988 the
Planning Commission recommended to the City Council
that Kent City Code Section 15 . 09. 030E be amended to
give the Hearing Examiner discretion in approving,
denying or conditioning exceptions to development
standards including height of unique structures , signs
and setbacks when a conditional use permit is required.
At the August 30 workshop, the City Council recommended
that this proposed amendment be referred to the Planning
Committee.
- 7
i
J
1
September 6 , 1988
to refer Zoning ZONING CODE � WHITE MOVED 9 Code Amendment No. ZCA-88-5
AMENDMENTS to the Planning Committee for consideration. Johnson
seconded. Motion carried.
5...�.ri MY�I:�..if Yl.Y�r+::'H\'{T•.'J'L G.41 L:{�'�u.r..N.II.r-1�.\.4.r 1.1 a:l:'�w Lr4:s'I K1:.'+Y'+.rn+V 1=1r\.ri..•1.l+.INY._lb,.r04[Yrl rt l'.n r,r.{ .:rr..r .•
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3U )
_... Hazardous Waste Treatment and Storage Facilities_._
AD6 T ION of Ordinance 2801 which amends the City of
Yen Zoning Code as required by recent State legis-
lati vn to designate land use zones in which hazardous
waste treatment and storage facilities will be allowed
as perm:,itted uses . The proposed amendments will- add
new definitions , siting criteria, performance,-standards
and perm`Itted uses to the commercial , industrial and
agricultural zones . The Planning Commission has recom-
mended thdtzoning changes after holding ,aI public hear-
ing on May `�23 , 1988. Council adopted the recommendation
by Planning and directed preparation of
this ordinance at the June 7 , 1988 Council meeting.
By letter, dated August 17 , 1988, Department of Ecology
conditionally approved the propostff Zoning Code amend-
ments , subject to adoption by tht3 Kent City Council
and submittal of�,,�he adopted ordinance to the Depart-
ment for final apb�oval. F
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITPM 3V) `'
Planned Unit Development. ADOPTION of Ordinance 2802
which establishes Kenb C-ity Code Section 15 . 04 . 080
Planned Unit Development and amends Kent City Code
Chapter 2 . 54 relatingj�d,,Hearing Examiner decisions
regarding Planned Unirt Deyelopments. In mid-1987 the
Planning Comnission•, recommpnded to the Council that a
new PUD ordinance ;lse adopt6t3. The Council referred
this recommendation to the Ia anning Committee. In
April 1988 the Planning Commi'�.ttee formed a citizen
committee to review the Plannifip Commission ' s draft
ordinance . On' July 19 , 1988, A< e Council ' s Planning
Committee un4timously recommended to the full Council
that the PU�' Citizens Advisory Committee ' s proposed
draft of tb'e PUD ordinance be ado�ted. The Council
accepted true decision of the Planft ng Committee and
Citizens 7�dvisory Committee ' s recommendation on
August A , 1988.
�;
ZONING - EAST Request for Review of Zoning. Willid(n Carey of
HILL ANNEXATION 11236 S .E. 244th submitted a petition`,,containing 165
signatures requesting that the City review the Council
action of March 1 , 1988 in establishing. the zoning
f,or the East Hill Well Annexation, Area`. "C" . He
pointed out that the signators represented 80% of
__.. ithe property located in Area "C" and that the Council
had erroneously assumed that most of the residents
8 -
August 1 , 1988
SURPLUS ROPERTY (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3I )
Surplus Vehicles. AUTHORIZATION to Clare as
surplus vehicles described in the F eet Manager ' s
memo and to offer same for sale a auction.
(Vehicles 5, 20, 27 , 31 , 34 , 48, 63 , 88, 69 , 299,
309, 313 , 362 and 387 . )
SHORELINE PERMIT ( CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3C)
APPEAL iad Development Appeal ( MA-88-4) . SETTING a
pu is hearing date foFami'ner ' s
tember 6_,_1_9$8 on an
appe of the Hearing conditions of
approv for the Signe Pointe Shoreline Sub-
stantial evelopment Permit ( SMA-88-4 ) . This appeal
was filed Fred imm of Triad Development, for
the proposed 84- nit multifamily complex at 64th
Avenue South, th of Meeker.
ZONING CODE (CONSENT CALE DAR I M 3H)
Procedures r Housin Element Work Program. ADOP-
TION of Or finance 2796 ich designates procedures
for amend ents to the com ehensive plan, zoning
map and oning text, if any hould result from the
work pr gram; grants to the P anning Commission the
author, ty to consider and make ecommendations on
/amendments
map amendments , in lieu o the Hearing Exam-
specifies that amendments to e Comprehen-
lan may be made simultaneous wi , or prior
ndments to the Zoning Code; and p vides for
notice procedures for public hearin on
proposed as a result of this prog m.
ork program was authorized by the Counci on
, 1988 by Resolution 1172 .
Zoning Code Amendment. On July 25, 1988 the Plan-
ning Commission recommended to the City Council
that the Kent City Code Section 15. 09 . 030E be
amended to give the Hearing Examiner discretion
in approving , denying or conditioning exceptions
to development standards including height of unique
structures , signs and setbacks when a conditional
use permit is required.
Fred Satterstrom of the Planning Department noted
that the amendment would allow the Hearing Examiner
to address unique opportunities and to consolidate
processes in order to expedite the process. The
Mayor noted that presently conditional use permit
appeals come to the Council and that this revision
would allow the Hearing Examiner to exercise the
2 -
August 16 , 1988
ZONING CODE type of discretion previously exercised by the
Council . Biteman noted that he would like an oppor-
tunity to discuss this change, which would appear
to pat all the power in one person' s hands . He
then MOVED that this issue be discussed at a work-
shop session. White seconded and the motion carried.
REGULATORY REVIEW Regulatory Review Request - Appeal. On July /S,
- APPEAL 1988 , the Planning Commission denied a regulatory
r*e,v
request by the Carolina Berg Estate to
al ow a public storage facility in a Commu ity
Com rcial zoning district. The applican is
appea in;
the decision of the Planning mmission.
Stephen lifton of the Planning Depar ent reviewed
the Planni g Commission action. Pet Curran,
attorney re esenting the Berg Esta e, stated that
they had file an appeal of the P1 nning Commission' s
decision on Ju 29 , 1988. Curra noted that Plan-
ning Director Ha is has recomme ded that this
appeal be referred to the Plan ng Committee, and
that he concurs. D WELL SO M ED. Houser seconded
- and the motion carrie .
PLANNED UNIT Proposed Planned Unit De o ment Ordinance. On
y DEVELOPMENT July 19 , 1988, the Counci Planning Committee
unanimously recommended a the recently formed
PUD Citizens Advisory C mmitt e ' s recommended
changes to the PUD ord Hance b adopted, as earlier
recommended to the C' y Council y the Planning
Commission.
Fred Satterstrom of the Planning Dep rtment thanked
the members of / he Committee for thei efforts . He
stated that the three major changes in the ordinance
are as follows :
... 1. Revie time has been shortened. A PUD applic tion can
be proved by the Hearing Examiner without m ving on
to the City Council except on appeal. Also, oth r land
u e processes, such as conditional use permits, ay be
onsolidated with the PUD review.
2. Housing mix. The requirement that each residential UD
consist of all types of housing has been dropped in
favor of a density bonus incentive that encourages a
�- mix of housing types.
3. Density bonuses are more refined. The process for
determining residential density bonuses is better
defined and the design objectives of PUD's are clearer
than in previous drafts.
I
- 3 -
6.
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 25, 1988
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert Badger, Chairman
Linda Martinez , Vice Chairwoman
Elmira Forner
Nancy Rudy
Carol Stoner
Raymond Ward
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:
Anne Biteman, excused
Greg Greenstreet, absent
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Senior Planner
Kathy McClung, Senior Planner
Greg McCormick, Planner
Stephen Clifton, Planner
Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 27 , 1988
Commissioner Martinez MOVED that the minutes of June 27 , 1988 be
approved as presented. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion.
Motion carried. Chairman Badger opened the public hearing.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO KCC 15. 09 . 030E--ZCA 88-6
Mr. Harris presented the proposal to amend the zoning code to
allow the Hearing Examiner to deal with exceptions to development
standards under the conditional use section of the zoning code.
At the present time if there are exceptions to development
standards, the person must first apply for a variance which is
heard by the Board of Adjustment. The state has set strict I�
criteria that must be met in order to grant a variance. An
appeal to this decision would be presented to Superior Court. It
is proposed that the Hearing Examiner be given discretion in
approving or denying conditional exceptions to development
standards, including height, unique structures, signage,
setbacks, etc. , when a conditional use permit is required. The
Hearing Examiner would be able to look at the project in its r
entirety. He used as an example a large development in which it
the Hearing Examiner could look at all aspects of the development
1
J
i�
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
July 25, 1988
at one time and with one staff presentation. This would speed up
the process for certain requests and would be helpful to the
applicant, the City of Kent and the Hearing Examiner. An appeal
to a Hearing Examiner decision would be presented to the City
Council.
Commissioner Stoner MOVED to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Martinez SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the Kent Zoning Code Section
15. 09 . 030E be amended to give the Hearing Examiner discretion in
approving or denying conditional exceptions to development
standards including height of unique structures, signage,
setbacks, etc. when 'a conditional use permit is required.
Commissioner Rudy SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
Commissioner Stoner felt that it would be more efficient to allow
the arguments to take place in one meeting so that there would
be a complete picture of the issue involved rather than have
two quasi-judicial bodies to review portions of the same
request. Motion carried unanimously.
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PLAN AMENDMENTS CONTINUED
Mr. Harris presented into the record exhibits which were
submitted into the record for the Planning Commission Workshop of
July 18 , 1988 : Exhibit 1, Pat Curran; Exhibit 2 , Joan Peterson;
Exhibit 31 ' Dee Moschel ; Exhibit 4 , Bill Stewart; Exhibit 5, staff
memorandum to the Planning Commission dated July 11, 1988 .
Commissioner Martinez MOVED and Commissioner Ward SECONDED a
motion to admit to the record the letters regarding the Central
Business District. Motion carried. An additional workshop has
been scheduled for August 15 at which time the Central Business
District discussion will be continued. A letter dated July 19 ,
1988 from Richard McCann, attorney for Howard Manufacturing,
Northwest Metal Products and Borden Chemical, requested time for
a presentation at this meeting.
Bill Stewart, representing the Local Government Committee of the
Chamber of Commerce and the Mayor' s Task Force, requested a
continuation of this hearing.
Chuck Howard agreed with Mr. Stewart and asked to speak at a
later time.
Lloyd D. Holman, 30877 West Lake Morton Drive SE, Kent, President
of the Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers, Local #22 ,
spoke regarding the employees' concern about their jobs. He
2
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING OF JUNE 27 , 1988
Commissioner Ward MOVED that the hearing be continued to a
workshop on July 18, 1988 to formulate a plan and presentation
for the continued public hearing at a later date. Commissioner
Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner
Forner suggested that the Commission expand on the concept of
revitalization and the connection between expanding or reducing
the CBD.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO KCC 15 . 09 . 030E
Mr. Harris suggested this issue be continued as the first item at
the next hearing. Commission Rudy MOVED that this item be
continued to the next meeting as the first item. Commissioner
Stoner SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
J
ADJOURNMENT JI
Commissioner Badger adjourned the meeting at 9 : 55 p.m. II
Respectfully submitted, 'E
J�
#JamP. Harris, Planning Director
J
j 9
r
a,
h
I✓,' � Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 4, 1988
Category Other Business
I
1. SUBJECT: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. ZCA-88-8, EXCEPTION TO
HEIGHT REGULATIONS KCC 15 . 08 . 190 - ORDINANCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: On September 26, 1988, the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the zoning code amendment to
except fire and/or police training towers from the height
limitations of the Kent Zoning Code.
