HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 09/20/1988 City of Kent
City Council Meeting
- Agenda
u
- 9-ao- 8a
Office of the City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
IN CT September 20, 1988
Summary. Agenda
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 COMMUNI7
J
2 . PUPCIC HEARINGS
Surplus Property .
Housing and Community Development Block Grant Program ;
3. C ENT CALENDAR
Minutes
B. Bills
e-" zoning Code Amendment - Ordinance
hl M /I7 Exxon Oil Rebate
LID 320 (West James Street) - Contract Completion
j East Smith Street/East Walnut Storm Improvements
Completion
�� Fourth Avenue Signalization Completion
Agreement for Public/Private Office Building Project
I . Supplemental Budget Appropriation
{�j•� 3 �.a�' Joint Reservoir Control Board
4. OT R BUSINESS
Signature Pointe Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
No. SMA-88-4
y _"I Riverbend Golf Course Rezone
Waste Collection Service 7
5 BIDS
Upper Mill Creek Detention Basin
�8!� Neighborhood Pedestrian Improvements
6 . REPORTS
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
ADJOURNMENT
65.
_ tra e�
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time,
make known the subject of • interest, so all may be properly
heard.
Kent City Council Meeting
1 t; Date September 20, 1988
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: SURPLUS PROPERTY
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set for a public
hearing on the sale of a house at 26801 106th Ave. S.E. which has
been declared surplus to the City' s needs .
/ } YJ
3 . EXHIBITS: Maio and Map + '
L' fin/
}
4. RECOMMENDED BY.
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS: —
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
• CLOSE HEARING:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember 0 seconds
that the proper y declared as surplus be offered for sale to the
highest bidder for the value of the property as determined by
the Property Manager, plus administrative costs .
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 2A
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
September 1.5, 1988
TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom V 0
SUBJ: Surplus Property - 106th Ave SE
The property is a home at 26801 - 106th Avenue S.E. It was
purchased for the expansion of the Upper Mill Creek Detention
Basin. It has been recommended that the property be declared as
surplus and offered for sale through the bidding process for the
value of the property as determined by the Property Manager plus
administrative costs.
ST.JAMES x
SCHOOL
WEILANO S F W S 246TH I 1
ST 2471H
G ST x x W H
1 k > g 24ST11 STI SE 24tliH ST
;i\ •~ F x w 41
l�
TLC
516  '; SE
ST \Ir ''•� tF,i, S 252NL T sE 212WD sr _.
EAST 1111.1.
ST °C , i�:; ,:?1p� CENTER '
171 ,la�: Fl.r,ch SE 252ND $ u Y+
In
ST 1 r L. Find � I W < .W SE 254T11 ^.4 ,
�� F I e j 1 cou
�YJi W < W 7A ��A '� KENT-MERIDIAN x f x
a i Y < 21.
�,�,•r •y0 iOR.H1. SCHOOL
WAl ilJT in W ST SE 256TH 5T
PLE ST ; �v '' S a` o > < S.E.25711IN .
•(, a `1 eir(
Ir
CLMETFHY �` '•� -•'• 7�Ir
nl M:N1� �Ij zo k
SE t
S k
SE 260TH ST 60T11E
�. ..r.�. SCENIC HILL ST G�FK
f••-'? • ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL - a0
A I 1 < SEQUOIA
�4f• rn vl (Pvl) JR.H1. ;
S lS2N0 SCHOOL
1 ►1 � ` x
� I S� W �� rp Atlilrfic, .
SE 264TH STD r '�
ti w -/T-�'- M r-L
x
••
FIV
• �:.' N j Water,.,/ SE 2 'TIi -'
.Ifeserv0lff;q ST
x SITE
r SE 266TH ZN � rn
r
LOCATION
>
SE 270TIl
�} PL `� SE 7.71ST CT z i
•P 30 29 SE 272Ho ST 2`J 28
— 31 32 32 y
SF 274TH ST
i
b� S •
4 �
N CITY LIMITS .
— __ _ __ _ __ _ x E . St C i
IMbEi
A U B U R N . ; //
.............�
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 20, 1988
Category Public Hearings
i
1. SUBJECT: HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT - 1989
PROGRAM
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This public hearing will consider adoption
of the 1989 Housing and Community Development Block Grant Program
as recommended by the City Councils Planning Committee.
3 . EXHIBITS: Proposed 1989 program summary, project descriptions,
staff memo, recommendation of Planning Committee 9/6/88 and Human
Services Commission 8/25/88 .
4. RECOMMENDED BY:Planninq Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $227, 948
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Federal Community Development Block Grant Money
OPEN HEARING: W" )
PUBLIC INPUT: 1
CLOSE HEARING:
6. C I TY COUNCIL ACTION: �
Councilmember M6 es, Councilmember seconds
to approve the 1989 Housing and Community Development Block
Grant Program as presented.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION: ✓f J� -�
Council Agenda
Item No. 2B
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
September 15, 1988
MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members
FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director
SUBJECT: KENT'S 1989 PROPOSED HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (H&CDBG)
Attached is a copy of the proposed 1989 Housing and Community
Development Block Grant Program as recommended by the City Council
Planning Committee. Also attached is a narrative description of
all the recommended projects. The human services portion of the
proposed 1989 Program was reviewed by the Human Services Commission
on July 28, 1988, and their recommendation was made to the
Council ' s Planning Committee on September 6th. The Planning
Committee reviewed the Human Services Commission' s recommendation
and the Planning staff's recommendation for the remainder of the
proposed program on September 6, 1988 .
The 1989 CDBG Program Year is a 12-month period from January 1,
1989 through December 31, 1989 . The estimated total amount for the
1989 City of Kent CDBG Program is $215, 007 . A maximum of $25, 500
of these funds can be used for public (human) services.
The County has also informed us that there is a possibility of the
City receiving a higher level of funding than noted in the above
estimate. This is dependent on the final federal entitlement
budget. This higher level estimate for the City of Kent is
$227 ,948 . If this higher level funding is received, the public
(human) services ceiling will be increased to $26, 843 . This higher
level estimate contains a degree of uncertainty at this time.
In the attached Planning-Committee-recommended, proposed 1989
Program we have listed both the "base level" program
recommendations and the "higher level" program recommendations.
Both of these recommendations include the City Council 's Planning
Committee and the Human Services Commission' s recommendations for
allocation of any additional funding which may be received.
In light of the two different dollar estimates for the 1989 Program
it is necessary for the City Council to take two actions.
1. Approve or modify the baseline 1989 Housing and Community
Development Program as recommended by the Planning
Committee.
2 . Allocate any additional funds which may be received at
a later date on a contingency basis only, as shown in the
"higher level" funding proposal. (Human Services portion
has been approved by the Human Services Commission. )
The 1989 City of Kent CDBG program applications must be submitted
to the county by October 3 , 1988 .
LB:JPH:ca
CITY OF RENT 2989 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
AS RECOMMENDED BY THE COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF AVAILABLE FUNDS: $215,007
LIMITS ON EXPENDITURES FOR ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN SERVICES:
1989 Human Services Ceiling $ 25,500
1989 Planning and Administration Ceiling $ 10,200 _
Project Tyne Recommends R commended
"Base Level' ' Higher Level'
Funding F'grAlina
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. $ 6,000 $ 6,000
$215,007 $227,948
Applications not recommended for funding: "Children's Therapy Center",
Funding Requested - $5,600; and "Adult Day Care", Funding Requested -
$10,000.
* This is an existing project funded in 1987 at $8,000. The $6,000 would
be additional money allocated to this project due to need for extra
money to complete the project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FOR PROPOSED
CITY OF KENT HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
__. 1. PROGRAM PLANNING ADMINISTRATION
A portion of the Block Grant funds will be used to pay for
administration of the program and for planning future years ' housing and
community development activities. CDBG funds will provide 25% of the
salary for 1 planner for the twelve-month program year with a small
amount set aside for training, communications, and supplies.
2 . HOUSING REPAIR SERVICES PROGRAM
Kent Block Grant funds have financed a housing repair program for over
10 years. Funds are used to perform both minor and major repairs on
needy owner-occupied housing, which is primarily located with the
Neighborhood Strategy Area. Where appropriate, homeowners participate
in the work through a self-help arrangement. All beneficiaries are
screened to ensure households meet income eligibility requirements. A
new component of the housing repair services program which will begin
in 1989 is the summer painting program. The painting program will
provide exterior house painting services to those qualifying households
within the Neighborhood Strategy Area.
CDBG funds will be used to pay salaries, vehicle rental, tools and
supplies, work of housing contractors and related costs.
3 . . NORTH PARK TOT LOT REHABILITATION
The North Park Tot Lot is located in the Neighborhood Strategy Area
--• (NSA) . The existing play equipment is unsafe and is need of replacement
or refurbishing. This project will replace a large wooden play
structure, and refurbish several other pieces of play equipment. Also,
a twelve inch soft ground cover will be placed under each piece of
equipment to help prevent injury from falls.
The proposed project would use CDBG funds to renovate a neighborhood
play area for children of low- and moderate-income residents living in
the North Park neighborhood.
4 . SPECIAL POPULATIONS RESOURCE CENTER HANDICAP ACCESSIBILITY
The Special Populations Resource Center is operated by the City Parks
and Recreation Department. Located in the NSA, the Center serves
developmentally and physically disabled persons, such as victims of
stroke. The Center' s building was constructed approximately 43 years
ago and is need of modification to allow the handicapped easy access to
the facility.
The proposed project would use Block Grant funds to install an electric
door with push plate, construct a wheelchair ramp accessing the stage
at the north end of the Mt. Rainier Hall, and to install a new folding
panel door within the building.
PROPOSED 1989 BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM t4,�
5. SOUTH KING COUNTY MIIbTI=SERVICE CENTER TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
This pr ram will use City of Kent Block Grant funds to lease two units
for one year to house for up to three months, homeless, low-income
families. The Center will also provide full case-management services
as well as financial assistance in helping these families to achieve
self-sufficiency and permanent housing. One hundred percent of the
families assisted through this program will be of very low income.
6 . KENT/RENTON JOINT RENTAL HOUSING REHABILITATION
This project is a continuation of an activity funded through Block Grant
in previous years. CDBG funds will be used to pay a portion of the
Program Coordinator's salary for the joint cities' rental rehabilitation
program. This program uses federal funds to assist owners of housing
occupied by low- and moderate-income renters to bring the rental
properties up to a decent, safe, and sanitary level.
7. KAIBARA PARK PHASE III
Kaibara Park is a linear park centrally located in Kent' s Neighborhood
Strategy Area and used by the low- and moderate-income residents of the
NSA. The park borders 1, 000 feet of Burlington Northern Railroad
tracks. The proposed project is to plant a landscaping barrier along
the edge of the park bordering the railroad. This landscape buffer will
provide both a visual barrier for park users and a safety barrier to
deter youngsters from accessing the railroad tracks from the park.
8. KENT PARA-TRANSIT (VAN-GO)
The Van-Go program is a continuation of an activity funded through CDBG
funds in previous years. The program is operated by the South King
County Multi-Service Center and provides free transportation services
to nutritional site and health services for low income elderly and
handicapped residents.
The 1989 proposal requests CDBG funding to pay a portion of two van
drivers ' salaries.
9 . KENT SINGLE-PARENT EMPLOYMENT & EDUCATION
This program is designed to place single women heads of household with -
children in gainful employment. operated by the Kent Soroptomist Club,
the program provides counseling and support, job training and
development, follow-up mentoring and job placement to women receiving
public assistance through Aid to Families with Dependent Children.
Kent Soroptomist proposes to use 1989 CDBG funds to expand the program.
Block Grant funds will be used to send qualifying
2
.,, PROPOSED 1989 BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
women through the Washington Womdn's Employment & Education (WWEE)
course. Funds will provide for a three week training program, child
care, and transportation costs. A small portion of the funds will be
used to advertise the screening interviews for applicants to the
-- program.
10. KENT COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES
The Kent Community Clinic, which is located in the City's NSA, provides
health care service to low- and moderate-income residents of Kent and
the Greater Kent area. In program year 1989, CDBG funds will be used
to pay a portion of the professional staff (physician, nurse
practitioner, and medical assistant) salaries. This project has been
funded in previous years by the City's Block Grant program.
All CDBG funds in the 1989 program year are proposed to support medical
care for low- and moderate-income residents living within the City.
11. DAWN (DOMESTIC ABUSE WOMEN'S NETWORK)
DAWN provides services to victims of domestic violence, their children,
and the community. DAWN services include a 24-hour hotline, weekly
support groups, legal advocacy, safe homes and community education.
Proposed CDBG funds for this program will be used to pay a portion of
the rent expenses for the DAWN facility.
12 . BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD DEPOT DESIGN STUDY
This is an existing CDBG project approved by the City Council as a 1987
project. The CDBG funds will be used to perform a feasibility study,
-- design study, and to produce construction documents for the
rehabilitation and reuse of the BN Depot located in Kent's NSA. The
additional funds allocated in the 1989 program are necessary for the
preparation of the construction documents.