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance, staff memo, Planning Commission minutes
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission 9/26/88
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to adopt Ordinance excepting fire and/or police training
towers from the height limitations of the Kent Zoning Code as
recommended.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4B
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, relating to zoning, amending Kent
City Code 15.08.190 to exempt fire/police
department training towers from zoning district
height restrictions.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTCN DOES
HEREPY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Kent City Code Section 15.08.190 is amended
as follows:
15.08.190. EXCEPTIONS TO HEIGHT REGULATIONS. The height
limitations for the various districts shall not apply to spires,
flag poles, belfries, cupolas, noncommercial antennas,
ventilators, chimneys, or other appurtenances usually required to
be placed above the roof level and not intended for human
occupancy. The height limitations shall not apply to barns and
silos provided that they are not located within fifty (50) feet of
any lot line. Elevated reservoirs, water tanks, fire and/cr
police training towers, and standpipes are exempt from height
restrictions.
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage,
approval and publication as provided by law.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
September 29, 1988
MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members
FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director
SUBJECT: PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE ZONING CODE TO PERMIT TRAINING
TOWERS TO BE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT REGULATIONS
On September 26, 1988 the Planning Commission held a public hearing
to consider a staff proposal to amend the Kent Zoning Code to
permit fire and police training towers to be an exception to the
height regulations in any zoning district. After review of the
staff proposal the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the
City Council that fire and/or police training towers be added to
KCC 15. 08. 190 Exceptions to Height Regulations. That section of
the Zoning Code would then read as follows, with the underlined
words being the proposed amendment:
15. 08 . 190 EXCEPTIONS TO HEIGHT REGULATIONS .
The height limitations for the various
districts shall not apply to spires, flag
poles, belfries, cupolas, noncommercial
antennas, ventilators, chimneys, or other
appurtenances usually required to be placed
above the roof level and not intended for
human occupancy. The height limitations shall
not apply to barns and silos provided that
they are not located within fifty (50) feet of
any lot line. Elevated reservoirs, water
tanks, fire and/or police training towers, and
standpipes are exempt from height
restrictions.
JPH: ca
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 26, 1988
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert Badger, Chairman
Linda Martinez, Vice Chairwoman
Anne Biteman
Elmira Forner
Albert Haylor
Carol Stoner
Gabriella Uhlar-Heffner
Raymond Ward
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER ABSENT:
Greg Greenstreet
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Kathy McClung, Senior Planner
Carol Proud, Planner
Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary
KENT CITY STAFF:
Norm Angelo, Chief, Kent Fire Department and Fire District 37
APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 22 , 1988
Commissioner Martinez MOVED that the minutes of the August 22 , 1988
Planning Commission meeting be approved as submitted. Commissioner
Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
HEIGHT REGULATIONS RELATING TO HEIGHT OF POLICE AND FIRE TRAINING
TOWERS (KCC 15. 08. 190) (#ZCA-88-8)
Mr. Harris presented the proposed amendment to KCC 15. 08 . 190 to
except police and fire training towers from height limitations.
He stated that training towers are necessary in order for police
and fire personnel to have exposure to emergency training in
buildings whose structures are similar to those structures
encountered in the city. Depending on the location of the training
facility, the training tower may or may not meet height
restrictions of the zoning district in which it is located. He
suggested the following amendment:
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
September 26, 1988
Zoning Code 15. 08 . 190 Exceptions to Height Regulation
The height limitations of the various districts shall not
apply to spires, flag poles, belfries, cupolas,
noncommercial antennas, ventilators, chimneys, or other
appurtenances usually required to be placed above the
roof level and not intended for human occupancy. The
height limitations shall not apply to barns and silos
provided that they are not located within fifty (50) feet
of any lot line. Elevated reservoirs, water tanks,
police and fire training towers and standpipes are exempt
from height restrictions.
Chief Angelo pointed out that the proposed tower will be located
on the south side of the nine-acre site at SE 248th and 116th
Avenue SE. The base of the tower will be approximately 55 feet by
70 feet. Much of the tower will be two stories high, but it will
be no more than four stories, with a maximum of 45 feet, when
completed. A fifth story might be added at a later date. The
tower will have pitched roofs, which will harmonize with the
architecture of the fire station.
The 25, 000 square foot administrative headquarters for the Kent
Fire Department and Police Training Station will be architecturally
compatible with the surrounding residential area. Behind this one-
story headquarters building will be a one-story shooting range
which will be enclosed. The tower will be erected behind these
structures. Chief Angelo has had numerous meetings with the
neighbors and a church representative. When asked about fumes, he
responded that the smoke will be white and nontoxic in nature.
There will be no flames or black smoke coming out of the building.
All the drainage will be funnelled inwardly and removed. There
will be no smoke or water marks on the outside of the tower.
Loudspeakers will be located at the back side of the station and
will be in use only during normal working hours. There will be no
scheduled outside drills which would create undue noise during
scheduled church services.
Commissioner Stoner MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Discussion followed.
Commissioner Haylor MOVED that Kent Zoning Code Section 15. 08 . 190
Exceptions to Height Regulations be changed to add police and fire
training towers to the sentence: Elevated reservoirs, water tanks,
police and fire training towers and standpipes are exempt from
height restrictions. Commissioner Stoner SECONDED the motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
2
i
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 4, 1988
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: APPEAL—REGULATOR REV;EJW - ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO.
ZCA-88-1
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: �, ,,i On August 16, 1988 the City Council
referred _ _ _ appeal from the Planning Commission' s
recommendation to deny public storage facilities in the CC
community commercial zoning district to the Planning Committee
On September 20, 1988, the Planning Committee voted unanimously
to recommend that the Council overturn the Planning Commission' s
recommendation and allow public storage facilities as a
conditional use in the community commercial zoning district with
accompanying design standards .
3 . EXHIBITS: staff memo, regulatory review request, Planning
Commission minutes, staff report, Planning Committee minutes,
City Council minutes of 8/16/88, letter of appeal
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee 9/20/88
(Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Councilmember ' #. moves, Councilmember seconds
to approve zoning code amendment No. ZCA-88-1 to/I allow public
storage facilities as conditional use permits it./ the CC zoning
district with specific design standards as finalized by the
Planning Committee on October 4, 1988 and to direct the City
Attorney to prepare the amending ordinance. .
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No . 4C
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
•- September 29 , 1988
MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council members
FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director
SUBJECT: MINI-WAREHOUSES IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONING
DISTRICT
An application was made in March, 1988 by Chris Leady for a
regulatory review hearing to permit mini-warehouses in the CC,
Community Commercial, zoning district. The Planning Commission
concluded its hearings on this matter on July 25, 1988 and denied
the application. The applicant' s representative, C. Peter Curran,
appealed the Commission's denial to the City Council .
On August 16, 1988 the Council referred the appeal to the Council ' s
Planning Committee who reviewed the case at its meetings held on
September 6 and 20, 1988. At the September 20 meeting the
Committee voted unanimously to recommend to the Council that mini-
warehouses be allowed as conditional use permits in the CC zoning
district . The Committee also requested that Planning staff propose
design standards that would apply to any mini-warehouse development
in the CC zoning district.
The Committee requested that these standards be brought before the
Committee on October 4 , 1988. These standards as reviewed and
approved by the Committee would become part of the approval of
mini-warehouses in the CC zoning district. A draft of the proposed
standards is included here:
PROPOSED MINI-WAREHOUSE STANDARDS
USE The first 150 feet of lot depth (measured from the
property line or R.O.W. inward from the street
frontage) shall be reserved for development pursuant
to existing Chapter 15. 04 . 100A - I requirements.
No storage units shall be allowed within this 150
ft. commercial depth.
- No storage units/structures shall be
located within the 150 foot commercial
area.
In no case shall the access area exceed 75 feet in
width.
LOT SIZE Minimum - 1 acre
Maximum - 4 acres
BUILDING One story in height
HEIGHT
SETBACKS Front Yard - 20 feet
Side Yard - 10 feet
Rear Yard - 10 feet
MAYOR KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
SEPTEMBER 29, 1988
LANDSCAPING Front Yard - 20 feet Type III (earth berms)
Side Yard - 10 feet Type I abutting commercial,
Type II abutting
residential uses or
districts.
Rear Yard - 10 feet Type I abutting commercial
uses or districts, Type II
abutting residential uses
or districts.
Note: For maintenance purposes, underground
irrigation systems shall be provided for all
landscaped areas.
SITE COVERAGE Underlying zoning district requirements.
FENCING No razor wire allowed on top of fences.
OUTDOOR No outdoor storage is permitted.
STORAGE
SIGNAGE Underlying zoning district requirements.
ON SITE
MANAGERS A resident manager shall be required on the site
and shall be responsible for maintaining the
operation of the facility in conformance with the
conditions of the approval . The Planning Department
shall establish requirements for parking and loading
areas sufficient to accommodate the needs of the
resident manager and the customers of the facility.
DRIVE AISLES Drive aisle width and parking requirements
a. 15 foot drive aisle and 10 foot parking aisle
b. Parking for manager' s quarters and visitor
parking.
BUILDING
LENGTHS The horizontal dimension of any structure facing
the perimeter of the site shall be offset at
intervals not to exceed 100 feet. The offset shall
be no less than 20 feet in the horizontal dimension,
with a minimum depth of 5 feet.
2
MAYOR KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
-- SEPTEMBER 29, 1988
MATERIALS
USED If abutting a residential use or zone, residential
design elements such as brick veneer, pitched roofs
with shingles, landscaping and fencing. No garish
building colors should be used when abutting a
residential use or zone.
-•- PROHIBITED
USES Restrict use to "dead storage" only. Specifically
prohibit the following:
a. Auctions, commercial, wholesale, or retail
sales, or garage sales.
b. The servicing, repair, or fabrication of motor
vehicles, boats, trailers, lawn mowers,
appliances or other similar equipment.
C. The operation of power tools, spray painting
equipment, table saws, lathes, compressors,
welding equipment, kilns or other similar
equipment.
d. The establishment of a transfer and storage
business.
e. Any use that is noxious or offensive because
of odor, dust, noise, fumes, or vibration.
f. Storage of hazardous or toxic materials and
chemicals, or explosive substances.
Note: Sources for the preliminary standards noted above include
the following:
Planning Advisory Service Report Number 396, STANDARDS
FOR SELF-SERVICE STORAGE FACILITIES; Teresa deGroh &
Rachel German.
Planning Advisory Service Report Number 324 , MINI-
WAREHOUSES ; William Toner.
JPH:ca
3
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1988
both a variance and a conditional use pe , this proposal allows the
Hearing Examiner to consider both iss Councilman Dowell stated the
proposal expedites consideration o development when both a variance and
conditional use permit are re ed. When just a variance is required, ,the
issue would still go re the Board of Adjustment. The committee
unanimously approvegoowrwarding the Planning Commission recommendation to the
City Council at tlfoeolr meeting of October 4 .
Fallowing
GULATORY REVIEW - PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITIES #ZCA-88-1
airwoman Woods had talked with Councilmen Johnson and Dowell to discuss
public storage facilities in the CC, Community Commercial , zoning
strict and mitigating the impact of unsightly facilities . Jim Harrisated that if the Planning Committee recommends such facilities, staff wouldke to have applied standards for those facilities.