3
CONSENT CALENDAR
3 . City Council Action:
Councilmember_-k moves, Councilmember
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through J be approved.
Discussion
- --- . P
Action -
r�
nV� 3A. Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
September 6, 1988 .
3B. Approval of Bills.
Approval of payment of the bills received through September 22,
n �( after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at
8 :30 a.m. on September 30, 1988 .
' 1 \ 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
Council Agenda
Item No. 3 A-B
r
Kent, Washington
September 6, 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, White and Woods, City Administrator McFall , City Attorney Driscoll,
Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom and Finance
Director McCarthy. Also present: Fire Chief Angelo and Police Chief
Frederiksen. Councilmember Mann was not in attendance. Approximately
50 people were at the meeting.
PRESENTATION Employee of the Month. Mayor Kelleher congratulated
Priscilla Shea who has been selected as the Employee
of the Month for September. He noted that Ms. Shea
is a Budget Analyst in the Finance Department. Finance
Director McCarthy commended her for her "team"
approach to the budget process. The Mayor then pre-
sented Ms. Shea with the Employee of the Month plaque.
PROCLAMATION Constitution Week. Mayor Kelleher read a proclamation
declaring the week of September 17-23, 1988 as "Con-
stitution Week" in the City of Kent. He presented the
uroclamation to Donna Grothaus of the Daughters of the American
Revolution.
CONSENT CALENDAR BITEMAN MOVED to approve Consent Calendar Items A
through V• Woods seconded and the motion carried.
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3A)
Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the
regular Council meeting of August 16, 1988.
HEALTH _& (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3N)
SANITATION Northward Business Park. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of
sale and warranty agreement for continuous operation
and maintenance for approximately 922 feet of water
main extension, 512 feet of sanitary sewer extension,
750 feet of street improvements and 1107 feet of storm
sewer improvements constructed in the vicinity of 72nd
Avenue South and South 192nd for the Northward Business
-- Park, and release of the cash bond after expiration of
the one year maintenance period.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 30)
Pay and Pak Distribution Center. ACCEPTANCE of the
bill of sale and warranty agreement for continuous
operation and maintenance for approximately 51 feet of
sanitary sewer extension constructed on 72nd Avenue
South for the Pay and Pak Distribution Center and
release of the cash bond.
- 1 -
September 6, 1988
SEWERS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3P)
LID 322 - West View Terrace Sewer Improvements.
AUTHORIZATION to set October 18, 1988 as the date for
a public hearing on the confirmation of the final assess-
ment roll for the sanitary sewer improvements constructed
in the West View Terrace area.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3Q)
LID 323 - Olympic View Heights Sewer Improvements.
AUTHORIZATION to set October 18, 1988 as the date for
a public hearing on the confirmation of the final assess-
ment roll for the sanitary sewer improvements constructed
in the Olympic View Heights area.
STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3R)
LID 325 - 76th Avenue South (S. 212th to S. 220th)
Street Improvements. AUTHORIZATION to set October 18,
1988 as the date for a public hearing on the confirma-
tion of the final assessment roll for the street improve-
ments constructed on 76th Avenue South from S. 212th
to S. 220th Street.
LID 327 - West Valley Highway Embankment and Fill.
The bid opening was held September 6 , 1988 with seven
bids received. The Public Works Director stated that
the low bid was submitted by City Transfer in the
amount of $145, 080 , and recommended that it be accepted.
He also noted that the City has negotiated a right of
entry agreement with Upland Industrial Development
Company and requested that the Mayor be authorized to
sign the agreement. JOHNSON MOVED that the Mayor be
authorized to sign a right of way entry agreement with
Upland Industrial Development Company and that the low
bid of $145, 080 from City Transfer be accepted . White
seconded and the motion carried.
STREET VACATION (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 31 )
Union Pacific Street Vacation. ADOPTION of Resolution
1181 setting the date of October 4, 1988 for the hear-
ing on the Union Pacific Railroad, Inc. , application
for a street vacation.
Central Premix Concrete Company Street Vacation No.
STV-88-2. This hearing will consider a request by
Central Premix Concrete Company to vacate a portion of
South 208th Street. The City Clerk has given proper legal notice. ...
The public hearing was opened by Mayor Kelleher. There
were no comments from the audience and BITEMAN MOVED to
close the public hearing. Woods seconded and the
motion carried.
2 -
September 6, 1988
STREET VACATION WOODS MOVED to approve Street Vacation No. STV-88-2 with
two conditions as outlined in the staff report dated
September 1 , 1988 and to direct the City Attorney to
prepare the required ordinance upon receipt of the com-
pensation. Biteman seconded. Motion carried.
TRAFFIC CONTROL (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3J)
Street Closure Permits. ADOPTION of Ordinance 2797
giving the City the discretion to grant temporary
street closure permits subject to certain restrictions
as specifically required by the Chief of Police.
_ I
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3M)
Canyon Drive Speed Limits. ADOPTION of Ordinance 2800
reducing the speed limit on Smith/Canyon Drive from
Central Avenue east to 100th Avenue S.E. to 35 mph
and amending Section 10.08.058 of the Kent City Code,
as approved by the Public Works Committee.
272nd/277th Street Corridor. The Public Works Com-
mittee recommends that the Mayor be authorized to sign
a memorandum of understanding naming Kent as lead agency
to do a study on the alignment of the 272nd/277th
corridor from the Green River to Kent-Kangley Road.
JOHNSON MOVED that the recommendation be approved.
Houser seconded. White noted that Mayor Kelleher
had worked hard on this project and commended him for
his efforts in addressing the City ' s traffic problems.
Upon Dowell ' s question, the Mayor noted that although
the City had recently entered into an interlocal agree-
ment to make King County the lead agency, they have been
negotiating with the County to allow Kent to be the
lead agency since Kent does not have the same regula-
tions with respect to procurement policies. McFall
noted that this would not hamper the efforts to create
the Transportation B^_nefit District which is on-going
with the County. The motion then carried.
SURPLUS PROPERTY Upper Mill Creek Detention Basin. This date has been
set for a public hearing on the sale of a house on
106th Avenue S.E. which has been declared surplus to
the City' s needs . Due to an error in the published
,.•., legal description and estimated value, it is necessary
to reschedule the public hearing.
Resol11t1Q 118Q has been prepared to replace the original
Resolution 1179, and will correct the legal description,
adjust the value to take into account the cost of remov-
ing the house and will reschedule the public hearing
to September 20 , 1988.
- 3 -
September 6, 1988
SURPLUS PROPERTY DOWELL MOVED to adopt Resolution 1180 as described.
Houser seconded and the motion carried.
LIBRARY (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3T)
King County Library Bond Issue. ADOPTION of Resolution
1183 , supporting the King County Library Bond Issue.
APPOINTMENTS Appointments CONFIRMATION of the Mayor ' s appoint-
ments as follows :
Library Board - Appointment of Ted Ripley as an interim
board member until such time as Sally Hopkins can
resume her duties.
Saturday Market Advisory Board - Appointment of Janette
Nuss as the Citizen-at-Large representative replacing i
Sally Ann Storey. This appointment will expire in
October 1990.
Planning Commission - Appointment of Gabriella Uhlar-
Heffner to the Planning Commission to replace Nancy
Rudy. This term will expire December 31 , 1990 .
POLICE DEPARTMENT ( CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3C)
Drinking Driver Task Force Donation. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
of a donation of $25 from Nor-Pac Systems, Inc. to
the Drinking Driver Task Force.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3G)
Drinking Driver Task Force Office Furnishings. APPROVAL
of a supplemental budget appropriation from the General
Fund in the amount of $2 , 750 for the purchase of office
furnishings for the Drinking Driver Task Force.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3K)
Criminal Assistance Ordinance. ADOPTION of Ordinance
2798 amending the Kent City Code which currently makes
it a crime to render criminal assistance.,to provide a
specific definition of that crime.
i
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3L)
Simple Assault Ordinance. ADOPTION of Ordinance
2799 changing the title of the crime "simple assault"
to "assault in the fourth degree" .
FIRE DEPARTMENT (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3E)
Fire District 37 Contract. AUTHORIZATION to renew the
contract with King County Fire District No. 37 , which
authorizes the Kent Fire Department to perform fire
and life safety inspections in the district.
4 -
September 6, 1988
FIRE DEPARTMENT (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3F)
Public Safety Computer Software Contract. AUTHORIZATION
for the Mayor to execute a contract, subject to final
review and approval by the City Attorney, with Command
Data Systems for their Fire Management Information
System; for a total cost not to exceed $80, 000, includ-
ing software, installation, training and related costs .
., Fire Department Bid. Bid opening was held on July 15,
1988. Upon the recommendation of the Fire Department,
BITEMAN MOVED to award the bids as follows:
C. L. Kirk Company in the amount of $158 , 110. 00 for
two aid vehicles ,
Mays Equipment Company in the amount of $440, 615. 60
for two engine aid apparatus,
and to reject all bids for the aerial ladder truck and
authorize a recall for bids for this item.
Johnson seconded and the motion carried.
Seven-Year Plan. Councilmember Johnson distributed
a proposed resolution regarding implementation of com-
munity fire safety plans and target issues and MOVED
that it be referred to the Public Safety Committee for
further discussion. White seconded and the motion
carried.
Sprinkler ordinance. Councilmember Johnson distributed
a proposed ordinance regarding amendments to the
sprinkler system requirements and MOVED that it be
referred to the Public Safety Committee for further
discussion. White seconded and the motion carried.
PERSONNEL (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3H)
Conversion of Janitorial Positions. AUTHORIZATION to
convert two part-time janitorial positions to one full
time position, providing a net increase of four hours
at a cost of approximately $4, 000 per year, as approved
by the Operations Committee at their September 1 meet-
ing. Additional duties relate to supervision at the
Shops, City Hall recycling, new carpeted areas in the
Police Department and outside trash pickup previously
done by Parks.
PLANNING (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3S)
Planning Association of Washington. ADOPTION of
Resolution 1182 commending and congratulating the Plan-
ning Association of Washington for 25 years of service
to planning in the State and pledging City of Kent on-
going support for the success of the organization.
- 5 -
September 6 , 1988
SHORELINE PERMIT Signature Pointe No. SMA-88-4 Appeal. This date has
- APPEAL been established fora public hearing to consider an
appeal by Triad Development, Inc. of the Hearing Exami-
ner 's conditional approval of the Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit for the Signature Pointe multifamily
development (SMA-88-4 ) . Specifically 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 S. , -
south of Meeker Street at SR516 .
Libby Hudson of the Planning Department described the _
request as a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
application by Triad Development to build a 584-unit
apartment projct within 200 feet of the Green River.
The property consists of 38. 8 acres and is locted on
64th Avenue South at SR516. She explained that the
Hearing Examiner had recommended approval, with two
conditions, the second of which is the basis of this
appeal. Condition No. 2 states that the site plan
shall be revised to provide more than one ingress and
egress point for public safety and to comply with the
City-wide Comprehensive Plan, the Valley Floor Plan
and the City of Kent Shoreline Master Program.
The public hearing was declared open by the Mayor. It
was determined for Fred Grimm of Triad Development
that his letter of August 19 had been distributed with
the information for this hearing. He stated that the
Hearing Examiner ' s condition does not relate to pro-
tection of the shoreline, and that the applicable codes
require only one access. He noted that the condition
was not based on supportable facts and pointed out that
the Fire Department did not impose this condition
under the SEPA process. Grimm noted that The Lakes
Development with 558 units, has only one access, with
another planned after further development. Woodland
Estates ha.s one access for 190 units. Another access
would require acquisition of adjacent property and
Grimm stated that Triad has secured an option on three
lots , but a condition which would require this purchase
is questionable. He noted that Triad had met all of
the requirements imposed by the Shoreline Master Plan,
that a Shoreline Permit cannot be conditioned to address
non-shoreline concerns, and that the Hearing Examiner
went beyond her authority in suggesting this condition.
Upon questions from the Mayor, it was determined that
the Hearing Examiner had not specified how this appli-
cation was not in compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan, the Valley Floor Plan or the Shoreline Master Plan.
6 -
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
be required and favored the Hearing Examiner ' s con-
dition. Leona Orr, 24909 114th Avenue S.E. , stated
that there seemed to be some confusion as to which
areas the Hearing Examiner had jurisdiction over. She
asked to have some explanation made for the public.
She noted further that she did not favor such a develop-
ment so close to the river.
There were no further comments and the hearing was
closed by motion. JOHNSON MOVED to modify the findings
of the Hearing Examiner to disagree and to delete Con-
dition No. 2. Biteman seconded. Johnson stated that
it was his opinion that the Hearing Examiner had exceeded
her authority in attaching this condition. He noted
that no such condition was mentioned during the SEPA
process, even though the proposed density was higher
at that time. He stated that the issue here was grant-
ing of the shoreline permit. Dowell expressed concern
over the 24 ft. road but agreed with Johnson and Bite-
man. WHITE THEN MOVED to table for two weeks, Woods
seconded and the motion carried with Johnson and Bite-
man dissenting.