Stephen Clifton distributed a list of standards which had been developed
after discussion between staff and the applicant at the Planning Commission' s
direction. Design was a major concern. Mr. Clifton passed around photos of
the Totem Lake mini-storage facility.
Mr. Clifton clarified for Councilman Dowell that if approved, public storage
facilities would be allowed in a CC, Community Commercial, zoning district
only as a conditional use; further, there would be additional standards
applicable to public storage facilities. Discussion occurred on the proposed
standards. Councilman Dowell questioned the proposed language under "Use"
to determine if it accomplishes what is intended, i.e. , to remove public
storage from street frontages. Mr. Harris suggested rewording to allow
access to public storage facilities from the primary street frontage but to
have commercial along the street frontage and public storage in back.
Councilman Dowell is concerned that a proliferation of public storage
facilities might occur along a primary street frontage such as Benson
Highway. Mr. Curran agreed that strict standards to prevent such an
occurrence would be appropriate. Mr. Curran suggested wording to limit
frontage to access with the remaining frontage for commercial/office use.
Mr. Curran suggested allowing applicants to determine their needs for
security, e.g. , fencing, but to require appropriate screening. Mr. Harris
agreed the fencing must be compatible with CC or potential CC uses. Mr.
Clifton described the landscaping requirements for front, side and rear yards
and indicated extensive screening with a chain link fence would not be as
much of an impact as viewing a solid wood fence with no plant material .
It was agreed that this issue would be brought back to the Planning Committee
at their meeting of October 4 to finalize language and also would be taken
to the City Council meeting that same night. The recommendation would be to
approve the appeal and direct the City Attorney to prepare the required
ordinance, including the proposed standards.
3
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1988
Mr. Clifton reviewed the additional requirements proposed by staff. Mr.
Curran initiated discussion of lot size requirements; he proposed eliminating
lot size requirements or allowing maximum lot size to be 4 acres. Mr. Leady
stated there did not seem to be justification for the proposed limitation of
lot size. Mr. Harris stated staff proposes to limit the size of public
storage facilities in these commercial areas; larger facilities should be
located on the Valley Floor; he stated staff could support a maximum of 4
acres. Mr. Clifton added that public storage facilities are land intensive
uses and staff proposes to restrict the size of such facilities to eliminate
pressure to increase CC zoning. In response to Councilman Dowell ' s concern
about abutting lots both developing public storage facilities, Mr. Harris
stated that the Conditional Use Permit process should prevent such an
occurrence.
Discussion occurred on building height. Staff proposes to limit public
storage facilities to one story. Mr. Harris and Greg McCormick clarified the
definition of one story. Applicant was agreeable to staffs proposal in this
regard.
The Committee recommended approval of the applicant' s appeal and direction
to the City Attorney to prepare the ordinance with the accompanying design
standards. Staff agreed to meet with Mr. Curran regarding the standards.
Councilman Dowell suggested the Planning Commission be advised of the
Committee' s decision and deliberation. Staff will so advise them. It was
clarified that this issue will be on both the agendas for the Planning
Committee and the City Council on October 4 .
PUBLIC MEETING ON HOUSING
Dan stated that on September 28 the Planning Department will conduct
a public m . g on the housing study to solicit citizen concerns and input
on housing polic The meeting will be held in City Hall at 7 : 30 PM. At
tonight ' s City Counci ting, Mr. Harris Harris will announce this public meeting.
PUBLIC NOTICES
Councilman Johnson proposed posting pub notices on 4x8 plywood with
"public notice" in large letters on top, in at st one conspicuous place.
Mr. Harris proposed talking to the City Attorney a t any legal issues in
this regard and bringing the topic back to the Commit at a later date.
Mr. Hansen stated that Seattle requires the applicant to p re the signs.
w ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5 : 15 PM.
4
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 61 1988
Councilman Johnson MOVED and Chairwoman Woods SECONDED the motion to ado
staff' s recommendation on the 1989 Housing & Community Development Blo
dk
Grant Program including staffs recommendation on additional funding. M t�ion
carried.
KENT CITY LAGOON - RESOLUTION 922
Jim Harris recapped the history of the Committee' s work to effe a wildlife
habitat in the lagoon area as well as provide a storm detenti system. At
the last hearing on the Upland' s rezone application, City Cou it asked about
the sewage lagoon. Mr. Harris suggested the Planning Commi ee resurrect the
Citizen's Advisory Board and have staff bring them up o date on events
occurring since their last meeting.
Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director, stated hi epartment worked with a
marine biologist and the Soil Conservation Se ice to resolve some of the
issues on this project. The department is cuUp� ently doing computer modeling
on hydraulics and stream flow measures on +P11 Creek. It takes two years to
gather the data necessary to do the mo ing. Mr. Wickstrom added that the
City must work with abutting proper owners because a ULID is involved.
The City is waiting for other own s, including Uplands, to decide what they
plan to do with their proper ' s. Then the Citizen' s Advisory Board can
begin to work again and som echnical issues can be resolved. Mr. Wickstrom
stated it is part of the orm Drainage Plan to develop the lagoon as a storm
detention system as we s a wildlife habitat.
Carol Stoner, a ber of the Citizen' s Advisory Board, stated she and Lauri _.
Johnson had c acted Ted Knapp to request the Board be notified of any
action in t s area in time to bring the Board up to speed and able to
respond. a added that it appears something will be happening within the
next ye .
Coun man Johnson MOVED and Chairwoman Woods SECONDED the motion to
res rect the Citizen' s Advisory Board, to be notified and begin to meet to
r iew the events that have occurred since their last meeting. Motion
rried.
REGULATORY REVIEW - PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITIES #ZCA-88-1
Jim Harris explained that this issue began as a Regulatory Review. The
Regulatory Review was denied by the Planning Commission; the applicant
appealed the decision. Since there was not a well-established procedure for
such an appeal, the issue was referred to the Planning Committee for
consideration.
Pete Curran, Attorney, 555 West Smith Street, Kent represented the Berg
family who owns the property in question. Chris Leady, the developer, is a
co-applicant. Ned Nelson, Architect, assisted in land site studies. The
2
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 6, 1988
applicant is requesting a textual amendment to the Kent Zoning Code to permit
self storage facilities as a conditionally permitted use in the Community
commercial zoning district. These facilities are currently allowed in the
industrial zones and as a special application in the General Commercial
zoning district. Presently there are such facilities on West Hill and in the
Valley area, not on East Hill . Community commercial is the only commercial
zone on East Hill. There are approximately 210 acres of CC zoning on East
Hill, West Hill and the Valley Floor. The purpose of CC zoning is to provide
areas for limited commercial activities to serve residential areas.
According to experts who have done surveys in the area, on the East Hill
there is a tremendous demand for such facilities based upon the kind of
residential neighborhoods that are there. Mr. Curran stated that self
storage facilities have developed a "black eye" because of the way they look;
he states that the facilities are essentially a product of where they are
located. Industrial areas have inadequate controls on style. He added that
other communities, including downtown Seattle, have self storage facilities
that are good neighbors .
Regarding land use on East Hill , Mr. Curran stated the Planning Department
••- from the beginning has stated that self storage facilities are ugly, that
long walls are a given and the use is not appropriate in Community Commercial
zoning districts. At the Planning commission hearings in May, June and July,
Mr. Curran believes the Commissioners were beginning to accept the fact that
there could be self storage facilities with acceptable design in any area.
Mr. Curran reviewed uses which are allowed outright in the CC zone, e.g. ,
theatres, veterinary clinics, taverns, skating rinks, mini golf. He believes
self storage facilities should have the same conditional use right in the CC
zone. He noted an interesting phenomenon in the Community Commercial zoning
district at 240th. Everybody wants frontage, nobody wants depth. Property
frontage is being developed but there are 5 acre parcels that are unused
beyond that frontage. Regarding the Berg property, Mr. Curran stated that
108th is not going anywhere; it is not an arterial . The City Engineer stated
he would not open 108th south of 240th. North of 240th, 108th goes into a
residential area. The backs of the lots to which he referred do not have an
outlet. If the City does not want to throw away the CC zone, Mr. Curran
suggested finding more constructive ways to use these parcels. The Safeway
and Thriftway stores and the Post Office are overshadowing uses. Huge walls
and poplars screen the Berg property. The applicant' s proposal is to have
other commercial uses on the property frontage and a self storage facility
in back. To permit an integrated development on the site is reasonable. The
proposed setbacks and landscape screening are beyond any kind of setback and
screening being required of any residential use. Mr. Curran sees the
quadrant and intersection in the area being heavily impacted by development.
Retail uses generate 6800 car trips, self storage generates 400 car trips.
Self storage is non-polluting; there is no quieter use; it would be managed
on a 24-hour basis; everything is indoors; and it is totally screened on all
sides, with irrigation. Self storage facilities are an interim use of the
land. One-half of Kent' s apartments are located in the East Hill area and
3
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 61 1988
apartment dwellers represent only one-third of the users of self storage
facilities; fifty percent of the users are single family users. An urban
cluster has been created on East Hill that is more dynamic than anything on
West Hill.
Chris Leady, co-applicant, stated he appreciates the perceptions given this
product because in the past the facilities have been ugly. There is a
demand for the product, particularly on East Hill . However, this request is
not without precedence. In California this type of use started in industrial
areas, then went to commercial districts. King County, Kirkland and Renton
are allowing this use either outright or as a conditional use in their
commercial districts. Self storage facilities are used as a retail use for
three or four months at a time. They are every bit as retail a use as other
uses allowed in the CC zone. Kirkland has a self storage facility next to
the Totem Lake shopping center. Mr. Leady stated the applicants and Planning
Department had developed a list of standards for this proposed use. The
applicant' s standards were tighter than the ones the Planning Department had
originally used. The frontage is preserved. Landscaping standards are more
detailed than any commercial zones next to residential zones. Height has
been limited. There will be no buildings of an industrial nature (concrete
tilt or metal) . These facilities can be brought into a commercial zone, look
good and serve a need in the community. Mr. Leady believes that rather than
developing an additional retail shopping center and further impact the
traffic situation, this development can be of mixed use and not present a use
overload.
Ned Nelson has been an architect for many other self storage facilities. Lake
Oswego, Oregon is a small residential and retail community which had not
previously had a self storage facility. Mr. Nelson designed a facility close
to a residential neighborhood. The residents wanted the development; they
needed storage and wanted it close by. The facility generates little noise,
has a low impact on traffic and the design was controlled through design
review. The development was a complementary use to the community. Mr.
Curran stated self storage facilities are a reasonable use in the CC zone,
Mr. Leady stated the facilities are a good use in the CC zone, and Mr. Nelson
believes the facilities are a complementary use to retail and residential .
The proposal is for retail on the street and self storage in back which has
access via a pipe stem lot. There is no front and no back to the facility.
Landscaping can be consistent all around and can be increased when there is
a more sensitive adjacent use. The design presentation can be more
sensitive. There can be the retail which is needed on 240th. The proposed
development is two stories in back with substantial setbacks and pitched
roofs to relate to the residential character and scale of the surroundings.
The applicant proposes a dense landscape screening where there is elevation.
There is building modulation to offset long walls. There is proposed
substantial residential materials and colors to complement the surroundings .
There will be no truck docks in back. Mr. Nelson presented a schematic of
the proposed retail strip along 240th.
4
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 61 1988
Councilman Dowell asked why the applicant is proposing a textual change to
the zoning code, which would affect all CC-zoned properties, rather than some
-. other means to accomplish the development at the proposed location. Mr.
Curran stated there is only one commercial district on East Hill. He
believes the CC zone is an appropriate place to tie in with retail and
housing which flows away from commercial areas. Staff also is bothered by
the site-specific nature of the request. However, the applicant is asking
for a conditional use so the City can control the type and numbers of
development. Mr. Leady reiterated the types of uses that are currently
allowed in the CC zone, e.g. , theatres, skating rinks barber shops, etc. , and
there is not an abundance of these uses. Mr. Leady stated the market
controls the numbers.
In response to Councilman Dowell, Mr. Harris stated the applicant could ask
for a rezone to GC, but that might be spot zoning. Councilman Dowell asked
what would happen to the Berg property if this regulatory review request is
denied. Mr. Leady stated the same thing could happen as on the other side
of the street, i. e. , there would be blank areas in back of street frontages.
Mr. Curran added that apartments can apply for conditional uses in the CC
zone. That property could accommodate about 100 units. He added that the
City can say no to any applicant for self storage if it is not appropriate.
That particular piece of property has nice circulation around it. The self
storage facility is a different use and an interim use.
Chairwoman Woods stated that consideration of this request would continue to
September 20.
,EAST HILL PLAN
Jim Har ' stated that Section 2 of Resolution #1123 directed the Planning
Commission efer action on the East Hill commercial zoning amendments
until the East Hi ub-area Plan is completed. The Planning Department read
that to mean stop w kon the East Hill Plan. Staff looked at Resolution
#1123 as directing the epartment to look at the Comprehensive Plan
neighborhood by neighborhoo Staff will consider the commercial areas as
well as the housing element when 1poking at the East Hill Plan as part of the
implementation of Resolution #112 Mr. Harris stated Council will be
considering some rezones prior to the tl4kFe the East Hill Plan is completed.
Jim Hansen asked if the Council can rendLr...,,� decision on the Ruth rezone
without a decision having been made on the EastA4ll Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Harris answered yes and added that the applicant w advised that they didn 't
have to try for a Comprehensive Plan change since ere was already some
commercial zoning on their parcel of land.
NEXT MEETING DATE
The next meeting of the City Council Planning Committee will be September 20,
1988 .
5
August 16, 1988
t
ZONING CODE type of discretion previously exercised by the
Council . Biteman noted that he would like an oppor-
tunity to discuss this change, which would appear
. to put all the power in one person' s hands . He
then MOVED that this issue be discussed at. a work-
shop session. White seconded and the motion carried.
REGULATORY REVIEW Regulatory Review Request - Appeal. On July 25 ,
APPEAL 1988, the Planning Commission denied a regulatory
review request by the Carolina Berg Estate to
allow a public storage facility in a Community
Commercial zoning district. The applicant is
appealing the decision of the Planning Commission.
Stephen Clifton of the Planning Department reviewed
the Planning Commission action. Pete Curran,
attorney representing the Berg Estate, stated that
they had filed an appeal of the Planning Commission ' s
decision on July 29 , 1988 . Curran noted that Plan-
ning Director Harris has recommended that this
appeal be referred to the Planning Committee, and
that he concurs . DOWELL SO MOVED. Houser seconded
and the motion carried.
PLANNED UNIT Proposed Planned Unit Development Ordinance. On
DEVELOPMENT July 19 , 1988, the Council Planning Committee
unanimously recommended that the recently formed
PUD Citizens Advisory Committee ' s recommended
changes to the PUD ordinance be adopted, as earlier
recommended to the City Council by the Planning
Commission.
Fred Satterstrom of the Planning Department thanked
the members of the Committee for their efforts. He
stated that the three major changes in the ordinance
are as follows :
1. Review time has been shortened. A PUD application can
be approved by the Hearing Examiner without moving on
to the City Council except on appeal. Also, other land
use processes, such as conditional use permits, may be
consolidated with the PUD review.
2 . Housing mix. The requirement that each residential PUD
consist of all types of housing has been dropped in
favor of a density bonus incentive that encourages) a
mix of housing types.
3. Density bonuses are more refined. The process for
determining residential density bonuses is better
defined and the design objectives of PUD's are clearer
than in previous drafts.
- 3 -
I
LAW OFFICES
— DOUGLAS P. BECKER CURRAN, KLEWENO 6t JOHNSON TELEPHONE
C.PETER CURRAN (206 852.2345
A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION ) I`I
JAML3 P. CURRAN
MARK W.DAAs 555 WEST SMITH STREET ESCROW DEPARTMENT
— DAVID T. HOKIT (206)859.1090
STEPHEN L.JOIINSON POST OFFICE BOX 140
MELVIN L.KLEWENO,JR. KENT,WASHINGTON 98035.O140 TnECOPIER I
JOSEPH A.McKAMEY (206)852-2030
..w LAR0.Y R.SCHAEfTER
_w July 29 , 1988 JUL 2 9 1988
CITY OF KEN T II
" City of Kent CITY CLERK
Att: Mayor
City Counsil
City Clerk
Planning Commissione-r
4th and Gowe Street
Kent, Washington 98032
Re: Regulatory Review. Carolina Berg Estate - Chris Leedy
application for amendment of the text of Kent Code Section
15 . 04 . 100 community commercial district to allow mini
storage
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
Please accept this letter as our NOTICE OF APPEAL to the City
Council of the denial of this request by a three to two vote of the
Planning Commission on Monday, July 25 , 1988 .
We will await your advice as to the procedure to be followed by us
in presenting this appeal
Very t ours ,
CUR AN,
�KLENO & JOHNSON, P. S . i
CHARLES PETER CURRAN
CPC: jo
I
I
I
I
i
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 22 , 1988
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Linda Martinez, Acting Chairman
Greg Greenstreet
Albert Haylor
Nancy Rudy
Raymond Ward
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:
Robert Badger, absent
.Anne Biteman, excused
Elmira Forner, excused
Carol Stoner, excused
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Carol Proud, Planner
Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary
_ APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 25 , 1988
Commissioner Ward asked that the motion on Page 5 of the July 25,
1988 minutes be changed to show Ward as opposed to the motion.
Commissioner Rudy .asked that her vote be changed in, favor of the
motion as stated, which did not change the total count for the
vote. Chairman Ward MOVED that the minutes of the meeting be
approved as corrected. Commissioner Greenstreet SECONDED the
motion. Motion carried.
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PLAN AMENDMENTS (Continued)
Fred Satterstrom expressed appreciation to Borden Chemical,. Howard
Manufacturing and Northwest Metals for the tour of the facilities
+ and explanation of activities that were provided for the Planning
Commission and Planning staff on August 15 , 1988 . It was felt that
the Commission should thoroughly discuss the goals, objectives and
policies in addition to the measures needed to implement the plan.
The Commission should look at all the changes being proposed--those
by the CBD Task Force, those by the Chamber of Commerce and those
by the Mayor. These will be discussed at the workshop at the
close of this hearing.
1
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
July 25, 1988
,. quoted from a letter dated April 13 , 1988 stating that the Task
Force was concerned about the location of manufacturing uses in
the proposed central Business District and felt the uses would be
inappropriate. He suggested rezoning the existing manufacturing
areas to a classification consistent with the present CBD Plan
Map. The employees felt that the CBD Plan as proposed threatened
their jobs. They would like to have the plan amended to exclude
the existing manufacturers in the proposed Central Business area.
ti
Pat Curran submitted to the Planning Commission a letter from
Steve Burpee. Commissioner Martinez asked that the letter from
Steve Burpee be admitted into the record. Commissioner Stoner
SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
Commissioner Martinez MOVED that the public hearing on the
Central Business District be continued until August 22 .
Commissioner Rudy SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. It was
pointed out that there would be a workshop on this issue on
August 15 and there would be a tour preceding the workshop.
REGULATORY REVIEW
AMENDMENT TO ALLOW PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITIES
IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT (RR-88 1)
Peter Curran, 555 West Smith Street, representing the Berg
Estate, stated the Berg family has owned the property since 1921.
The property was rezoned to Community Commercial in 1984 . If the
five-acre site were developed as a retail center such as Fred
Meyer, . a 50, 000 square foot structure could be built on the site.
This could create 4 , 000 car trips per day. A mini storage would
...., create approximately 208 car trips per day. He pointed out that
there are 208 acres of Community Commercial land in Kent, and
only approximately 40 acres remain. He suggested a motion be
made to amend KCC 15 . 04 . 100 to add D4 "self storage facility
subject to a conditional use permit shall address site
development, design and buffering issues. " He suggested that
this issue be referred to a work session for the purpose of
working out the differences.
Greg McCormick stated that there are 210. 74 acres of Community
Commercial land in the City of Kent, 18 . 6 percent of this land is
now vacant (39 acres) . Current projects would reduce the land to
15 percent, 31. 6 acres . He showed on the map the locations of
mini storage facilities within the city. Storage managers stated
that people come to their storage units approximately once every
month or two. He did not feel that trips into the valley would
add substantially to the existing traffic problems. If
commercial uses are displaced from the existing Community
3
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
July 25, 1988
Commercial zone and more land-intensive uses are allowed to be
built, then there would be more pressure to expand the existing
CC districts to include areas along 104th and 256th. Community
Commercial is intended to serve day-to-day or weekly needs of the
people . in the area, not monthly needs . Discussion followed
regarding the high vacancy rate of mini storage units in Kent.
Mr. Harris pointed out that this was not a site-specific issue.
He felt this commercial land should be used for commercial uses.
Discussion followed regarding intensive and extensive use of
land.
Leona Orr, 24909 114th Avenue SE, read a letter into the record
from Joan McCallum opposing the proposed mini storage units in
this area. She was concerned about the possibility of lowered
land values for residential land in the area. She felt that
there was space in the valley for this use and that the Community
Commercial area should have professional offices.
Jim Orr, 24909 114th Avenue SE wondered if this were an
appropriate use for this site and how this use might affect the
people in the general area.
Larry Cragun, B. L. Perkins Company, feels that a need exists in
this area for 2 , 000 mini storage units on East Hill . He
suggested design control standards be adopted and felt that mini
storage would be an asset to the community.
Ed Heineman, 10824 SE 244th, owner of the property adjacent to
the proposed site, supported the Planning staff ' s position. He
felt a retail use would be more appropriate than mini storage for
this site. He would prefer to go to the valley for storage.
Chris Liede stated that there is a great need for this type of
storage on East Hill and he would be willing to pay retail
prices for the land for this type of development. He suggested
that this proposal be allowed as a conditional use with strict
development standards .
Peter Curran reiterated that any design standard requirements
would be for all mini storage sites developed under the
conditional use permit in the Community Commercial district.
Chairman Badger closed the public hearing.
Chairman Badger was not opposed to the conditional use permit
concept.
4
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
July 25, 1988
Commissioner Forner was not opposed to this use with a
conditional use permit but felt that it should be placed in a
multifamily zone rather than in a Community Commercial zone.
commissioner Rudy felt that if storage were needed, people would
find the storage. She felt that Community Commercial space is
limited and should be used for that purpose. She supported the
idea of mini storage in a multifamily area.
Commissioner Stoner asked for figures regarding vacant
multifamily land on East Hill.
Mr. McCormick responded that there are 40-50 acres of available
multifamily land on East Hill .