ZONING CODE Gymnastics Schools in M-1 and M-2 Zoning Districts (ZCA-88-7)
AMENDMENTS On August 22, the Planning Commission recommended
approval of a Zoning Code amendment to allow as an out-
right permitted use gymnastic schools or similar uses
in both the M-1 ( Industrial Park District) and M-2
(Limited Industrial District) . Also recommended was
the inclusion of health and fitness clubs and facilities
in the M-2 district as an outright permitted use.
WOODS MOVED to approve Zoning Code Amendment No. ZCA-88-7
as recommended by the Planning Committee and to direct
the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance.
White seconded and the motion carried.
Hearing Examiner Approval of Exceptions to Development
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 -
September 6, 1988
ZONING CODE WHITE MOVED to refer Zoning Code Amendment No. ZCA-88-5
AMENDMENTS to the Planning Committee for consideration. Johnson
seconded. Motion carried.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3U)
Hazardous Waste Treatment and Storage Facilities.
ADOPTION of Ordinance 2801 which amends the City of
Kent Zoning Code as required by recent State legis-
lation to designate land use zones in which hazardous
waste treatment and storage facilities will be allowed
as permitted uses . The proposed amendments will add
new definitions, siting criteria, performance standards
and permitted uses to the commercial, industrial and
agricultural zones. The Planning Commission has recom-
mended the zoning changes after holding a public hear-
ing on May 23 , 1988. Council adopted the recommendation
by Planning Commission 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 proposd Zoning Code amend-
ments , subject to adoption by the Kent City Council
and submittal of the adopted ordinance to the Depart-
ment for final approval.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3V)
Planned Unit Development. ADOPTION of Ordinance 2802
which establishes Kent City Code Section 15. 04 . 080
Planned Unit Development and amends Kent City Code
Chapter 2 . 54 relating to Hearing Examiner decisions
regarding Planned Unit Developments. In mid-1987 the
Planning Commission recommended to the Council that a
new PUD ordinance be adopted. The Council referred
this recommendation to the Planning Committee. In
April 1988 the Planning Committee formed a citizen
committee to review the Planning Commission ' s draft
ordinance. On July 19 , 1988, the Council ' s Planning
Committee unanimously recommended to the full Council
that the PUD Citizens Advisory Committee ' s proposed
draft of the PUD ordinance be adopted. The Council
accepted the decision of the Planning Committee and
Citizens Advisory Committee 's recommendation on
August 16 , 1988.
ZONING - EAST Request for Review of Zoning. William 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
for the East Hill Well Annexation, Area "C" . He
pointed out that the signators represented 80% of
the property located in Area "C" and that the Council
had erroneously assumed that most of the residents
8 -
September 6, 1988
ZONING - EAST opposed multi-family zoning. Both the letter of
HILL ANNEXATION transmittal and the petition were distributed to the
Council and made a part of the record. Carey stated
that the staff and Hearing Examiner recommendations
were not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan or
". with Ordinance 2469. He referred to the severity of
the "down-zoning" and made the following comparisons :
290 Acres Comprehensive Staff Report
Zoning Plan Hearing Exam Council
R1 — 7.2 185 Acres
R1 — 9.6 100 Acres 100 Acres 185 Acres
RI — 12. 1 100 Acres
M/F 12 Units 185 Acres
M/F 24 Units 5 Acres 5 Acres 5 Acres
290 Acres 290 Acres 290 Acres
Carey objected to Resolution 1123 , passed in October,
1987, which provides that vacant multifamily zoned
areas be reduced by 20%, stating that this was applied
only to Area "C" of this annexation and not to other
parts of the City. He noted that the zoning should
be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and that
this area should be given equal treatment with other
areas, some of which were "up-zoned" . He pointed out
that most of the property owners were long-term resi-
dents or long term property owners who expected to be
able to develop their property in compliance with
zoning designated years ago by the Comprehensive Plan.
Brad Bell, realtor representing Mary Morril, owner of
15 acres locted on S.E. 248th, 300 feet east of 104th,
and John Lambert, owner of five acres at 10830 S.E.
256th, noted that he had testified on this subject at
hearings before the Planning Commission, Hearing Exam-
iner and City Council. He stated that the Morrill
property was surrounded by office property and apart-
ments and that no one would build single family homes
in this area. He further stated that during the
LeBlanc zoning hearings, the Hearing Examiner had
stated that she was bound by the Comprehensive Plan
in giving her zoning recommendations, but that it
would appear she was not so limited in this case.
Bell stated that the Comprehensive Plan has shown
this to be multifamily for 18 years and that he sup-
ported Carey ' s petition. Sketches of the Morrill and
Lambert properties submitted by Bell were made a part
of the record.
- 9 -
September 6 , 1988
ZONING - EAST Bob Nelson, 10453 S.E. 244 , cited the inconsistency of
HILL ANNEXATION recommendations and pointed out that he had lived on
this 21 acre parcel for 42 years. He stated that pro-
perty across the street from his, also zoned R12, 000,
has a real estate sign listing it as commercial, thus
indicating that this could be rezoned if the owner had
the money to hire legal staff. He requested that the
Comprehensive Plan zoning be retained so that everyone
would know the rules and those with small parcels would
not be subject to inconsistencies in the zoning.
Myron Vigoren, 11208 S.E. 244, stated that his 4. 8 acre
parcel adjoins an apartment complex and that water and
sewer are both available. Under the new 12 , 000 sq. ft.
zoning, he estimated the land to be worth $100 , 000
as compared to $600, 000 under the multiple zoning recom-
mended under the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that
multiple zoning had been indicated for this area
through every step of the process and that the City
hal cheated the property owners with this single family
zoning.
Charles Spurgeon, 11124 S.E. 248, noted that he had
opposed this zoning during the hearings for both his
property and for a parcel at 116th and 240th. He sup-
ported Carey ' s statements and noted that about half of
the property involved is not suitable for single family
housing as it would need fill. He stated that 148
townhouse units are under construction across the street
and south of his property. His property consists of
five acres with two adjacent owners also having five
acres. Spurgeon stated that those opposing the multiple
zoning who spoke at the Council hearing were not neces-
sarily the owners of the property involved, and that
single family zoning had down-graded the value of the
property. He urged the Council to reconsider the zon -
ing.
There were no further comments and Mayor Kelleher
explained the City statutes relating to rezones and
suggested that the City Attorney evaluate the request
for the Council to reconsider the action taken regard-
ing the zoning and to make a recommendation as to the
appropriate action. The Council concurred and the City
Attorney was directed to respond within ten days . At
White ' s request, it was agreed that those who signed
the petition filed tonight would be notified as to when
this item would be considered again by the Coun--il .
Leona Orr asked that those who signed a petition
filed during the Council hearings opposing multiple
zoning in Area "C" also be notified. There were no
objections and it was so ordered.
- 10 -
September 6, 1988
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills
received through September 7, after au3iting by the
Operations Committee at its meeting at 8:30 a.m. on
September 15, 1988 .
Approval of checks issuer] for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
7/27 - 7/29 63153 - 63170
8/2 - 8/16 63593 - 63619 330,968.56
8/16/88 63632 - 63962 1,018,842.95
1,349,811.51
Approval of checks issued for payroll:
Date Check Numbers Amount
8/19/80 108153 - 108651 586,024.36
63989 - 64105 58,730.17
644,754.53
REPORTS Council President. Council President White announced
that there will be a workshop on September 13 regarding
Council input on the budget and the proposed downtown
office building. White also reminded the Council that
the Suburban Cities Association meeting, which will be
hosted by the City of Kent, has been clanged to Septem-
ber 21 .
Public Works Committee. Johnson noted that the Com-
mittee would meet on September 13 at 4: 00 p.m. in the
Engineering Building Conference Room.
NATIONAL GUARD Sgt. Joe Duffie, Tukwila Councilmember, invited the
Councilmembers and staff to attend an open house of the
Washington National Guard at the Nike site on Military
at S . 244th on September 24 from noon to five p.m.
EXECUTIVE At 8: 50 p.m. , City Administrator McFall requested an
... SESSION executive session of approximately 15 minutes to dis-
cuss pending litigation. The time was extended and the
ADJOURNMENT meeting reconvened at 9: 50 p.m. and then adjourned.
7�� 7
/Marie Jensen, CMC
- City Clerk
V� �4
Kent City Council Meeting
�� Date September 20, 1988
r\ Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE - M-1 AND M-2 ZONES -
ORDINANCE
t
2. SUMMARY STATE14ENT: Adopt Ordinance No. establishing
gymnastic schools or similar uses as permitted uses in M-1 and
M-2 zoning districts and establishing health and fitness clubs
and facilities as permitted uses in the M-2 district.
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Council 9/6/88 meeting
(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. 3C
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, relating to land use and zoning,
amending Kent City Code 15.04.170 to allow
gymnastic schools as a permitted use in the M1,
Industrial Park District, and M2, Limited
Industrial District, and allowing health and
fitness clubs and facilities as a principally
permitted use in the M2, Limited Industrial
District.
Section 1. Section 15.04.170 of the Kent City Code is
hereby amended as follows:
15.04.170. INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT OR M1. Purpose:
The purpose of this district is to provide an environment
exclusively for and conducive to the development and protection of
a broad range of industrial activities including modern, large
scale administrative facilities, research institutions and
specialized manufacturing organizations, all of a nonnuisance
type. This district is intended to provide areas for those
industrial activities that desire to conduct business in an
-• atmosphere of prestige location in which environmental amenities
are protected through a high level of development standards.
It is also the purpose of this zone to allow certain
limited commercial land uses that provide necessary personal and
business services for the general industrial area. Such uses are
allowed in the M1 district, through the application of the
C-suffix, at centralized, nodal locations where major arterials
intersect. (0.2711 51)
A. Principally Permitted Uses - Ml District. The
following listis illustrative of the types of permitted uses and
is not intended to be exclusive.
1. Manufacturing, processing, assembling and
packaging of articles, products or merchandise from previously
prepared natural or synthetic materials, including but not limited
to asbestos, bristles, bone, canvas, cellophane and similar
synthetics, chalk, clay (pulverized only, with gas or electric
kilns) , cloth, cork, feathers, felt, fiber, fur, glass (including
glass finishing), graphite, hair, horn, leather, paints (except
boiling processes), paper, paraffin, plastic and resins, precious
or semi-precious metals or stones, putty, pumice, rubber, shell,
textiles, tobacco, wire, wood, wool and yarn.
2. Manufacturing, processing, treating,
assembling, and packaging of articles, products, or merchandise
from previously prepared ferrous, nonferrous or alloyed metals
(such as bar stock sheets, tubes, and wire and other extrusions) ,
including light foundary casting and forging operations and other
forming operations.
3. Printing, publishing and allied industries,
including such processes as lithography, etching, engraving,
binding, blueprinting, photocopying, film processing, and similar
operations or activities.
4. Manufacturing, processing, blending, and
packaging of the following:
a. Drugs, pharmaceuticals, toiletries, and
cosmetics.
b. Food and kindred products, such as confec-
tionary products, chocolate, cereal breakfast foods, bakery
products, paste products, fruits and vegetables, beer, beverages
(except fermenting and distilling), prepared food specialities
(such as coffee, dehydrated and instant foods, extracts, spices
and dressings) and similar products.
C. Dairy products and by-products, such as
milk, cream, cheese, and butter; including the processing and
bottling of fluid milk and cream and wholesale distribution.
5. Warehousing and distribution facilities and the
storage of goods or products, except for those goods or products
specifically described as permitted to be stored only as condi-
tional uses in the M3 District.
6. Crop and tree farming.
7. Administrative or executive offices which are
part of a predominant industrial operation.
8. Scientific research, testing and experimental
development laboratories.
9. Establishments engaged in electronic,
automotive, aerospace, missile, airframe, or related manufacturing
and assembly activities, including precision machine shops
producing parts, accessories, assemblies, systems, engines, major
components, and whole electronic or electrical devices,
automobiles, aircraft, missiles, aerospace, or underwater
vehicles, or similar products, including research and test
facilities, but specifically excluding explosive fuels and
propellants.
10. Manufacturing, processing, assembling and
packaging of precision components and products; including
precision machine shops for products such as radio and television
equipment; business machine equipment; home appliances;
scientific, optical, medical, dental, and drafting instruments;
photographic and optical goods; phonograph records and prerecorded
audio-visual tape; measurement and control devices; sound
equipment and supplies; personal accessories, and products of
similar character.
11. Headquarter offices of industrial operations.
12. Alcoholic beverage processes, such as
distilling and fermenting.