Commissioner Stoner MOVED to retain the Community Commercial zone
as is and to deny this request to expand it. Commissioner Rudy
SECONDED the motion. She felt that the current community
commercial area on East Hill functions with daily usage. Because
of the projected housing growth in that area, she felt the
commercially zoned area would be needed for that purpose. She
suggested that staff look for ways to meet this need in other
zones, specifically multifamily. She felt this kind of use with
strict development standards might be appropriately placed in
the multifamily area but not in the Community Commercial zone.
commissioner Ward felt that the Commission should grant a
conditional use in the CC zone for mini storage facilities
because it would provide less than maximum usage of the land. He
felt that the Hearing Examiner, Planning Department and developer
could work together regarding the necessary conditions.
Commissioner Martinez abstained because of a conflict of
interest.
Motion carried, three in favor (Stoner, Ward, Forner) and two
opposed (Badger, Rudy) .
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Badger adjourned the meeting at 10: 10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
i
�ames Harris, Secretary.
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 27, 1988
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS :
Robert Badger, Chairman
Linda Martinez, Vice Chairwoman
Anne Biteman
Elmira Forner
Greg Greenstreet
Nancy Rudy
Carol Stoner
Raymond Ward
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Senior Planner
Carol Proud, Planner
Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 23 and MAY 31 1988
Commissioner Martinez MOVED that the minutes of the May 23 and
May 31 meetings be approved as presented. commissioner Biteman
SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
Mr. Harris stated that the City Council adopted the 20 percent
multifamily reduction on June 21, 1988 .
REGULATORY REVIEW
AMENDMENT TO ALLOW PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITIES
IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT (RR-88-1)
Mr. Harris suggested that this hearing be continued since the
applicant' s correspondence regarding this issue had not been
received by the Planning Department until the morning of this
meeting. Chairman Badger opened the public hearing for testimony
from the community.
Larry Cragun, Real Estate Director with B. L. Perkins ' Company,
presented a copy of pages from the King County Zoning Code which
permits mini storage in high-density multiple dwelling zones with
restrictions and conditions. He showed a rendering of a project
he is preparing to build in Bellingham. He suggested that there
be design restrictions on projects of this type.
1
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING OF JUNE 27 , 1988
Lila Ray, who has lived in the Kent area for 15 years, expressed
concern regarding additional development on the East Hill because
of the traffic problems that already exist.
Peter Curran, Curran, Kleweno and Johnson, 555 West Smith
Street, Kent, attorney for the applicant, felt that mini
warehouses at this location would reduce the intensity of traffic
at the intersection. He suggested that the traffic for the
proposed use would be less intensive and less debilitating than a
Fred Meyer or Target type of store, roller skating rink or
veterinary kennels. One half of the apartments in Kent are
close to this intersection, but statistics in other areas show
that over 50 percent of storage units are utilized by single
family dwelling residents . He endorsed extensive landscaping and
sprinklers which would help to keep the area attractive. He
suggested that there not be a limit on the number of mini
warehouses permitted, but that the market is allowed to
determine how much storage is needed.
Chris Leady, 2000 124th Avenue NE, Bellevue, 98005 , proponent of
this request, expressed concern about the timeliness of the
report delivered to the Planning Commission and Planning
Department. He felt that mini warehouses should be classified as
a limited commercial use, which is allowed in the area. He
compared the Thriftway Shopping Center to the proposed
development. He stated there is a need for this facility,
there . can be applied strict standards , and he suggested this use
be allowed as a conditional use which would be heard by the
Hearing Examiner.
Ned Nelson, Three Lake Bellevue Drive, Suite 200 , Bellevue 98005,
architect for the project, pointed out that traffic generated by
this project is low. He concurred with the staff report and
presented a potential layout showing 40 percent lot coverage
using three acres of this site. A small retail center is proposed
for the front of the development on 240th. Only 25 percent of
the frontage would be dedicated to mini warehouse access ; the
balance of the storage facility would be behind the proposed
retail use. The building height would be 12 feet and would be
within 20 feet of the property line. A two-story building
proposed for construction 40 feet from the property line would be
20 feet to the gutter line; however, in order to have a pitched
roof, they would need to exceed this 20 foot limit. Ten feet of
landscaping is planned for the rear and side yards . They would
like to increase the buffering to Type I landscaping and would
like to increase the size of the evergreens by 25 percent over
current standards . A cedar fence is planned to conceal a chain-
link fence so that property owners would be able to enjoy the
2
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING OF JUNE 27 1988
wooden fence and landscaping.
Commissioner Ward asked for an explanation of adjacent property
uses. Mr. Leady responded that a 30-foot-high building with
loading dock is located on one side, and undeveloped residential
property is the other side. He proposed a 5-foot by 20-foot
break every 100 feet which would allow an additional five feet of
landscaping to help break the facade.
Mr. Ward asked if the retail use would be developed concurrently
with the storage units. Mr. Leady responded that it would be
economically feasible to develop both at the same time, but the
market would dictate the timing of retail development.
Commissioner Martinez asked if this request were site specific or
a request to change the zoning code. Mr. Leady responded that
they were requesting an amendment to the zoning code.
Commissioner Forner commented that the facility appeared to be
architecturally pleasing. However, this is not a design issue
but is a request to change the zoning code to allow this type of
structure in this zone.
Commissioner Martinez MOVED to continue the public hearing to
July 25 and suggested that the developers and the Planning
Department get together before the public hearing. Commissioner
Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
Commissioner Stoner asked that the next hearing include
information regarding the amount and location of undeveloped
Community Commercial land in the City of Kent.
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PLAN AMENDMENTS - CONTINUED
Fred Satterstrom presented the Central Business District Plan as
one of four subarea plans in Kent. The original CBD Plan was
completed in 1974 and has been under consideration by the
Downtown Revitalization Task Force. The present discussion
includes a Comprehensive Plan update, which is a vision statement
expressing what Kent hopes to achieve as a community in its land
use pattern. The present issue does not include zoning, but
zoning follows as implementation of the plan. These are separate
actions and only the Comprehensive Plan will be discussed at
this time. The proposed CBD Plan offers expanded opportunities
for commercial and office development in the Central Business
District. It contemplates a commuter rail project, reserves land
consistent with that proposal , and it expands multiple family
opportunities through a mixed use designation. He offered to
continue the staff report subsequent to public testimony.
3
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
May 31, 1988
••- of Kent completed a study of adult use which study led to the zoning
code's current regulation of the location of adult theaters and
bookstores. The report detailed uses that the courts had shown could
be protected from adult businesses, i. e. , churches, residential areas,
parks and schools, by implementing distance requirements.
He presented the staff recommendations:
Add the following definition:
15 . 02 .008 Adult Entertainment Establishment
An adult entertainment establishment means any business or
operation regulated by KCC 5 . 32 including any business or
operation that involves an exhibition or dance by persons that is
distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on conduct that
depicts, displays, or relates to "specified sexual activities" or
"specified anatomical areas" , as defined in Section 15. 02 . 502 and
. 503 . Such an establishment customarily excludes persons by
virtue of age from all or a portion of the premises.
Amend the definition of Adult Uses:
15. 02 . 009 Adult Uses
For the terms of this code, adult uses shall include adult motion
picture theaters, adult drive-in theaters, adult bookstores, and
adult entertainment establishments.
Add libraries to list of protected uses:
15. 08 . 270 Adult Uses
Section A. 5. One thousand feet of any public library.
Commissioner Martinez MOVED and Commissioner Rudy SECONDED a motion to
close the public hearing. Motion carried.
Commissioner Martinez MOVED that the Commission approve the three
recommendations presented. Commissioner Forner SECONDED the motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
AMENDMENT TO ALLOW PUBLIC STORAGE IN CC-- RR 88-1 Continued
Greg McCormick presented the regulatory review request to allow mini-
self storage warehouses in the CC, Community Commercial zone. The
purpose of the CC district is to provide areas for limited commercial
activities that serve several residential neighborhoods. Allowed uses
would include hardware stores, barber and beauty shops, grocery stores,
restaurants, theaters, etc. Also allowed in the CC zone are special
permit uses which include gasoline service stations, churches and
3
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
May 31, 1988
nursery schools and day care centers. Conditionally permitted uses
include apartments, building supply uses and auto repair facilities.
Specifically excluded from the CC zone are heavier uses such as
wholesale manufacturing uses, warehouses, car lots and storage lots.
He stated that none of - the cities surveyed allowed mini-storage
facilities as a principally permitted use in a zone that is comparable
to the Community Commercial zone. Two jurisdictions allowed mini-
storage facilities in a zone that would be comparable to the General
Commercial zone, where currently mini-storage facilities can be located `
as a conditional use.
The Planning staff does not consider rental of storage space to
constitute retail use, nor would this use fit the Community Retail zone
which is intended to provide personal goods and services, such as
supermarkets, hardware stores, drug stores, restaurants, etc. These
uses generally provide the day-to-day shopping needs of the community.
Mr. McCormick did not feel that people would go to a mini-storage
facility on a day=to-day basis .
In response to the applicant' s argument that these facilities should be
located near residential neighborhoods so that residents do not drive
to the valley to use these services, Mr. McCormick presented a map
which showed the areas in the city where this type of storage is
allowed outright and where it is allowed as a conditional use.
In response to the applicant' s argument that the proposed change will
not have an effect on related ordinances, regulations, plans and
policies, the Planning staff believes that allowing this use would put
additional pressure on the City to expand the limited CC areas; this
could force existing commercial nodes to become large, ' sprawling
commercial areas. Self-storage facilities tend to use large tracts of
land.
Even if quality materials are used, self-storage facilities tend to have an austere, compound-like appearance. Security requirements often
include fencing topped with some form of barbed wire. The conditional
use permit process offers the city no influence on the architectural
treatment, mass, color, etc. , of the facility.
Mr. McCormick presented three alternatives. The first is no action,
which would maintain the existing Community Commercial zoning
standards . The second is to allow this activity as a conditional use,
to be processed via public hearing and reviewed by the Kent Hearing
Examiner. The third is to allow this use as a special permit use with
development standards that exceed those for principally permitted uses
in this zone.
The Planning staff recommends that the request for mini-storage
4
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
May 31, 1988
facilities in the CC zone be denied both as a conditional use and as a
permitted use.
Peter Curran, 555 West Smith Street, attorney for applicant, pointed
out that on 228th and West Valley Highway there is a warehouse built in
a way that is a credit to the community. He stated that there are
8 ,900 multifamily units in Kent; 5,700 are in the east side of Kent;
4, 300 are in the Benson Center area. He felt that mini-storage
facilities are needed on the East Hill and suggested that this should '
be considered a retail use. He felt that this site could be built into
additional multifamily dwellings, but he felt that it would be better
use of the space if it were developed into mini-storage . facilities.
Precise standards could be established to provide attractive storage
units that would soften the density of this area which has so many
multifamily dwelling units. He felt there was nothing demeaning about
the storage of goods. He emphasized that there were only a few uses
that differed between the Community Commercial and General Commercial
zones. He pointed out that other communities and King County allow
this type of use in multifamily zones. He urged the Commission to
visit Totem Lake and observe what Mr. Leady has done in that community.
He urged the Commission to allow this mini-storage facility as a
conditional use or as a special permit use.
Chris Leady, developer of the proposal, requested that the hearing be
continued in order for the Commission to visit the Totem Lake facility.
He pointed out that King County allows self-storage facilities in their
BC zone as an outright use. Everett allows this type of storage in
commercial zones, and Renton allows it in commercial zones with a
conditional use. Times are changing and residents want to have storage
near their homes . He suggested design standards that would
specifically address the size of the facility: the possibility of a
live-in manager; whether or not outside storage or storage of flammable
or dangerous materials would be allowed; the use of colors ; whether to
include masonry or concrete tilt-up design so that there would be a
textured look which would blend in with the residential area. He felt
that this facility would be a service to the community, a low generator
of traffic and an attractive project.
Commissioner Biteman asked how many units were planned for the site.
Mr. Leady responded that there was only 80 , 000 square feet. He did not
specify a number of units.
Ned Nelson, Project Architect, Three Lake Bellevue Drive, Suite 200,
Bellevue, 98005 , felt that design seemed to be the major issue. He
gave illustrations of residential communities in this area and Lake
Oswego in which the residents were pleased with the end result. He was
confident he could design a mini-storage facility for this site which
would be aesthetically pleasing to the residents in the area.
5
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
May 31, 1988
Larry Cregan, Real Estate Director for B. L Perkins Company, 13120 SE
30th, Bellevue, which develops Econo mini storage facilities, has found
that the public wishes to have its storage area within a two-mile
radius of their residence. He suggested that CC zoning be modified to
include this type of storage. He stated that Seattle allows mini-
storage facilities to be located in C1 zones, but allows no more than a
40, 000 square foot building which is no more than 40 feet to 65 feet
high. He felt that mini-storage facilities could be three stories high
and still not look like a storage facility.
Leona Orr, 24901 114th Avenue SE, is opposed to allowing mini-
warehouses in the Community Commercial zone. She did not feel that
storage facilities would be an appropriate use of land that will be
needed for services to the residents in the area. People commute many
miles to their jobs each day, and she felt people would not mind
driving a. few miles to their storage unit. She did not feel that a
facility which is typically surrounded by a chain-link fence is
appropriate in an area that is predominantly residential in nature.
Lauri Sunstedt, 24805 114th Avenue SE, was opposed to mini-warehouses
in a residential area.
Commissioner Martinez MOVED that the hearing be continued until the
next regularly scheduled meeting (June 27) . Commissioner Forner
SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL OPERATIONAL HOURS FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS
(RR-88-2)
Chairman Badger opened the public hearing. Commissioner Martinez
stated that she would not support the increase of hours for the home
occupations.
Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the Commission approve the staff
recommendation to not expand hours for home occupations. Commissioner
Forner SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Badger adjourned the meeting at 10: 00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
James P. Harris, Secretary
6
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING OF MAY 23 , 1988
REGULATORY REVIEW
1)_ AMENDMENT TO ALLOW PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITIES IN THE COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT (RR-88-1)
Mr. Peter Curran, representing the Berg estate, requested that the
Regulatory Review of Public Storage Facilities in the Community
Commercial Zoning District (RR-88-1) be continued to May 31, 1988 .
Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the Regulatory Review on Public Storage
be continued to the May 31 meeting. Commissioner Rudy SECONDED the
motion. Motion carried.
EAST VALLEY STUDY:
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE VALLEY FLOOR PLAN MAP (Continued)
Mr. Satterstrom presented a map of Areas 5 and 6 and cross-section
.._ illustrations of slope gradients 1100 feet north of South 208th Street
and 500 feet south of 208th Street. The Planning Department proposes
that Area 5 be designated Single-Family Residential because of the
environmental constraints in the area and because existing development
is single family residential . The Planning Department proposes that
Area 6 be designated Multifamily Residential .
Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the public hearing be closed.
Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the Planning commission adopt the plan
for Areas 5 and 6 as recommended in the East Valley Study and the staff
report. Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried
unanimously.
EAST VALLEY STUDY;
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE KENT ZONING CODE
Mr. Stroh presented the five recommendations for changes to zoning.
A. Establishment of a Landscape Corridor along East Valley Highway.
The purpose of this amendment is to establish a uniform
landscaping treatment and thereby improve the visual quality and
establish a better transition from the street to the private
property.
Staff Recommendation
Add to 15. 07 . 040 General Landscape Requirements - All Zones, as
follows:
P. All property abutting East Valley Highway between South 180th
2
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 16, 1988
FILE NO: #ZCA-88-1 REGULATORY REVIEW OF MINI-
WAREHOUSES IN A CC, COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL, DISTRICT
INTERESTED PARTY: Chris C. Leady c/o Peter Curran, Attorney at
Law
ORDINANCE/REGULATION BEING REVIEWED:
Section 15. 04 . 100, CC, Community Commercial,
district of the Kent Zoning Code which
presently does not permit mini-warehouses.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION:
The action before the Planning Commission is
to consider changes to the CC, Community
Commercial , district that will permit mini-
warehouses in a CC, Community Commercial,
zone.
I. BACKGROUND
The regulatory review process was set up by the City Council to
permit interested persons to submit concerns nd proposals
related to Kent Zoning Code and Ordinances.
The first step in the process is to fill out a form entitled
City of Kent Regulatory Review. A number of questions are
listed on the form. The interested public submits the completed
form to the Planning Department and a staff report is prepared
on the proposal. This staff report is then sent to the Planning
Commission for their review. The Commission then decides
whether or not to proceed with public hearings on the request.
An appeal to the City Council Planning Committee may be made for
those requests with which the Planning Commission decides not to
proceed. Planning Committee meetings to consider appeals are
held every three months or as necessary.
II. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
The Planning Department considered the following facts in
relation to this regulatory review item:
1
Staff Report
" Mini-warehouses in a CC zone
#ZCA-88-1
Existing situation in CC, Community Commercial District:
The Kent Zoning Code currently states that the purpose of this
district is to provide areas for limited commercial activities
that serve several residential neighborhoods. The permitted uses
in this type of zone include those considered as convenience
shopping goods. These include such uses as: hardware, furniture,
barber and beauty shops, laundrettes, restaurants, theaters, and
branches of financial institutions .
Special Permit Uses in the CC, Community Commercial zone
include: 1) gasoline service stations, 2) churches and 3)
nursery schools and day care centers .
Accessory uses include uses and buildings customarily
appurtenant to a permitted use, such as incidental storage
facilities.
Conditional uses presently allowed in the CC, Community
Commercial , zone include; the General Conditional Uses
referenced below, apartments (either by themselves or in
conjunction with commercial uses) , building supply uses and auto
-- repair facilities.
General Conditional Uses, as stated in Section 15 . 08 . 030B of the
,.,. Kent Zoning Code, are permitted in the CC zone. These uses
generally fall into several broad categories which include the
following: utility, transportation and communication facilities;
public facilities ( i . e . schools, libraries, governmental
agencies) ; open space uses and uses such as churches, retirement
homes, and welfare facilities .
Excluded uses from the CC, Community Commercial, zone include
wholesale and manufacturing uses, warehouses, car lots, storage
lots, etc.
The development standards in a CC, Community Commercial, zone
are some of the least restrictive with only a 20 foot rear yard
setback and no side yard setbacks (except when abutting a more
restrictive zone. In addition, the landscape requirements for
this zone include only a 5 foot landscape strip along a public
right of way. Ten feet of perimeter landscaping is required
only when the site abuts a residential district.
III . DISCUSSION OF APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL
An informal telephone survey was conducted of cities in the area
to determine in what zoning districts mini-storage facilities
are allowed. The results of this survey are attached to the
2
Staff Report
Mini-warehouses in a CC zone
#kZCA-88-1
staff report which lists the city surveyed, the zones where the
use in question are allowed and the special provisions that may
apply to this type of development.
None of the cities surveyed allowed mini-storage facilities as a
principally permitted use in zones comparable to the Community
commercial, zone. In two of the jurisdictions surveyed, mini-
storages were allowed as conditional uses in zones similar to
Kent' s General Commercial zone. All cities surveyed allowed
mini-storages as principally permitted uses in industrial zones.
(Please see attachment A, showing zones which allow mini-
warehouses in several local communities) .
The applicant has presented several arguments for allowing mini
storage facilities in the CC, Community Commercial, zone. The
arguments are listed below with a Planning Department comment
after each:
A. A self-storage facility is a commercial activity that is in
the business of "retailing" space to the nearby residential
neighborhoods.
Planning Department Comment
Staff does not consider a self-storage facility as a commercial
activity. The dictionary defines retail as the selling of
goods in small quantities to the public" . Clearly, the rental
of storage space does not constitute a retail use. The East
Hill area plan adopted by the Planning Commission and City
Council in 1982 describes Community Retail as follows:
This use is intended to provide areas for the
provision of personal goods and services such as
supermarkets , hardware stores, drug stores,
restaurants, etc. These uses generally provide
the day-to-day shopping needs of the community.
Generally , personal storage users visit the facility
infrequently, not on a day-to-day basis.
B. These facilities should be located near residential
neighborhoods so that residents do not drive "all the way
down to the valley" .
Planning Department Comment
There are several self-storage facilities available in the
valley that are within two to three miles of the residential
3
Staff Report
Mini-warehouses in a CC zone
#ZCA-88-1
neighborhoods on the east hill. This would not appear to be an
unreasonable distance to travel to a self-storage facility.
This is particularly true when considering the infrequent number
of times that a user visits this type of facility in a year.
At a public hearing in 1986 for a mini-storage facility, the
applicant testified that only three percent of the clients for a
given facility will visit the site within a 24-hour period.
C. The applicant states that the proposed change will not have
an effect on the related ordinances, regulations, plans and
policies.
Planning Department Comment
The staff feels that this code amendment will indeed affect the
related plans and policies for the east hill area. Allowing
this type of land intensive use in the CC zone would put
additional pressure to expand the CC zoned areas. This would
result in the existing compact commercial nodes on the east hill
becoming large, sprawling commercial areas.
Self-storage facilities tend to use large tracts of land. Land
currently available in the CC, Community Commercial, zone is
limited when compared to the available land in the industrial
zones ; CM, Commercial Manufacturing and GC, General Commercial,
zones where self-storage facilities are permitted. Self-storage
facilities are more suitably located in the valley with other
warehouse uses.
D. The applicants state that they would construct a quality
self storage facility.
Planning Department Comment
Even if quality materials are used, these uses by nature have an
austere, compound-like appearance because of the security
requirement which includes fencing often topped with some form
of barbed wire. Buildings in these facilities are typically
long and narrow with nothing but garage doors on one side and
long, flat, monotonous walls on the sides usually facing other
properties.
The site plan submitted with this application shows a long, flat
wall a distance of 400± feet right on the side property line.
Further, even if this is proposed to be a quality project,
allowing this use in the CC zone would allow less desirable
appearing storage facilities to be located in this zone. The
conditional use permit process offers the city little in the way
4
Staff Report
Mini-warehouses in a CC zone
#ZCA-88-1
of a formal design review process. The city would still have
virtually no influence as to architectural treatment, mass,
colors, etc. of the facility.
IV. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
A. Permitting personal storage units in the CC, Community ;
Commercial, zone would open the door to allowing other uses
in the GC, General Commercial, zone. Again, the East Hill
Plan describes Community Retail as those uses providing the
day-to-day shopping needs of the community. Currently uses
such as car lots, RV storage facilities, contractor' s shops
are allowed in the GC, General Commercial, zone but
prohibited in the CC, community Commercial, zone.
The Planning Department fees uses allowed in the CC,
community Commercial, zone should be pedestrian oriented
and used daily by the surrounding residential area in order
to preserve the integrity of the district.
B. Approximately two years ago, the City Council was
approached by a number of citizens concerned about the
large number of multifamily developments we have in Kent.
The East Hill residents were among those who expressed
their concern about the number of units, traffic generated,
and design issues.
Since these concerns have been raised, a number of
multifamily design standards have been implemented and -
reduction of multifamily projects remains an issue. The
public has made it clear they are concerned about what is
going in and around their neighborhoods .
Encouraging self-storage projects that are typically in
garish colors , have monotonous architectural features and
can vary from three-story structures to one-story portable
buildings is a consideration we cannot ignore.