2 -
13. Retail and service uses as listed below.
A. Merchandise vending machine operators
B. Tire, batteries, and accessory (industrial
vehicles and equipment)
C. Eating places (except drive-ins or those
with drive-in or drive-through facilities)
14. Administrative, professional, medical,
financial and business offices and services, including, but not
limited to the following: (0.2771 Sl)
-. a. Finance, insurance and real estate service
Banking and related services
Security broker, dealers and related
services
Commodity brokers, dealers and related
services
Insurance carriers
Insurance brokers, agents and related
services
Real estate operators, lessors and
management services
Real estate agents, brokers and related
services
Real estate subdividing and developing
services
Housing and investment services
b. Personal services
Linen supply and industrial laundry
services
Diaper services
Rug cleaning and repair services
Photographic services
Beauty and barber services
Fur repair and storage services
C. Business services
Advertising services
Outdoor advertising services
Consumer and mercantile .credit reporting
services; adjustment and collection
services
Direct mail advertising services
Stenographic services and other
duplicating and mailing services
Window cleaning services
Disinfecting and exterminating services
News syndicate services
Employment services
Food lockers (with or without food
preparation facilities)
Business and management consulting services
Detective and protective services
Equipment rental and leasing services
Automobile and truck rental services
Motion picture distribution services
' Travel agencies
3 -
d. Repair services
Electrical repair services
Radio and television repair services
Reupholstery and furniture repair services
Armature rewinding services
e. Professional services
Medical and dental laboratory services
Legal services
Engineering and architectural services
Educational and scientific research
services
Accounting, auditing, and bookkeeping
services
Urban planning services
Counseling services (0. 2676)
f. Contract construction services
Building construction - general contractor
services
Plumbing, heating, and air conditioning
services
Painting, paperhanging and decorating
services
Electrical services
Masonry, stonework, tile setting, and
plastering services
Carpentering and wood flooring
Roofing and sheet metal services
Concrete services
Water well drilling services
g. Educational services
Vocational or trade schools
Business and stenographic schools
Driving schools - truck
h. Miscellaneous services
Business associations and organizations
Labor unions and similar labor organizations
Health and fitness clubs and facilities (0.2711
Other service uses which may be deemed by the
Planning Director to be of the same general character and
compatible with those uses listed.
15. Gymnastic schools and similar uses.
( (45-% ) ) 16. Other similar uses which the Planning Director
finds compatible with the Principally Permitted Uses described
herein, consistent with the purpose and intent of the M1 District
and not of a type to adversely affect the use of adjoining
properties.
( (}6-) ) 17. Existing dwellings may be rebuilt, repaired and
otherwise changed for human occupancy. Accessory uses for
existing dwellings may be constructed. Such uses are garages,
carports, storage sheds and fences.
4 -
i
( (}77) ) 18. Municipal uses and buildings, except for such uses
and buildings subject to Section 15.04 ,200. (0.2695 59)
B. Principally Permitted Uses in M1-C District (C-suffix)
The following commercial uses are permitted in addition
to those listed in subsection A on properties designated with the
C-suffix pursuant to procedures specified in Section 15.09.050.
This list is intended to be illustrative of the types of
commercial uses permitted.
1. Automotive service, maintenance and repair
facilities.
2. Bakeries and Confectioneries
3. Computer and software stores
4. Convenience and deli marts (maximum cross floor
-- area of 3,000 square feet)
5. Convention facilities
6. Exhibition halls, art galleries
7. Hotel, motel
8. Liquor stores
9. Magazines and newspaper stands
10. Printing services
11. Private post offices
12. Shoe repair
13. Stationery and office supply stores
14. Tailoring
Other similar uses which the Planning Director finds
compatible with the principally permitted uses described herein;
consistent with the purpose and intent of the Ml District and not
of a type to adversely affect the use of adjoining properties.
(0.2711)
C. Special Permit Uses. The following uses are permitted
provided they conform to the development standards listed in
Section 15.08.020.
1. Gasoline service stations (with or without retail
convenience grocery sales) .
2. Nursery schools and day care centers.
D. Accessory Uses. The following are the accessory uses
permitted in the M1 District.
1. Repair operations for products as described as
Principally Permitted Uses and sales and service incidental to a
Principally Permitted Use, provided such operations are housed as
a part of the building or buildings comprising the.basic operation
2. Dwelling units, limited to not more than one per
establishment, for security or maintenance, personnel and their
families, when located on the premises where they are employed in
such capacity. No other residential use shall be permitted.
3. Employee recreation facilities and play areas.
4. Restaurant, cafe or cafeteria operated in conjunc-
tion with a Principally Permitted Use for the convenience of
persons employed on the premises.
5 -
5. Nursery schools and day care facilities operated in
conjunction with a permitted use.
6. Other accessory uses and buildings customarily
appurtenant to a Principally Permitted Use.
7. The following are accessory uses which are allowed
only in the M1-C district in cases where development plans
demonstrate a relationship between these uses and the principal
use or uses of the property:
1. Gift shops
2. Florist shops
3. Specialty clothing stores
E. Conditional Uses. The following are the types of
conditional uses permitted in the M1 District, subject to approval
by the Hearing Examiner. The list of Conditional Permitted Uses
is illustrative of the types of uses which shall be permitted and
is not intended to be exclusive.
1. Any Principally Permitted Use whose operations are
predominately conducted out-of-doors rather than completely
enclosed within a building.
2. Any type of Principally Permitted Use whose opera-
tions are predominantly for the repair of products described
rather than the manufacturing or processing of such products.
3. General Conditional Uses as listed in Section -
15.08.030.
4. Carloading and distribution facilities, rail-truck
transfer station.
5. Manufacturing of paint.
F. Development Standards.
1. Minimum lot One (1) acre.
2. Maximum site coverage. Sixty (60) percent.
3. Yards
a. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback
shall be related to the classification of the adjacent street.
This classification shall be determined by the Kent Transportation
Engineer. The setbacks are as follows:
i. Properties fronting on arterial and
collector streets shall have a minimum setback of 40 feet.
ii. Properties fronting on local access
streets shall have a minimum setback of 30 feet. (0.2740, S2)
b. Side Yard. The minimum side yard on flanking
street of corner lot shall be related to the classification of the
adjacent street. This classification shall be determined by the
Kent Transportation Engineer. The setbacks are as follows:
6 _
i. Properties fronting on arterial and
collector streets shall have a minimum setback of 40 feet.
ii. Properties fronting on local access
streets shall have a minimum setback of 30 feet. (0.2740, S2)
C. Side yards. The side yards shall have an
_.. aggregate width of ten (10) percent of the lot width, but the
aggregate width need not be more than forty (40) feet. There
shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) feet on each side. (0.2740, 52i
d. Rear yard. None required except as may be
required by other setback provisions of this section.
4. Yards, transitional conditions. Transitional
conditions shall exist when an Industrial Park, M1 District,
adjoins a residential district containing a density of two (2)
dwelling units or more per acre or a proposed residential area
indicated on the Kent Comprehensive Plan. Such transitional
conditions shall not exist where the separation includes inter-
vening use such as river, freeway, railroad mainline, major
topographic differential or other similar conditions; or where the
industrial properties face on a limited access surface street on
which the housing does not face. When transitional conditions
exist as herein defined, a yard of not less than fifty (50) feet
shall be provided.
5. Setbacks, Green River. Development in the MI
District abutting the Green River (or Russell or Frager Roads
__. where such roads follow the river bank) shall set back from the
ordinary high water mark of said river a minimum of two hundred
(200) feet. such setbacks are in accordance with the State
Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and shall be no more restrictive
than, but as restrictive as, said Shoreline Management Act.
6. Height limitations. Two (2) stories or thirty-five
(35) feet. Beyond this height, to a height not greater than
either four, (4) stories or sixty (60) feet, there shall be added
one additional foot of yard for each one foot of additional
building height. The Planning Director shall be authorized to
approve one additional story, provided such height does not
detract from the continuity of the industrial area, and may impose
such conditions as may be necessary to reduce any incompatibility
with surrounding uses. Any additional height increase may be
granted by the Planning Commission. (0. 2676 SU
7. The landscaping requirements of Chapter 15.07 shall
apply. Where building walls face adjacent streets and are
unfenestrated for more than 40 feet at any point along the facade,
additional landscaping shall be required to reduce visual
impacts. In such circumstances, Type II landscaping as defined in
Section 15.07.050, shall be required, provided that evergreen
trees shall be at least 10 feet in height and deciduous trees
shall be a minimum of 2 inch caliper at time of planting.
(0.2740, 52)
B. Enclosure of activities. Predominant activities
and operations shall be completely enclosed within buildings or
structures, except for customary appurtenances, such as loading
and unloading areas, or where special conditions exist as a result
7 -
of a conditional use public hearing. The Planning Director shall
be authorized to determine the reasonable application of this
provision in cases of operational hardship or other showing of
uncommon circumstances.
9. Outside storage or operations yard. Outside
storage or operations yards in the M1 zone shall be permitted only
as accessory uses. Such uses are incidental and subordinate to
the principal use of the property or structure. Outside storage
or operations yards shall be confined to the area to the rear of
the principal building or the rear two-thirds (2/3) of the
property and reasonably screened from view from any property line
by appropriate walls, fencing, earth mounds, or landscaping.
Outside storage exceeding a height of fifteen (15) feet shall be
so placed on the property as to not detract from the reasonably
accepted appearance of the district.
I
10. Loading areas.
a. Loading areas must be located in such a manner
that no loading, unloading and/or maneuvering of trucks associated
therewith takes place on public rights of way.
i
b. Earth berms and landscaping shall be provided
along street frontages as necessary to screen dock-high loading
areas from public rights-of-way. Berms shall be a minimum of 36
inches and a maximum of 42 inches in height. Landscaping located
on the berm shall conform to Type II landscaping described in
Section 15.07.050(c) . (0.2740, 52)
11. Multitenant buildings. Multitenant buildings shall
be permitted. i
12. Improvement and maintenance of yards and open
space. All required yards, parking areas, storage areas, opera-
tions yards, and other open uses on the site shall be maintained
in a neat and orderly manner appropriate for the district at all
times. The Planning Director shall be authorized to reasonably
pursue the enforcement of these provisions where a use is in
violation and to notify the owner or operator of the use in
writing of such noncompliance. The property owner or operator of
the use shall be given a reasonable length of time to correct the
condition.
i
G. Signs. The sign regulations of Chapter 15.06 shall
apply. Signage on commercial uses in the MI-C zone shall be as
specified in Section 15.05.050(e) .
H. Off-Street Parking.
1. The off-street parking requirements of Chapter
15.05 shall apply.
2. Those areas not required to be landscaped may be
used for off-street parking.
I. Performance Standards. The performance standards as
provided in Section 15.08.050 shall apply.
- 8 -
i
J. Development Plan Review. Development plan approval is
required, as provided in Section 15.0g.010. (0.2524, 51; 0.2676;
0.2711 S1)
Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the
effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and
confirmed. (0.2711 S2)
Section 2. Section 15.04.180 of the Kent City Code is
hereby amended as follows:
15.04.180. LIMITED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT OR M2. Purpose:
The purpose of this district is to provide areas suitable for a
broad range of industrial activities whose characteristics are of
a light industrial nature. The permitted uses are similar to
those of the Industrial Park District but the development
-- standards are not as restrictive. However, development standards
are aimed at maintaining an efficient and desirable industrial
area.
A. Principally Permitted Uses. The following list is
illustrative of the types of permitted uses and is not intended to
be exclusive.
1. Manufacturing, processing, assembling, and
packaging of articles, products, or merchandise from previously
prepared natural or synthetic materials, including but not limited
to asbestos, bristles, bone, canvas, cellophane, and similar
synthetics, chalk, clay (pulverized only, with gas or electric
kilns), cloth, cork, feathers, felt, fiber, fur, glass (including
glass finishing), graphite, hair, horn, leather, paints (except
boiling processes), paper, paraffin, plastic and resins, precious
or semiprecious metals or stones, putty, pumic, rubber, shell,
textiles, tobacco, wire, wood, wool and yarn.
2. Manufacturing, processing, treating, assembling,
and packaging of articles, products, or merchandise from previ-
ously prepared ferrous, nonferrous or alloyed metals (such as bar
stock sheets, tubes, and wire and other extrusions), including
light foundry casting and forging operations and other forming
operations.
3. Printing, publishing and allied industries,
including such processes as lithography, etching, engraving,
binding, blueprinting, photocopying, film processing, and similar
operations or activities.
4. Manufacturing, processing, blending and packaging
of the following:
a. Drugs, pharmaceuticals, toiletries, and
cosmetics.
b. Food and kindred products, such as confec-
tionary products, chocolate, cereal breakfast foods, bakery
products, paste products, fruits and vegetables, beer, beverages
(except fermenting and distilling), prepared food specialities
(such as coffee, dehydrated and instant foods, extracts, spices
and dressings), and similar products.
- 9 -
C. Dairy products and by-products, such as milk,
cream, cheese, and butter; including the processing and bottling
of fluid milk and cream and whglesale distribution.
5. Warehousing and distribution facilities and the
storage of goods or products including rail-truck transfer
facilities.
6. Crop and tree farming.
7. Administrative or executive offices which are part
of a predominant industrial operation.
8. Scientific research, testing, and experimental
development laboratories.
9. Establishments engaged in electronic, automotive,
aerospace, missile, airframe, or related manufacturing and
assembly activities, including precision machine shops producing
parts, accessories, assemblies, systems, engines, major compo-
nents, and whole electronic or electrical devices, automobiles,
aircraft, missiles, aerospace, or underwater vehicles, or similar
products, but specifically excluding explosive fuels and
propellants.
10. Manufacturing, processing, assembling and packaging
of precision components and products; including precision machine
shops for products such as radio and television equipment,
business machine equipment, home appliances; scientific, optical,
medical, dental, and drafting instruments, photographic and
optical goods, phonograph records and prerecorded audio visual
tape, measurement and control devices, sound equipment and
supplies, personal accessories, and products of similar character.
11. Headquarter offices of industrial operations.
12. Alcoholic beverage processes, such as distilling
and fermenting.
13. Retail and service uses as listed below. These
uses are intended primarily to serve the needs of the industrial
area, are compatible with the permitted types of industrial uses,
and will not interfere with the orderly development of the
industrial area. Such uses shall be limited to twenty-five (25)
percent of the gross floor area of any single or multibuilding
development. Retail and service uses which exceed the twenty-five
(25) percent limit on an individual or cumulative basis shall be
subject to review individually through the Conditional Use Permit
process. (See Subsection 15.04 .180 D3. ) (0.2676 $2)
Retail Trade Uses
Merchandise vending machine operators
Tire, batteries, and accessory (industrial sales)
Eating places (except drive-ins or those with
drive-through facilities)
Service Uses
10 -
a. Finance insurance and real estate services
Bank ng and r elated services
Security broker, dealers and related services
_._ Commodity brokers, dealers and related services
Insurance carriers
Insurance brokers, agents and related services
Real estate operators, lessors and management
services
Real estate agents, brokers and related service
Real estate subdividing and developing services
Housing and investment services
b. Personal services
Linen supply and industrial laundry services
Diaper services
Rug cleaning and repair services
Photographic services
Beauty and barber services
Fur repair and storage services
C. Business services
Advertising services (general)
Outdoor advertising services
Consumer and mercantile credit reporting
services; adjustment and collection services
Direct mail advertising services
Stenographic services and other duplicating and
mailing services
Window cleaning services
Disinfecting and exterminating services
News syndicate services
Employment services
Food lockers (with or without food preparation
facilities)
Business and management consulting services
Detective and protective services
Equipment rental and leasing services
Automobile and truck rental services
Motion picture distribution services
Travel agencies
d. Repair services
Electrical repair services
Radio and television repair services
Reupholstery and furniture repair services
Armature rewinding services
e. Professional services
Medical and dental laboratory services
Legal services
Engineering and architectural services
Educational and scientific research services
Accounting, auditing, and bookkeeping services
Urban planning services
f. Contract construction services
Building construction - general contractor
services
Plumbing, heating, and air conditioning service
Painting, paperhanging and decorating services
- 11 -
i
Electrical services
Masonry, stonework, tile setting, and
plastering services
Carpentering and wood flooring
Roofing and sheet metal services
Concrete services
Water well drilling services
a. Educational services
Vocational or trade schools
Business and stenographic schools
Driving schools - truck
h. Miscellaneous services
Business association and organizations
Labor unions and similar labor organizations
Other retail trade and service uses which may be
deemed by the Planning Director to be of the same general
character and compatible with those uses listed.
14. Gymnastic schools and similar uses.
15. Health and fitness clubs and facilities.
H44-0 ) 16. Other similar uses which the Planning Director
finds compatible with the Principally Permitted Uses described
herein; consistent with the purpose and intent of the M2 District
and not of a type to adversely affect the use of adjoining
properties.
((-}5- ) ) 17. Existing dwellings may be rebuilt, repaired and
otherwise changed for human occupancy. Accessory uses for
existing dwellings may be constructed. Such uses are garages,
carports, storage sheds and fences.
( (3.6-.) ) 18. Municipal uses and buildings, except for such uses
and buildings subject to Section 15.04 .200. (0.2695 S10)
B. Special Permit Use. The following uses are permitted
provided they conform to the development standards listed in
Section 15.08.020:
1. Gasoline service stations (with or without retail
convenience grocery sales)
2. Nursery schools and day care centers.
C. Accessory Uses. The following are the accessory uses
permitted in the M2 District:
1. Repair operations for products described as
Principally Permitted Uses and sales and service incidental to a
Principally Permitted Use, provided such operations are housed as
a part of the building or buildings comprising the basic opera-
tions.
2. Dwelling units, limited to not more than one per
establishment, for security or maintenance personnel and their
12 -
families, when located on the premises where they are employed in
such capacity. No other residential use shall be permitted.
3. Employee recreation facilities and play areas.
4. Restaurant, cafe, or cafeteria operated in conjunc-
tion with a Principally Permitted Use for the convenience of
_. persons employed on the premises.
5. Nursery schools and day care facilities operated in
conjunction with a Permitted Use.
6. Other accessory uses and buildings customarily
appurtenant to a Principally Permitted Use.
D. Conditional Uses. The following are the types of
-• Iconditional uses permitted in the M2 District, subject to approval
by the Hearing Examiner. The list of Conditionally Permitted Uses
is illustrative of the types of uses which shall be permitted and
is not intended to be exclusive.
1. Any Principally Permitted Use whose operations are
predominantly conducted out-of-doors rather than completely
enclosed within a building.
2. Any type of Principally Permitted Use whose opera-
tions are predominantly for the repair of products described
rather than the manufacturing or processing of such products.
3. Retail and service uses as listed in Subsection j
15.04.180 Al2 which individually or on a cumulative basis exceed
twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of any single or
multibuilding development. Conditional Use Permits shall be
required on an- individual tenant or business basis and shall be
granted only when it is demonstrated that the operational charac-
teristics of the use will not adversely impact on or off site
conditions on either an individual or cumulative basis.
4. General Conditional Uses as listed in Section
15.08.030.
5. Principally Permitted Uses in the M3 Districts. I,
6. Manufacturing of paint.
7. Automobile service centers, with or without
gasoline sales. (0.2742, S1)
E. Development Standards.
1. Minimum lot. 20,000 square feet.
2. Maximum site coverage . sixty-five (65) percent.
i
3. Yards
a. Front yard. The front yard shall be fifteen
(15) percent of the lot depth. Regardless of lot size, the yard
depth need not be more than forty-five (45) feet.
i
13 -
b. Side yard on flanking street of corner lot .
The side yard on the flanking street of a corner lot shall be
fifteen (15) percent of lot width but need not be more than
thirty-five (35) feet in width.
c. Side yard. The side yards shall have an aggre-
gate width of ten (10 percent of the lot width, but the aggregate
width need not be more than thirty (30) feet. There shall be a
minimum of ten (10) feet on each side.
d. Rear yard. None except as may be required by
transitional conditions.
4. Yards, transitional conditions. Transitional
conditions shall exist when an M2 District adjoins a residential
district containing a density of two (2) dwelling units or more
per acre or a proposed residential area indicated on the Kent
Comprehensive Plan. Such transitional conditions shall not exist
where the separation includes intervening use such as river,
freeway, railway mainline, major topographic differential or other
similar conditions; or the industrial properties face on a limited
access surface street on which the housing does not face. When
transitional conditions exist as herein defined, a yard of not
less than fifty (50) feet shall be provided.
5. Height limitation. Two (2) stories or thirty-five
(35) feet. Beyond this height, to a height not greater than
either four (4) stories, or sixty (60) feet there shall be added
one additional foot of yard for each one foot of additional
building height.
The Planning Director shall be authorized to
approve one additional story, provided such height does not
detract from the continuity of the industrial area, and may
propose such conditions as may be necessary to reduce any
incompatibility with surrounding uses. Any additional height
increases may be granted by the Planning Commission.
6. The landscaping requirements of Chapter 15.07 shall
apply.
7. Outside storage. Outside storage or operation
yards shall be confined to the area to the rear of a line which is
an extension of the front wall of the principal building and shall
be reasonably screened from view from any street by appropriate
walls, fencing, earth mounds, or landscaping.
8. Loading areas. Loading areas must be located in
such a manner that no loading, unloading and/or maneuvering of
trucks associated therewith takes place on public rights-of-way.
9. Multitenant buildings. Multitenant buildings shall
be permitted.
10. Improvement and maintenance of yards and open
areas. All required yards, parking areas, storage areas, opera-
tions yards, and other open uses on the site shall be improved as
required by these regulations and shall be maintained in a neat
and orderly manner appropriate for the district at all times. The
Planning Director shall be authorized to reasonably pursue the
14 -
enforcement of these provisions where a use is in violation and to
notify the owner or operator of the use in writing of such noncom-
pliance. The property owner or operator of the use shall be given
a reasonable length of time to correct the condition.
F. Signs. The sign regulations of Chapter 15.06 shall
apply.
G. Off-Street Parking.
1. The off-street parking requirements of Chapter
15.05 shall apply.
2. Those areas not required to be landscaped may be
used for off-street parking.
H. Performance Standards. The performance standards as
provided in Section 15.08.050 shall apply.
I. Development Plan Review. Development plan approval is
required as provided in Section 15.09.010. (0.2524, 52)
Section 3. 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:
SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED the day of , 1988.
APPROVED the day of , 1988.
PUBLISHED the day of , 1988.
- 15 -
Kent City Council Meeting
('+ • �\ Date September 20. 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: EXXON OIL REBATE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As approved by the Public Works Committee,
authorization for the Mayor to execute Exxon Oil rebate agreement
which gives the City a $67, 500 grant for upgrading and
incorporating the state signals on S.R. 516 (Willis Street) from
West Valley Highway to Fourth Avenue into the City' s computerized
signal central system.
3 . EXHIBITS: Agreement
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(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
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
September 15, 1988
TO: Mayor Kelleher an Council Members
' FROM: Don Wickstrom
SUBJ: Exxon Oil Rebate Agreement
Washington State Department of Transportation has offered the use
of funds received from anti-trust action against petroleum
producing corporations for the purpose of optimizing the time of
traffic signals.
The City has received a grant in the amount of $67, 500 for
upgrading and incorporating the State signals on SR 516 (Willis
Street) from West Valley Highway to 4th Ave. into the City's
computerized signal control system.
As approved by the Public Works Committee, the Director of Public
Works requests authorization for the Mayor to execute the Exxon
Oil Rebate Agreement.
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. Request 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
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 - that would resolve the
question.
Approval by Biteman and Johnson to place on Council agenda.
't. .Washington State Duane 8eTr nspon
'aaSecretary of Transportation
VW Department of Transportation
Transportation Building KF-01
Olympia,Washington 98504-5201
(206)753-6005 CITY Of KENT
June 22 , 1988
jO 2 7 19"
Mr. Don Wickstrom ENGINEERING DEPT-
Public Works Director
220 Fourth Ave. So.
Kent, WA 98032
Exxon oil Rebate Program
Traffic Signal
Optimization Projects
Notification of Projects
To Be Funded
Dear Mr. Wickstrom:
On February 41 1988 , I wrote you concerning the status of State
Aid's proposal on behalf of local agencies to use funds received
by the state from anti-trust action against petroleum producing
corporations for the purpose of optimizing the timing of traffic
signals. You may recall that we had proposed such use of funds to
the United States Department of Energy (USDOE) through the Power
Washington Review Committee (PWRC) and the Washington State Energy
Office (WSEO) . Because all indications at the time of my letter
were that we would receive approximately $5. 5 million for our
proposal within 60 days, my letter included additional guidelines
that would be used by us to administer the new program together
with the instructions and forms that local agencies would need for
submitting proposed projects.
By now you probably know that the funds for the new program, which
will henceforth be referred to as the Exxon Oil Rebate Program,
are now available. During the past few weeks this office has been
analyzing 71 proposed projects submitted by 28 cities and
counties. The total estimated cost for these projects is $7 . 5
million.
Our analysis is now complete and a priority array of projects,
based upon a benefit/cost index which compares estimated fuel
savings to estimated project costs (oil rebate dollars) , has been
established. Projects to be funded have now been identified.
Those submitted by your agency which will be funded are listed
below:
Oil Rebate
Project Title Project No. Funds
SR-516 OR-0165 (01) 67 , 500
Mr. »on Wickstrom
June 22, 1988
.Page 2
Before funds can be authorized and1'approval ;given` to proceed
any of the above project(s) the enclosed Exxon .0i1 Rebate ,; Program
Agreement must be signed and returned to .• this ;;.office. ,This
agreement contains provisions which were stipulated;:by : USDOE .;' in
its agreement .with WSEO and which have been passed , on , to '• *us
Because compliance with them must be accomplished,;at the ;, project
level, we now find it necessary to require them, of,;you. ,:You ,may
expect to receive fund authorization .and ., approval ,, to`;; proceed
within two weeks after we receive the signed program agreement..,
Project application documents for those projects not:,:being ..'-funded , ,:'
at this time will be retained by this office • , Should any.'. of ., the
projects now slated for funding be cancelled, or , should,.additional
funds be designated for this program, , additional projects.; will- be
their position in , the existing
approved for funding based on
priority array. '
I''I
Enclosed are two copies of the Exxon Oil Rebate Agreement�' .forms.