V. ALTERNATIVES/ACTIONS
The Planning Department staff has considered the request and
offer the following options for review and consideration.
A. No action . Under this alternative the uses (both
principally permitted and conditional) in the Community
Commercial zone would remain the same. Mini-storage
facilities would not be allowed either outright or as a
conditional use. This is the staff' s preferred alternative
based on the following:
5
Staff Report
Mini-warehouses in a CC zone
#ZCA-88-1
1. As shown on the display map, CC zoned land is very
limited, while land which is zoned to allow mini
storages is abundant. Allowing a land intensive use
such as mini storages in the CC zone, would put
additional pressure to expand CC zoned land.
2 . The CC, Community Commercial , zone is intended for
retail uses to serve nearby residential neighborhoods,
staff does not consider this a retail use. The
dictionary (Webster' s II - office Edition) defines
retail as "the sale of goods in small quantities to
- • the public" . Staff would argue that this in clearly
not the sale of goods, but the rental of storage space
and would not qualify as a retail operation.
3 . Even if this use is subject to the conditional use
permit process, the City would have little control
over design, materials used, etc.
4 . The City does not have a formal design review process
which would give the City more influence on structure
design and other design considerations.
5. The areas of the city which are zoned for these
facilities are very accessible and reasonably close to
residential neighborhoods .
6 . Retail uses typically allowed in the CC zone are used
frequently by surrounding residents, whereas, users of
mini-storages use this facility less frequently.
B. Allow as a conditional use. Under this alternative, mini-
storage facilities would be allowed as a conditional use in
the CC zone. A conditional use must go through the public
hearing process and review by the Kent Hearing Examiner
prior to being allowed to develop in this zone.
C. Allow as a special permit use. Under this alternative,
mini-storage facilities would be allowed in the CC zone as
a special permit use. This would allow these facilities as
a permitted use with development standards that exceed
those for principally permitted uses in this zone.
VI . PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
After reviewing this request, the information available, and the
above options, and the likely adverse impacts on the existing
land use patterns on the east hill, the planning staff strongly
6
Staff Report
Mini-warehouses in a CC zone
#ZCA-88-1
recommends that the existing uses, both principally permitted
and conditional, not be modified to allow mini storage
facilities in the CC, Community Commercial, zoning district.
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
May 16 , 1988
7
CITY Of KENT �
REGULATORY REVIEW
L!uTa+�S' Ar NT
The Kent City Council has determined that ongoing review of the City's regulatory process is In the
' public's best Interest. The council wants the public to be able to participate in this review. The
outline on this page is Intended to give the public an opportunity to write down those things that
they do not like about an ordinance or regulation. The Council will then review the public's comments
and, when appropriate, make changes to ordinances and regulations.
0 What ordinance or regulation do you want the Council to review? !
Kent Zoning Code Number 15.011.100, Community Commerical District or CC.
0 What is it that bothers you about this ordinance/regulation?
We are seeking to construct a self-storage facility within the CC zone classification
in accordance with the attached site plan. Said use is not permitted outright, nor
is it prohibited. A modern self-storage facility is a commercial activity that is in
the business of "retailing' space to the nearby residential neighborhoods. Accordingly,
it should be allowed pursuant to Section 15.0II.100.A.10 which states "Any other (see p.2)
0 What changes do you suggest to this ordinance/regulation?
The code needs to clarify that a self-storage facility is of the same general character
as other principally permitted uses, and is in accordance with the stated purpose of
the district. Although the zoning code may allow self-storage under Section 15.05.100 C
(Conditionally permitted Uses) and Section 15.0B.030.11.4. (General Conditional Use)
the code should be more specific in subsection B-4. The question of whether it (see p.2)
0 What significance to the Community will occur with your proposed change?
The nearby residential neighborhoods will be conveniently served with closeby storage,
rather than driving all the way down to the valley. A self-storage facility is a
very low generator of traffic. Therefore, the traffic impact associated with other
CC uses will be far less with a self-storage facility. (see page 2)
0 What effect, if any, will your proposed change have on related ordinances,
--- regulations, plans and policies?
No effects are know to Applicant.
0 Have you reviewed your concern with a City staff member?
This issue has been discussed with the Mayor, Mr. Dan Kelleher, and the Planning
Director, Mr. Jim Harris.
0 Do you have any general comments you wish to make (can be about the. or-
dinance/regulation you want changed or about anything else to do with
ordinances/regulations or the permit process)?
We would propose to construct- a self-storage facility of the kind and quality to our
project in Totem Lake (pictures attached). This facility is in the City of Kirkland
and situated almost exactly like the property subject to this Regulatory Review.
The Totem Lake Self-Storage facility is located adjacent to a shopping center to
the east BC zoned properlty to the west, apartments to the north, and an office (see p.2;
L'state oL Caro inct_Berg,
NAME Chris C. 1eady.�LD_Pe1er Curran,_Ai:torney at_Lnw Attnrne f nex_4
ADDRESS 213 - lith Ave. South, Kent, VIA 99035-1126
RHONE NO. 85 - 'ili5
10/85
e '
• W Ih (S II l7 l5 lJ .
REGULATORY REVIEW LR 111988
(continued from page 1)
�rd"firE'T3iENT
What is it that bothers you about this ordinance/regulation? CIT�'GFK6NT
use that is determined by the Planning Director to be the same general character as
the above permitted uses and is in accordance with the stated purpose of the district".
Clearly, a self-storage facility is as actively involved in "limited commercial
activity as other uses allowed within the zone classification, i.e., car washes, -
nureeries, greenhouses, theaters, bowling alleys, skating rinks, miniature golf,
veterinary clinics, nursery schools, day care centers, golf courses, parks, churches,
retirement homes, convalescent homes, private cluvs, and fraternal lodges.
What changes do you sulgest to this ordinance/re ulation?
should be specifically allowed under the Principally Permitted Use section or the
Conditionally Permited Use Section depends on how much the City Council wants to
burden the Hearing Examiner, since subsection 15.04.100 11 requires development plan
approval pursuant to Section 15.08.
What si nificance to the Community will occur with the ro osed changes?
A self-storage facility has a very low demand for utilities and services. Finally,
they can be a very attractive transitional use between the heavy retail surrounding
the property to the west and north, and the residential uses to the east and south.
(Please refer to the photographs attached to this application.)
General comments.
development to the south. The City of Kirkland allowed the self-storage facility
in their BC zone as a permitted use, (Questions regarding this matter can be
directed to Mr. Eric Shields, Principal Planner,Washington also allows sel City of Kirkland.) King County,
f-storage in their BC zone classification (Bee King
County 0{{'dinance No. 8099). The City of Renton allows a self-storage facility within
their/�ohe as a conditional use. The compatibility of self-storage with the general
character of commercial areas, and the need to serve nearby residential neighborhoods
is a trend that has recently been recognized by many ,jurisdictions. Lastly, please
note that our proposed development is really the development of the back land,
and that the front land is exempted from.the self-storage facility. This. is
significant in that we find self-storage to be compatible with other commerical
activities and plan to devleop the front land accordingly.
i
Kent City Council Meeting
1' + ' Date October 4, 1988
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: RESOLUTION REGARDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS AND NONPUBLIC
MEETINGS
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Resolution No . establishing
procedures for discussions on matters in executive sessions or
gatherings not required to be held in public meetings .
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Council 9/20/88
(Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No . 4D
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, related to Council
meetings, gatherings and executive sessions.
WHEREAS, the Kent City Council holds regular and special
meetings and executive sessions within such meetings pursuant to
the requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act; and
WHEREAS, the Kent City Council is also authorized to meet
and discuss certain items outside of public meetings including the
planning or adoption of strategies or positions to be taken by the
Council during the course of any collective bargaining,
professional negotiations, grievance or mediation proceedings, or
the review of proposals made in such negotiations or proceedings
while in progress; and
WHEREAS, at such meetings or gatherings the Council may
give direction on policy to the Mayor and City staff; and
WHEREAS, after such meeting or gathering individual
councilmembers may determine that additional or different
directions affecting such policy matters should again be
considered; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of such executive sessions or
gatherings is to discuss matters requiring confidentiality; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Any change or alteration to the Kent City
Council's directions regarding any matters originally considered
during executive sessions, or other gatherings not required to be
conducted at a regular or special meeting, shall be brought before
the Council for its reconsideration pursuant to legal requirements
prior to any change or alteration to such, directions.
Section 2, All matters discussed within such executive
sessions or gatherings shall be kept confidential by those present
at the session or gathering except to the extent the law requires
a portion of the matters to be brought to an open public meeting
for final action.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this _ day of 1988.
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this _
day of , 1988.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
Resolution No. , passed by the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, the day of 1988.
(SEAL)
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
6140-230
2 -
Kent City Council Meeting
" nor Date October 4, 1988
Category Bid Opening
y'
1. SUBJECT: SR 516 IMPROVEMENTS - UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TO
CENTRAL AVENUE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening was held September 28, ith
three bids received . Gary Merlino Construction submitti�the
low bid in the amount of $287, 496 . It is recommended that upon
receipt of approval for award from the Transportation Improvement
Board and Washington State Department of Transportation) this bid
accepted.
3 . EXHIBITS: Bid summary, memorandum from the Director of Public
Works
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $287 496
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Budget
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: n
Councilmember moves, Councilmember f
seconds
I'l
that upon rec ' pt of authorization to award from
Transportation ' mprovement Board and Washington tate Department
of Transportation that project be awarded to Gary Merlino
Construction in the amount of $287. 496 .
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
" Council Agenda
Item No. 5A
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
September 29, 1988
TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: SR 516 - UPRR to Central Avenue Street Improvements
Bid opening was held September 28 with three bids submitted. The
low bid was submitted by Gary Merlino Construction in the amount
of $287, 496.
The project includes the widening of Willis between 3rd and 4th
Avenues with intersection improvements at Willis and Central and
an overlay of SR 516 (Willis Street) from the UPRR to Central
Avenue. Construction costs are estimated to be $316, 245. 60. The
project budget includes funding participation from the State for
the overlay and Transportation Improvement Board (formerly UAB)
funding. Thus, it is necessary to receive approval to award from
these two agencies. It is recommended that upon receipt of
authorization for award from WSDOT and TIB, the bid submitted by
Gary Merlino construction in the amount of $287, 496 be accepted.
BID TABULATION
,._ Gary Merlino Construction $287, 496. 00
R.W. Scott Construction 295, 226. 10
Robison Construction 296, 345. 20
" Engineer' s Estimate $333 , 170 . 00
23 . rliA ►14.11 fh
4 `i AfM�
. PRO-Jo- T LUCA�'ICa
I,
III I ^`yam
t.wwY
tAvrtot
IN �R If
w
R
wpm �w
1K
w
NI1CN�
itlxsxmxxs
1
' Iu \ftl (• A i Ali
�
/ t rAKK
e 1 (4
I
M
x 24 l'
24
-
t w 15 3u
25
qw
Is
w
t ItIr
T14 IL
F w
HEM
A T
/ rt '
0
lit ►!
It
SR 516 — RR TO C TRAL }
Kent City Council Meeting
`' Date October 4, 1988
•i ` i Category Bid Opening
_. 1. SUBJECT: ASPHALT OVERLAY
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening was held September 27, with
three bids received. The low bid was submitted by M. A. Segale,
Inc . in the amount of $207, 568 . 10. It is recommended that after
receipt of authorization to award from the Washington State
Department of Transportation, this bid be accepted.