Please return one signed copy to this office as soon as you can.
Also enclosed is a copy of Executive Order # 11246 referred to in
the form. You should retain this for your files.
Sincerely,
WIL' LIIAM I. HORDAN
State Aid Engineer -
WIH:BD:kas
Enclosures
cc: Bill Garing, Dist. 1
Ron Selstead, Dist. 2.
Bob Holcomb, Dist. 3
Bob Elderkin, Dist. 4
Bill Linse, Dist. 5
Dick Albertson, Dist. 6
i
i
R E C E I V E D CITY OF KENT
MON OIL REBATE PROMA 19AGREEMENTUN 2 71988
OFFICE OF THE ENGINEERING DEPT.
MAYOR
The City/bamty of C i t y of Kent hereby certifies that it shall comply
with the follming provisims for all protects funded under the Bmm Oil Rebate
Program. These provisions shall be incorporated into all contract documents as
indicated below.
NONDISCRIMINATION
During the performance of this agreement, City/County shall comply with all federal
and state nondiscrimination statutes and regulations. j hese requirements include, but
are not limited to:
1. Nondiscrimination in +�mp1oS,.. nt: The City/County shall not discriminate
against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed,
marital status, age, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical
handicap. This requirement does not apply, however, to a religious corporation,
educational institution or society with respect to the employment of individuals
of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such
corporation, association, educational institution or society of its
activities.
The City/County shall take affirmative action to ensure that employees are
employed and treated during employment without discrimination because of their
race, color, religion, national origin, creed, marital status, age, or presence
of any sensory, mental, or physical handicap. Such action shall include, but not
be limited to, the following: Employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer;
_.. recruitment recruitment selection for training, including apprenticeships and
volunteers.
2. N ndis(-ri inatnon in Client Services: The City/County shall not, on grounds
of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, creed, marital status, age, or
presence of any sensory, mental, or physical handicap:
a. Deny an individual any services or other benefits provided under this
agreement.
b. Provide any service(s) or other benefits to an individual which are
different, or are provided in a different manner from those provided to
others under this agreement.
C. SubJect to an individual to segregation or separate treatment in any
manner related to the receipt of any service(s) of other benefits provided
under this agreement.
d. Deny any individual an opportunity to participate in any program
provided by this agreement through the provision of services or otherwise,
or afford an opportunity to do which is different from that afforded others
under this agreement. The City/County, in determining (1) the types of
services or other benefits to be provided or (2) the class of
individuals to whom, or the situation in which, such services or other
benefits will be provided or (3) the class of individuals to be afforded an
opportunity to participate in any services or other benefits, will not
utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of
subJecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, sex,
religion, national origin, creed, marital status, age or the presence of any
sensory, mental, or physical handicap.
I
Page 1 of A
� i
3. The.City/County will send to each labor union or representative of workers -
with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or
understanding a notice advising the labor union or workers' representative of the
City/County's commitments under this nondiscrimination clause, and shall post
copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and
applicants for employment.
4. The City/County will comply with all provisions of Executive Order No. 11246
of September 24, 1965 and the rules, regulations and relevant orders of the
Secretary of Labor.
5. The City/County will furnish all information and reports required by
Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, (copy attached) and by the
rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor or pursuant thereto,
and will permit access to his books, records and accounts by the WSDOT and by
the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain . compliance
with such rules, regulations, and orders.
6. In the event of City/County noncompliance with the nondiscrimination
requirements of this contract or with any of said rules, regulations, or
orders, this contract may be canceled, terminated or suspended, in whole or in
part, and the City/County may be declared ineligible for further government
contracts in accordance with procedures authorized in Executive Order No. 11246
of September 24, 1965 and such other sanctions may be imposed and remedies
invoked as provided in Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965 or by
rule, regulation, or order of the Secretary of Labor, or as otherwise provided by
the law or with the "Disputes" procedure set forth herein.
I
7. This agreement authorizes subcontracting, the City/County must include the
provisions of paragraphs (1) through (7) in every subcontract or purchase order
so that such provisions will be. binding on each subcontractor. The City/County
will take such action with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as the
WSDOT may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions
for to ncompliance: Provided, however, that in the event the City/County
becomes involved in, or is threatened . with, litigation with a subcontractor
or vender as a result of such direction by the WSDOT, the City/County may
request the WSDOT to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the
WSDOT.
INDOOR IFICATION
1. The City/County shall defend, protect, and hold harmless the State of Washington,
the WSDOT, or any employee thereof from and against all claims, suits and actions
arising from any negligent act or omission of the City/County or any authorized
subcontractor, or any employees or agents of either while performing under the terms
of the contract.
h
2. Claims shall include, but not be limited to, assertions that the use or transfer
of any software, book, document, report, tape, or sound reproduction or material of
any kind, delivered hereunder, constitutes an infringement of any copyright, patent,
trademark, tradename, or otherwise results in an unfair trade practice.
CONFLICT or,
The MOT may, by written notice to the City/County:
Page 2 of 4
a•. Terminate the right of the City/County to proceed under this contract if it
is .found, after due notice and examinations, by the State Aid Engineer that
gratuities in the form of entertainment, gifts or otherwise offered or given by
the City/County, or agent or representative of the City/County, to any officer
or employee of the WSDOT, with a view toward securing this contract or
securing favorable treatment with respect to the awarding or amending or the
making of any determinations with respect to this contract.
b. In the event this contract is terminated as provided in (a) above, the
WSDOT shall be entitled to pursue the same remedies against the City/County
as it could pursue in the event of a breach of contract by the City/County.
The rights and remedies of the WSDOT provided for in this clause shall not be
exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by
law. The existence of facts upon which the State Aid Engineer makes any
determination under this clause shall be an issue and may be reviewed as
provided in the "Disputes" clause of this agreement.
RIGHTS TO DATA AND PUBLICATION
1. Unless otherwise provided, data which originates from this contract shall be
"works for hire" as defined by the US Copyright Act of 1976 and shall be owned by the
WSDOT. Data shall include but not be limited to, reports, documents, files,
pamphlets, advertisements, publications, books, magazines, surveys, studiel, computer
programs, films, tapes, and/or sound reproductions. Ownership includes the right to
copyright, patent, register, and the ability to transfer these rights. Data which is
delivered under the contract, but which does not originate therefrom, shall be
transferred to the WSDOT with a nonexclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable license to
publish, translate, reproduce, deliver, perform, dispose of, and to authorize others
to do so; provided, that such license shall be limited to the extent which the
City/County has a right to grant such license. The City/County shall exert all
reasonable effort to advise the WSDOT, at the time of delivery of data furnished
under this agreement, of all known or potential invasions of privacy contained
herein and of any portion of such document which was not produced in the performance
of this agreement. The WSDOT shall receive prompt written notice of each notice or
claim or copyright infringement received by the City/County with respect to any data
delivered under this agreement.
The City/County shall not affix any restrictive markings upon any data, and if such
markings are affixed, the WSDOT shall have the right at any time to modify, remove,
obliterate, or ignore such markings.
2. The City/County may publish results and findings consequent to its participation
under this agreement without prior review by the WSDOT. All notices, publications,
` informational pamphlets, press releases, research reports, and similar public notices
must acknowledge that the program is supported by funds provided by and through the
Washington State Energy Office, as appropriate and five copies of each such
publication shall be furnished to the WSDOT at no charge. Should the resultant
publication be considered copyrightable material, the WSDOT reserves a royalty-free,
nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use all or
any of such copyrighted material or all or any such material which can be copyrighted
which resulted from this agreement.
DISPUIM
1. Except as otherwise provided in this contract, any dispute concerning a question
of fact arising under this contract which is not disposed of by agreement shall be
decided by the State Aid Engineer, who shall reduce his/her decision to writing and
Page 3 of 4 l
... t
mail- or otherwise furnish a copy thereof to the City/County. The decision of the
G3 ate Aid Engineer shall be final and conclusive unless, within 30 days from the date
of receipt of such copy, the City/County mails or otherwise submits a written appeal
addressed to the Director of the Washington State Energy Office. The Director may
resolve any appeal beyond that decision of the State Aid Engineer. All appeals shall
be subject to ,Judicial review if otherwise provided by law.
2. This "Disputes" clause does not preclude the consideration of questions of law
in connection with decisions provided for in paragraph (a) above; Provided that
nothing of this contract shall be construed as making final the decisions of any
administrative official, representative, or board of a question of law.
3. The parties agree that this dispute process shall preclude any action in a
,Judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal.
17t�IINATICdi
1. This agreement may be terminated by either party hereto upon five (5) days
advanced written notice to the other party, provided that the WSDOT may, by written
notice, terminate this agreement without the five (5) day advanced written notice
required, in whole or part, for failure of the City/County to perform any of the
provisions hereof.
2. Upon termination of this agreement, the WSDOT, in addition to any other rights
provided in this agreement, may require the City/County to deliver to the WSDOT any
property specified, produced or acquired for the performance of such part of this
agreement as has been terminated.
3. The WSDOFr shall pay the City/County the agreed upon price, if separately stated,
for completed work and services accepted by the WSDOT, and the amount agreed upon by
the City/County and the State Aid Engineer for (a) completed work and services for
which a separate price is not stated, (b) partially completed work and services, (c)
other property or services which are accepted by the WSDOT, and (d) the protection
and presdrvaticn of property, unless the termination is by default, in which case the
State Aid Engineer shall determine the extent of the liability of the WSDOT.
IT I KENT —
TITLE: 14AYOR
DATE: 8/19/88
Page 4 of 4
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 20, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: LID 320 (WEST JAMES STREET)
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept as complete the contract with
Robison Construction, Inc . for the West James Street improvements
and release of retainage after receipt of the required releases
from the State.
3 . EXHIBITS:Memo and map.
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(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
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
September. 15, 1988
TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom ��J
SUBJ: LID 320 - West James Street
The contract was awarded to Robison Construction, Inc. on
November 17, 1987 for the bid amount of $784, 344.92 . The project
-.� consisted of roadway improvements, sidewalks, street lighting,
storm drainage and other improvements from West Valley Highway to
Lakeside Blvd. East. Also included were storm drainage
improvements related to the Valley Drainage Project (ULID 306) .
Final contract amount was $775, 883 .45. Total project to-date is
$936, 110. 00. A budget of $765, 374. 00 was established for the
street improvement portion of this project with the balance
financed from the Valley Drainage Project.
,._.. It is recommended that the contract be accepted as complete and
retainage released after receipt of the releases from the State.
1
O 1 n
^ S. 220TH STD
t i
e
E� er Sub Stndnn
12
15 14 S226 TH AVE. 14 13
N 1 t
w
to > H PL
Q
W
ILJ = t
l7 Q F Q
w 2 V ry
> /- w ^ 8 228TH
m 2 a
= In
H
v +t
n INDUSTRIAL AREA
ae�~
a �
l �
<'I
n
FS,
g F S. 234TH F �'
g „
K N T z ST
1978 POP ATJ.Qid!5.,400 ;
1983 POPULA ION' 241500 =
`9r SIT cLouor sT W v
N Rllr
GREEf•R ns0 g 2seTH s
.: F
w OCATION �tiry
I14 JAMES T 141 13 Z
4 -
rt i
Q 23 4h h �JfTl p. '�7.���':• ..
24
SAM ST <
Itl'�til•:I.I. . n
PAI(K lg 1
•' IPvt) Z M16W Al'K>.t'.
• � � 1•LAYf'IhLU .�___
W SMITH ST Z W gM1T
Q W IIARRISO I HARP—(
2
= 1 `IW' MEERE
8 246TH I ST 2
� = I'ov.r•r �
> w
.4 yyV�ILLIS < Ste <
Poi° STREET
Es INTCHG a a�
°�r 181 z 14
dfA o w
I6N�� 516
516 ' w n
Park �� _ ProPosod
Colony _ .. �� = = ; C � .; � � C 4 a
I
Kent City Council Meeting
✓tr� l Date September 20. 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: EAST SMITH STREET/EAST WALNUT STORM IMPROVEMENTS
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept as complete the contract with
Site-Con, Inc. for the East Smith/East Walnut storm improvements
and release of retainage after receipt of the required releases
from the State.
3 . EXHIBITS:Memo and map.
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(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
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
September 15, 1988
TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom `P` )
SUBJ: E. Smith/E. Walnut Storm Improvements
r. The contract was awarded to Site-Con, Inc. on April 5, 1988 for
the bid amount of $66, 960. 15 The project consisted of storm
drainage improvements at E. Smith St(at Alvord)/E. Walnut St (at
Van DeVanter)/96th Ave. South (at S. 248th St. ) North Park(N. 2nd
Ave. approx. 300' north of Cole St. ) . Final contract amount was
$77, 589 .82 .
It is recommended that the contract be accepted as complete and
retainage released after receipt of the releases from the State.
__S_ Plitt
T
5 232HO 3 232ND
; $ �.I,NOVAK ST
ri�T
w 167
C"A
PaSITE RATIO
1.- 3 23t)TH
ST
KIS T Ok
(Pvt)
L f1KNI i....
LDRON ILI'
-3w.-
2110 T
2.1�T
WAYV•1((fY 4C
E l
nw LouCIY oqq> GL ROE S236TH -tI I E) 1K
sT
z pj_
> ST
a W Ls :23011
S 40
AMES ST z
I'�. - tot
Lulu,/ % KENT S 241ST ST
24 IK
5 1 ST
SCHOOL
j CE
Athletic III
I t; 3 E242HD (
PIOIEER V= lag Sim ST
z
MCI ILLAN E � TEMqfRAP CE SIT S 243RI)
LOCATION
> ST
-K z
ST S 241ST ST
MtTtii IT
SUIT S 1244TH
SMITH ST -ilz TT_
ME CAL >
WARD VEF '!0_ I,
z a z 7tcE 4
F"
ST ST 2 w 2:
W HARRISON [!.Fttire, ST.JAMIES 1
z z SCHOOL EM KEe ST fil
MEEKER ST a
14 -y v w m 14:1 U41 WEItAmo S 246TH
W QOWL — ZIP ST Me 41, S
> PL
W GOWL ST 7TH 24
•
of
ENT FA
It' TA A 31 SIT x x
LIM Hal It 1 5% 0 4 CHERRY > 248TII ST
SCH ry �x o PL
NQ E DEAN N NILL
TITU 67 ST ST
W ST E MACLYN
p -ffl�
>
-E
IN 40 R Imc ST
SAA 3; E GuIbERSON ST SITE
�r I-A ST ALP H
WI•LLI ST 0 WAY u ATION
i E SEATTLE LOc
516
> > z - LE T 516
E : SEAI -
.A-.ST > y
RU LL w Z
N"11 u > 0 E CHICAGO ST Q 3 I 252NC,
IT
>
03
Fire > > 0 E
x K-K it Z C k
I'_ station 0 CHI 00 W
0 MO ON
0 ST E LAUREL ST
I_
ul -C
00 ST m k 0 w
C w I . I �
08 05 E HEMLOCK ST
CARTER
Cou
-OST p a to < WIE FILBERT ST
1 cc MARIONI w 0 -")<
ST 't s
z
w
> 24 19 -C WAIL ur a o ST
30
z 25 30
MAPLE ST
�
It
SITE LOCATION Kv, '!A 11 &
259TH ST S 259TH ST Kj NT
CEMETERY
cc
1( Nat I fit I
SCENIC HILLF0
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
3 DER LN.
tab 26ISr
3T 5 262NO
>
tic
V
Kent City Council Meeting
¢} Date September 20, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: FOURTH AVENUE SIGNALIZATION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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.
3 . EXHIBITS:Memo and map.
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(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
µ. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
September. 15, 1988
TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom �V,
SUBJ: 4th Avenue Traffic Signal Modification
(4th Ave. S. & S. 228th St. ,
4th Ave. S. & James St. )
The contract was awarded to UDL Inc. on April 5, 1988 for the bid
amount of $70, 314 . 50. The project consisted of installing left
turn signal control provisions at the subject intersections and
interconnecting said intersections into the computerized traffic
control system. Final Contract amount was $71, 633 .80.
It is recommended that the contract be accepted as complete and
retainage released after receipt of the releases from the State.
-• I s 21erN
it ST
1
" / \ INI-1ISTI�IAL
�^ S. 220TH ST AREA +
< 5 ( + 8
IV er Sub SlAtion S7 I
Z t 1 f 222NDv /
II33 I �
11 12 ;• 12 7
14 13 1_ ITE LOCATION , 13 18
> l
" sz2rrn�cl NORT
_ N I KEN <
F < » 1 INTC G =
a z "
z v
h
z 4 f 22f ST 221�ar
4 f
W
INDUSTRIAL AREA a i 1 167
1 z = Tin
NOVAK
z 167
5. 234TH F 2
ST
W 4K
COLE ST &A,
�A
G 2 , = I .1I�h
LORON
n N C WAY 6141
CLOUDY 87 t- <
3 236TH S it CLOU ky ST w o i
r U K <
E OE ROE
I ✓tL�
< ST
ST 14 13 z 1- ,K
? 4 ES ST z Z
23 : 24 > „Itlrt 4 KEN W
rt ��tnLlr JVklhletic
a <
SAM ST W .. lC < E
SITE < k1 CED ST PIO EERaLOCATION E TEM ERA E
lcWlM a 1'LAV YI h.l.lt .�__ + " i< --�{ a SMIT z z
W SMITH ST Z z < W SMITH ST or 47 EN 4 SMI
c z 1_ WARD �x10ENTE yt. t . t
W HARRISO �i 1tT �' y� HARRISON ST N W a " ST 2 ~ r�t ' =' '
46TH ST 1W' MEEKER ST = M KER ST o �y .?rp
Z ( w.r ` fn r
2 41LLIS < u ` ' W4 c GOWE — sT E :10>,,00
� fT [� rW r O<�+r�c�o„
STREET L_ LCHTIM UStA t
hpg� TACOMA STINTCHG ►M1 �LJ ,yII 516 4t( v, CHERF
18i a W � TITU fT EANO E DEAN O >HILL S'
w �� W „ 16 R > 3T 1 ST <E M
` W to + SAAR < 3T i
E <0 •> �4 4 W�
_ Proposed_ _3 :. I.v ltl r. �R ; �� E GUIBERSON
. a.= : = = _ - - .. " = 4 4 ST ALPIN
..r WtLLIS ST " WAY U rl
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 20, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: AGREEMENTS PUBLIC/PRIVATE OFFICE BUILDING PROJECT
... 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the City Administrator to
negotiate on behalf of the City; 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 Administrator is authorized to negotiate a lease
agreement 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.
3 . EXHIBITS: None.
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff , City Council, and workshop of 9/13/88 .
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS• N/A
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION: _
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No . 3H
Kent City Council Meeting
\V Date September 20, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATION
_... 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Appropriate $500 to be used to pay a
portion of air fare and/or lodging expenses for Officer Harry
Hansen to attend the International Public Safety Olympics .
Officer Harry Hansen has qualified to compete in the
International 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 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Operations Committee Minutes.
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee September 1, 1988.
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ 500.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Supplemental budget appropriation, General
Fund.
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3I
Operations Committee Minutes
September 1 , 1988
Page 5
Committee is to convert a regular part-time person and a temporary part-time
person to one full -time position, with an additional appropriation for
four part-time hours per week. The request is based on the fact that Rex has
assumed the custodial duties not only at the City Hall , Library and
Engineering Building, but also the City Shops. That takes him away from some
direct work within City Hall . In addition, the City has added a recycling
program, had additional carpeting areas and remodeling of the Police
Department, and now picks up trash outside the City's facilities. These
additional tasks have added approximately four hours per week, and can be
absorbed by converting 2 part-time positions to full time, with a net cost of
approximately $4,000 per year. The Committee had no problem with this
request, approving on a 3-0 vote, and noted t6 t Rex and his staff have done
an excellent job in keeping the building clean.
CONTRIBUTIONS FOR HARRY HANSON TO ATTEND INTERNATIONAL POLICE OLYMPICS
Lieutenant Bill Mitchell of the Police Department noted that Officer Harry
Hanson had been with the City for approximately one year, but has been in law
enforcement for 20 years. Harry recently competed in the regional and
national Olympics, winning a combination of 9 gold medals. He had
participated in these events through use of his own funds, and contributions
from the Police Guild. His efforts have qualified him to compete in the
International Police Olympics in Australia in October. To do this, he must
raise approximately $3,000 to make the trip. Part of this money- will be
raised by individuals, and local businesses. Officer Mitchell asked the City
for a contribution of about $500, noting that he has provided the medals to
the City, and is representing both the City and the Kent Police Department.
Based on this, the motion was made to authorize the payment for transportation
and accommodations, up to $500, from the City 's General Fund.
r
�v Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 20, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: JOINT RESERVOIR CONTROL BOARD
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Director of Public
Works to be appointed as City representative to the Control Board
,per the operation of the jointly owned (Kent and Water District
111) water reservoir at 124th Avenue and approximately 28600
block.
3 . ERHIBITS:Memo.
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
that said appointment be granted.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3J
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
September 15, 1988
TO: Mayor Kelleher an City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom
SUBJ: 124th Joint Reservoir
As approved by the Public Works Committee, authorization is
requested for the Director of Public Works to be appointed as
City of Kent representative to the Control Board regarding the
operation of the jointly owned (Kent and WD #111) water reservoir
at 124th Ave S.E. at approximately 28600 block.
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. Request 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
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 - that would resolve the
question.
Approval by Biteman and Johnson to place on Council agenda.
Kent City Council Meeting
rt Date September 20, 1988
11\ Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: SIGNATURE POINTE SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT NO. SMA-88-4
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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
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 Ave. S.
south of Meeker Street at S.R. 516 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Council minutes 9/6/88, Hearing Examiner minutes,
staff report, Findings and Recommendation, applicant letters of
appeal (August 2 and August 19, 1988) , memo from Kent Fire
Department.
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner . Approval with two
conditions.
(Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc. )
- 5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ None
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to adopt/modify the findings of the Hearing Examiner and to
concur with/disagree with the Hearing Examiner ' s recommendation
of approval with two conditions .
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4A
,,�` 1 , j ;�� � � if, bTRIAD � '�" A�G2419
DEVELOPMENT INC AUG ;� i�tJ cl- ` �g
rr OF
August 19 , 1988 crrY �� r�
Planning Do;lallmant K
City of Kant
..._ Members of the
Kent City Council
220 S. Fourth Street
Kent, WA 98032
RE: Signature Pointe Appeal/Hearing Examiner' s File
No. SMA-88-4
Dear Council Members:
_•, By letter dated August 2 , 1988, Triad Development, Inc.
appealed the decision of the Kent Hearing Examiner to condition
her approval of a shoreline substantial development permit for
the Signature Pointe Development (SMA-88-4) . Specifically, the
Examiner required that the site plan be revised to provide a
second point of ingress and egress, even though only one access
is required by applicable codes. As further explained in this
letter, the condition must be removed by the Council since it
is neither supported by the facts in the record nor the law
relating to shoreline permit conditions. This letter more
fully explains the basis for our appeal .
I. The Power To Condition A Shoreline Permit Is Limited To
"Reasonable" Conditions. The Shorelines Hearings Board
(SHB) has established that local jurisdictions may impose only
"reasonable" conditions on shoreline permits. See SHB Nos.
155, 81-37 , 83-7 . At least three guidelines have been
established for determining whether a condition is reasonable.
First, a shoreline permit condition must be based on policies
related to the shoreline. SHB No. 81-37 . Second, the
condition must be based on supportable facts and assumptions.
SHB Nos. 155, 177 and 204 . Third, a condition must be capable
of being accomplished. See WAC 197-11-660 (SEPA Rules) . The
condition imposed by the Examiner meets none of these three
tests.
A. There Is No Authority For The Condition Because It Is Not
-.. Related To Protection Of The Shoreline. The Examiner
purports to rely on the Human, Circulation and Economic
elements of the comprehensive plan and the Valley Floor Plan to
the extent they promote a "healthful environment" and "balanced
transportation" system in the City.
fh•velupnuyu t�u tniln i I',n t. I.nl
Renovalirnt G tiuilr Ito l.'w i "�'l.l n�
Land At cpi�ilion ��.�i il�. At A 'u�uln a_II 1
Kent City Council
August 22 , 1988
Page 2
The Shorelines Hearings Board has held that other plans may be
relied upon in reaching decisions on shoreline permits.
However, in order to be the basis of a condition, a policy must
further the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) or aid in
implementation of the Kent Shoreline Master Program (KSMP) ,
both of which are expressly designed to protect the shoreline.
See SHB No. 81-37 . For example, a permit can be conditioned in
order to protect water quality or bank erosion. Weyerhaeuser
v. King County, 91 Wn. 2d 721 (1979) . Such conditions are
directly related to impacts on the shoreline.
A substantial development permit 'cannot be conditioned to
address non-shoreline concerns. For example, a shoreline _
permit cannot be conditioned to require adequate public
services such as police patrols. SHB No. 123 . . Here, the
Examiner is trying to address an issue of access that has no
impact on the river environment or shoreline. The only
policies of the SMA and KSMP that are applicable to residential
developments relate to public access and circulation to the
shoreline. See Staff Report to Hearing Examiner, page 6.