3 . EXHIBITS: Bid summary, memorandum from the Director of Public
,._ Works
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $207 568 . 10
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Budget
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
that upon rec i t of authorization to award fro he hington
State Departme t of Transportation that projec a awarded to
M. A. Segale, Inc . for the bid amount of $207, 56 .'10.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 5B
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
September 29, 1988
TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: Asphalt Overlay for 68th Ave. S. (189th St - 180th
St. ) ; 4th Ave. S. (Willis to Gowe) ; S. 252nd St.
(Pacific Highway S. to 25th Ave. S. ) ; S. 208th St.
(84th Ave. S. - 1630' +/- East at West Edge of
Bridge)
Bid opening was September 27 , 1988 with three bids received. The
low bid was submitted by M.A. Segale, Inc. in the amount of
$207, 568 . 10.
The project provides for the overlay of the street sections listed
' - above. The project funding includes Washington State Department
of Transportation participation for the overlay of 68th Avenue
South. Construction costs for the project are estimated at
$228 , 324 .91. It is recommended that after receiving approval from
WSDOT to award that the bid submitted by M.A. Segale, Inc. be
accepted.
BID SUMMARY
M.A. Segale, Inc. $207, 568. 10
Watson Asphalt Paving Co. 226, 046. 85
Lakeside Industries 239, 245. 31
Engineer' s Estimate $265, 002 . 25
ST lei (t 1WTN m R E N T O N
I /
4
3 Q os°cN L KENT CITY I
e T (VAQ
s 1{ - -
ND N 3T
PROJECT,:* LOCATION
` ORILLIA
SCALE: 1 = 1000 g
L A
r o
` q O
3 63TH ST 1 Ij
' Q l 3 106TH 3T �
C�
W INDUSTRIAL
i u AREA a
S 190TH ST a \. 190TH ST
i ZO
S. 190fh. ET. N z
23 N 35 36 / S 192ND ST 36 31
.� 22 N �j. 2 1 6 `...
b r S \ I
t SI 194TH ST
S. 1941h. ST 1
1
196TH ST \`\/
\
• O S 196TH ST
2
q
t \
i U < INDUSTRIAL W
v Q I ^ AREA
a
< "4 � 4 tl
o C
-
7 1 \ S 200TH STCL
Z
~ l
v q
> W
w Y 3 202ND ST
w J
ct m W
� C >
t
p
Indu.VlMl Rood O ,1•
S. 204 TH. ST
_ , 2
2 Z >
O <
AERO SPACE V
` 3 206TH ST i.= S 206TH ST
INDUSTRY PA,w wR A
Lt I z Y
4 Rood
1 i \ 3 1206TH ST 1 6 S 20e1
r 12. ,
=t { 8.01
T
WCOLE ST
r
h},ti 172'
At 1'Ulh •r
1 JN' 24,500 1 g zz
w CLOUDY fT on N <
1 s 2saTH 'N f o
ti n
•r =M f� z
<
JAES ST 14 113 4 = a fT a z z
23 24 ", RENT
�MSCHOOL
Athletic Fld
r I M EER 2 E
> 1•LArKIK1.I1 • ST z z
< 4m
yq SMITH ST _ W SMITH sT ,* MEKpT��—
z •1'•�. z O z = < WARD xCEN7TE
ST evv
PROJECT LOCATION z < M II ST z ti iQ
_ •+W ME[KERa 2 ST
246TH ST
f 2 a < F jSUb
wrr < STE t
< yVITW Sla Y
INTCHG � .r� < E
N Had
< , 61B » � 4� 4�» TAI
1!1 ifo T aT� 167
W
tT
to
'S16 ✓ < W »
:. VAII v Ss R ALPIN
S ST » WAY >
f » _ S/6 ate.
✓ s I < ~ N . . Sr p E
\ ! a WQQ ST RU < ;
.9F F <
Fire
y S I'AI I K S Stollo 1 ~ << . Y Z cm
11111101 romg 2� ST
1 < MARIO
» » »» ST
24 19
2 124 1 25 30
i SCALE: 1" = 1000' »
»
w f 2ff1TH >st f 25M ST
W � :..?r• ? �i;�?,eriifkf??.. e , :?ll. � I ,•
� .r• 1
f DER LN.
?262 2 f 262NDMINIMUM
"??•.,
f ND ST
I?' fT 1 fT • ,??list:
MI
I »
J is `
\ I? I Y _
V3
.r 187 e 1 TM; 1f,�8.,02
F, i �� 'mM 4 Yt1
station 516 9
w IFf 236TH ST
Athletic r
i-NO I S
< H1CiMLlt1 I � �`�
. a3m
IDWAY `
'rneada' ? t I
w s X 24M 16 15 IT
w ar �;. » 9 21 22
N< » 7'y �
242NDVC ET
A.
toTheater
» » » z
Y
. I► � s 243RD r 43
243RD IT a 8
A2 2ND ITIT
3 ^
f 2 I.TH
244TH _ K ITH ; aTWARNINGTON2�TM« S(:ALE: 1" 1000" � = N(A,UTARDL2,e a I n n ^ ARMORY
HCMOOI" UNl1A aUNNYCRILIT 'e •
246TH PL (�R ] fisu.0 9 [L[M[NTARY
�5 I-AliK i {C.NOCL� 24
�. I 'f r 24 IT
s 24SfH 871..
Sanitary Land
ET
24ST
4 ®r, OT11 R K S < 2sOTN IT I~r �. f"�/:'-!..���,� _Ab f - 2507H IT
z 2s19T itr PROJECT LOCATIOiN w52SISTI
UL
2 1 IT T
262ND IT � K s2s2 f 252ND 12
a
s 3
i mof
IT =a►L - IT
» d?h an ! 52NOC
s 2saRo iT r s 253R0 IT s 2 h :' i� '�i
\ - ! ttb t I IF » + 53RD PL
FL�ti 253RD i-
w ,
- < q - s 254 aT t g w ♦ w i 1. 3
N � �' r ~ It
S255TH Leseioir0
!"e"
? « L f 255TH aT t
;e i fT .IT w 32"
» 267TH IT b 325 T
» to
�
fsT
K
s 2dM IT 5T • <
yj GIST r 0 s 2618 9
Power IT
261ST K Sub-Station i $SUIT
262ND IT f
�' <w » _ s r
w
a g + s 1s+
t t.1 U
s 26i IT
Water 0 A
s 24M Rese►vdr .V %CT --:
K King Count 8,03
Mauilenance Shops i��tti:i :GC A 1
w K ® u t> . N[
N �
a 1 TOT[M c
NELYUN• f � JR.NL �x
Lr .PAKK� G�a WHOOL ,£
0
11 ��
194TH ST $ =
SE 19�4TM
S" 196TH ST \ -
IE
H = C \
9SrH �1
)l'rz,TRIAI
P-EA s z
_ � 8
s zooTH ST s 200TV ar SE 200TH
a ST
Dnvc In The ter
J. H
sT - r� ��hi S 202N0 ST tMINOSROOKTg
•� I: ^ ELEMENT
ARV J
N SCHOOL W IL
SCALE: 1" ='1000' ' '
N
US 205TH h�. a WPL SE 206TH ST i' 206TH t-
PL ! O ST 207
H�
R - s S 2osTH ST tH a S 07TH S 206TH ST 6 5 SE 208TH ET
4; - 8 W 2 M
y InduttrlM Road I' . °* P�1N1
E PL ELK
- PROJECT f,,OCATION s 210TH P` o
.. SE
2 2TH ST EE
S '7 212TH , ST 4 a p�'b 1pp-� Wy�
4 8 PL d ?T
?�Jr ST 13TH • 'N
0•6RIEN _ _� �fti S ST <
O S N I M a 213TH = SE 213TH PL
t 21 PL
ar
> I S 216TH W '�
f J
SO. 216TH ST. 1 d ST i SE 216TH ST
I S
., S 218TH ST 1 \ S 'I 21 / a E
< '•
r1111<IW
� f
INDUSTRIAL
�.. AREA \
>♦
all
222ND ST SE 2221
•r 3T >L ST
S 222NU _
12 ' 7 a 7 8 sE 224TH ST
18 17 8.04
R E P O R T S
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT
B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
D. PLANNING COMMITTEE
E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
F. PARKS COMMITTEE
G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
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 system 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 less 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 existing 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 the ordinance 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 has 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 Council agenda.
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES
September 15, 1988
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Christi Houser
Paul Mann
Steve Dowell D L `L,
STAFF PRESENT: Brent McFall
Tony McCarthy SEP 1988
Jim Hansen
Ron Spang CITY OF KriVT
Charlie Lindsey CITY CLERK
Torn Vetsch
Dee Gergich
Mimi Castillo
OTHERS PRESENT: Jackson Carter, Arai Jackson Architects
APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS
All claims for the period ending September 15, 1988, in the amount of
$2,113,334.60 were approved for payment. As a point of note, this is the largest
expenditure amount the City's has ever incurred, at least within the last two
years. Large expenditures were for the northend fire station, the golf course
and the Smith Street improvements.
COUNCIL CHAMBER REMODEL
Brent McFall noted that the architect, Jackson Carter, had prepared the bid specs
for the Council Chamber remodel , with the expectation that they would go out soon
and be ready for award at the Council meeting of October 18. It was noted that
there wasn't a firm construction timeline because of the coordination of many
trades and the unknowns of a remodel . Jackson Carter noted that the improvements
planned are for improved lighting with reflected panels , improved soundtcarpet,
furnishing, a display wall with a neutral backdraw, conduit for eventual full
video and a fibre artwork. Based on a question from Councilman Dowell , it was
noted that a separate sound engineering firm was working on improving the sound
system and that the best option appeared to be many small speakers included in a
lowered ceiling.
City Administrator McFall noted that during the construction period it would be
best for the Council to relocate it's meetings to another site rather than pay
the contractor additional funds for weekly cleanup of the remodel site. Possible
Operations Committee Minutes
September 15, 1988
Page 2
options include the library conference room or the Senior Center. Based on a
question from Councilman Mann, the possibility of delaying the
videoing of Council meetings until after the remodel was discussed. It was noted
that current video operation is basically with the home video setup and this
operation will be improved with the Council remodel . With respect to the sound
system, Jim Hansen noted that a citizen had approached him after the last meeting
noting that he couldn't hear the Council presentations.
REPORT ON •THE OFFICE BUILDING PROJECT
Brent noted because of the full discussion with the entire Council at Tuesday
nights meeting that this item didn't need to be on the agenda. He did note that
earlier in the morning he attended a meeting with KDA and they expressed
enthusiastic interest for the project. He noted that based on the Council
discussion at the workshop that an item will be placed on the consent calendar
for 9/20 authorizing Brent to negotiate sale and purchase agreement on City land
and a lease agreement on the office space. Both these arrangements will be
subject to Council approval at a subsequent meeting. The committee commended
Brent for his remarkable work in working on the development of this project and
C
oving it ahead.
FLOOR REMODEL
City Administrator McFall noted that the intent of the move of the Drinking
Driver Task Force and the Crime Prevention Unit to the Commons was so that the
Information Services area on the second floor of City Hall could be improved to
provide adequate space for the Information Services staff. He noted that the
remodel process involved the removal of two bathrooms that had been associated
with the judges chamber and the elimination of the hall way that previously
connected the 2nd floor with the courtroom. These two modifications in addition
to some minor modifications in word processing to provide a word processing unit
in lieu of a closet and the opening up of another closet for a Information
Services reception area were additional improvements designed for the area. The
Council felt these improvements were needed and recommended the go ahead.
66F-01F