There are no policies that relate to site design for access
points outside of the shoreline.
In summary, the condition is not related to protection of the
shoreline or promotion of ' any specific shoreline policy;
therefore, it must be stricken as beyond the scope of the SMA
and KSMP.
B. The Condition Is Not Based on Supportable Facts. In order to
meet the "reasonableness" requirement, a shoreline permit
condition must be related to the proposal 's impacts and not be
based on unsupportable facts or assumptions. SHB Nos. 155 and
177 . A review of the record reveals that there are no
supportable facts on which the condition can be based.
Only two Findings of Facts relate to this issue. Finding of
Fact No. 13 states that residents expressed "concern" with
respect to one ingress and egress point. The Shorelines
Hearings Board has ruled that unsupported concerns cannot be
the basis for shoreline permit conditions. SHB No. 177 .
Finding of Fact No. 14 states that representatives of the Kent
Fire Department indicated a preference for a second emergency
access, but acknowledged that only one access is required by
code. The Examiner, however. , did not limit the condition to an
emergency access; rather, the Examiner purports to require a
second ingress and egress point for all residential traffic.
Kent City Council
August 22 , 1988
Page 3
Accordingly, Finding of Fact 14 does not support the condition.
Moreover, there was no evidence to indicate that one access
point would create any adverse traffic impacts.
The only evidence on traffic circulation was the applicant' s
traffic study and the City' s Determination of Non-Significance
(DNS) . These documents conclude that there will be no
significant adverse impact from the site design. The Examiner
is bound by the evidence in the record and the City' s DNS.
Since the Examiner' s access condition was not based on
supportable evidence, but rather on unsupported concerns, the
condition must .be found to be unreasonable.
C. The Condition Is Not Reasonably Capable Of Being Accomplished.
A permit condition must be capable of being accomplished in
order to be reasonable. See WAC 197-11-660 (SEPA Rules) . In
this case, the applicant cannot provide a second point of
ingress and egress on its property for residential traffic.
This is because a portion of the subject property was taken by
the State of Washington when it constructed SR-516 across the
site. The State left the property owner with only one access
point, which is all that is required by applicable codes.
At the hearing, the applicant testified that a second point of
ingress and egress from its property to a public road would riot
be feasible without the voluntary approval or agreement from
other public or private parties. No evidence was introduced to
contradict this testimony. It was suggested that adjacent
properties to the east could be used in order to connect the
project site with the West Valley Highway. At the time of the
hearing, however, those properties were not owned or controlled
by the applicant. Rather, those properties are under two
separate and distinct ownerships. This condition effectively
forces the applicant to purchase the neighboring properties to
the east regardless of price, terms or even a willingness of
the property owners to sell. This is unreasonable. The
Hearing Examiner can only impose conditions which the
applicant, by itself, can satisfy. Accordingly, the condition
must be stricken from the permit.
II. The Examiner Is Bound By The DNS . Issues of traffic,
circulation and access are reviewed by the City in connection
with the environmental analysis performed under the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) . This project has been the
subject of extensive environmental review, including the
issuance of a prior EIS, an addendum, two environmental
checklists and issuance of a DNS.
Kent City Council
August 22 , 1988
Page 4
During this extensive environmental review, there was no
finding that a significant adverse traffic or circulation
impact would result from the site design. In fact, the SEPA
review concluded: "The close-in location of major roads
(Meeker Street and West Valley Highway) make the project very
accessible to fire services. " It should be noted that the
public had opportunities to be involved in the SEPA process.
There was no appeal of the prior environmental determinations.
Now, at the shoreline permit stage, the Examiner is attempting
to circumvent the SEPA process by attaching an access condition
to the shoreline permlt. This i.s beyond the scope of her
authority. The prior SEPA determinations are final . Her
jurisdiction is limited to review of the shoreline permit,
which related only to development within 200 feet of the
shoreline and its impact on the shoreline environment. She has
no authority to impose conditions that relate to a non-
shoreline concern or to development outside of the shoreline,
which development of a second access point would be.
Weyerhaeuser v. King County, 91 Wn. 2d 721 (1979) . The access
condition is an attempt to go beyond her shoreline
jurisdiction, and as such, it must be stricken.
III. Summary. We urge the members of the City Council to strike
the condition requiring a second point of ingress and egress.
The condition is beyond the shoreline jurisdiction of the
Examiner because: (1) it is not related to protection of the
shorelines; (2) it is not based on any supportable facts in the
record; and (3) it is not capable of being accomplished by the
applicant. Moreover, the condition attempts to circumvent the
prior SEPA determination that is binding on the Examiner and
the City.
We urge you to set this matter for public hearing as soon as
possible. We will be happy to answer any questions you may
have at the hearing.
Sincerely,
TRIAD DEVELOPMENT, INC.
Frederick W. Grimm
TRIAD
DEVELOPMENT INC
August 2 , 1988
Office of the City Clerk
Attn: Marie Jensen
220 South 4th
Kent, WA 98032
- RE: Notice of Appeal of Signature Pointe
Hearing Examiner's File No. : SMA-88-4
Dear Ms. Jensen:
Triad Development, Inc. respectfully gives notice of appeal of
the decision of the Hearing Examiner to condition her approval
of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application (No.
SMA-88-4 Signature Pointe) upon a revision of the site plan to
provide more than one point of ingress and egress. The basis
_.. for the appeal of this condition is as follows:
1. The satisfaction of the condition is beyond the sole
control of the developer and requires the
cooperation of private and/or public parties, whose
cooperation may or may not be forthcoming;
2 . The need for such a condition is unsupported by
material and substantial evidence in view of the
entire record as submitted;
3 . The condition is a result of an error in the
interpretation and application of the Kent Shoreline
Master Program and the City of Kent Comprehensive
Plan;
4 . In making the condition, the Hearing Examiner
improperly ventured beyond the Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit process and into the
SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) process, which
process had already been completed and satisfied.
Accordingly, Triad Development respectfully requests the City
Council to modify the Hearing Examiner's approval by deleting
the condition requiring more than one point of ingress and
egress.
Development Il1 Pail. Ia,I
Renovation R �mh 14u I.'nb, in
Land Acquisition .Onl. . v)MIM .-1,21 1AA %'.26-1
August 2, 1988
Page 2
We strongly urge you to schedule this appeal on the agenda of
the City Council as soon as is possible, and to otherwise
expedite this appeal process. We would hope that we could be on
the agenda for the meeting presently scheduled for August 16,
1988 .
Sincerely,
TRIAD DEVELOPMENT, INC.
Frederick W. Grimm
CITY OF
1
June 15, 1988
Jim Harris, Director
Kent Planning Department
220 4 Ave S
Kent WA 98032
Dear Sir:
After re-evaluation of the Signature Pointe Development, it is
- my opinion that the Fire Department should have a second means of
egress. It is our opinion this second egress would enhance our
operations during a major incident at or near this development.
We realize that the Uniform Fire Code only requires one means of
egress, but in the interest of fire/life safety we recommend two.
Should there be the need for evacuation of the complex, one
egress would seriously hamper the flow of traffic from 584 units.
This evacuation could be a result of a major fire or a serious
hazardous material incident.
Respectfully,
ruin N. Berg, As istant Chief
Kent Fire Prevention
MB/jf
cc: Chief Norm Angelo
L
2204th AVE.Sn_,/ KENT.WAS HI NcI 1'ON 98012-I1H05; rEI_EPIIn NL t206I MY1 8t100
September 6, 1988
SHORELINE PERMIT Signature Pointe No. SMA-88-4 Appeal. This date has
- APPEAL been established for a public hearing to consider an
appeal by Triad Development, Inc. of the Hearing Exami-
ner ' s conditional approval of the Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit for the Signature Pointe multifamily
development (SMA-88-4 ) . Specifically 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 S. ,
south of Meeker Street at SR516.
Libby Hudson of the Planning Department described the
request as a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
application by Triad Development to build a 584-unit
apartment projct within 200 feet of the Green River.
The property consists of 38. 8 acres and is locted on
64th Avenue South at SR516. She explained that the
Hearing Examiner had recommended approval , with two
conditions , the second of which is the basis of this
appeal . Condition No. 2 states that the site plan
shall be revised to provide more than one ingress and
egress point for public safety and to comply with the
City-wide Comprehensive Plan, the Valley Floor Plan
and the City of Kent Shoreline Master Program.
The public hearing was declared open by the Mayor. It
was determined for Fred Grimm of Triad Development
that his letter of August 19 had been distributed with
the information for this hearing. He stated that the
Hearing Examiner ' s condition does not relate to pro-
tection of the shoreline, and that the applicable codes
require only one access . lie noted that the condition
was not based on supportable facts and pointed out that
the Fire Department did not impose this condition
under the SEPA process. Grimm noted that The Lakes
Development with 558 units , has only one access , with
another planned after further development. Woodland
Estates has one access for 190 units. Another access
would require acquisition of adjacent property acid
Grimm stated that Triad has secured an option on three
lots , but a condition which would require this purchase
is questionable. He noted that Triad had met all of
the requirements imposed by the Shoreline Master Plan,
that a Shoreline Permit cannot be conditioned to address
non-shoreline concerns, and that the Hearing Examiner
went beyond her authority in suggesting this condition .
Upon questions frora the Mayor, it was determined that
the Hearing Examiner had not specified how this appli-
cation was not in compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan, the Valley Floor Plan or the Shoreline Master. Plan.
6 -
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
be required and favored the Hearing Examiner ' s con-
dition. Leona Orr, 24909 114th Avenue S.E. , stated
that there seemed to be some confusion as to which
areas the Hearing Examiner had jurisdiction over . She
asked to have some explanation made for the public.
She noted further that she did not favor such a develop-
ment so close to the river.
There were no further comments and the hearing was
closed by motion. JOHNSON MOVED to modify the findings
of the Hearing Examiner to disagrea and to delete Con-
dition No. 2 . Biteman seconded. Johnson stated that
it was his opinion that the Hearing Examiner had exceeded
... her authority in attaching this condition. He noted
that no such condition was mentioned during the SEPA
process , even though the proposed density was higher
at that time. He stated that the issue here was grant-
ing of the shoreline permit. Dowell expressed concern
over the 24 ft. road but agreed with Johnson and Bite-
man. WHITE THEN MOVED to table for two weeks , Woods
seconded and the motion carried with Johnson and Bite-
man dissenting .
ZONING CODE Gymnastics Schools in M-1 and M-2 Zoning Districts (ZCA-88-7).
AMENDMENTS On August 22 , the Planning Commission recommended
approval of a Zoning Code amendment to allow as an out-
right permitted use gymnastic schools or similar uses
in both the M-1 ( Industrial Park District ) and M-2
(Limited Industrial District ) . Also recommended was
the inclusion of health and fitness clubs and facilities
in the M-2 district as an outright permitted use .
WOODS MOVED to approve Zoning Code Amendment No. ZCA-88-7
as recommended by the Planning Committee and to direct
the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance.
White seconded and the motion carried.
Hearing Examiner Approval of Exceptions to Development
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 -
KENT PLANNING AGENCY
STAFF REPORT
FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF JUNE 15, 1988
FILE NO: SIGNATURE POINTE #SMA-88-4
APPLICANT: TRIAD DEVELOPMENT
REQUEST: Request for a shoreline substantial development
permit application to build a 584-unit
multifamily apartment project within 200 feet of.
the Green River.
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE: LIBBY HUDSON
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Description of the Proposal
The proposed project includes 51 buildings which include ' 584
units of multifamily residences located along the
Green River. Recreational facilities and public access
connections to the river and proposed Green River Bicycle
Trail are also included in the project proposal. .
B. Location
The property is located on 64th Avenue S . , south of Meeker
Street at SR 516. This property is located within the river
bend known as Good News Bay, where the river bounds the site
on the west, south, and east. SR 516 bisects the site.
C. Size of Property
The property contains approximately 38 .8 acres. SR 516
bisects the site into an 8 . 5 acre parcel to the north and a
30 . 3 acre parcel to the south of the highway.
D. Zoning and Shoreline Designation
The property is currently zoned MRM, Medium Density
Multifamily Residential. Surrounding zoning includes GC,
General Commercial, to the north along Meeker Street and MRM,
1
Staff Report
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
Medium Density Multifamily Residential, directly north and
west (where the Riverwood apartments are located) .
E. Comprehensive Plan
The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive Land
Use Plan in 1969 . The goals, objectives and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan represent an expression of community
intentions and aspirations concerning the future of Kent and
the area within the Sphere of Interest. The Comprehensive
Plan is used by the Mayor, City Council, City Administrator,
Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner and City departments to
guide growth , development, and spending decisions .
Residents, land developers, business representatives and
others may refer to the plan as a statement of the City' s
intentions concerning future development.
The City of Kent has also adopted a number of subarea plans
that address specific concerns of certain areas of the City.
Like the City-wide Plan, the subarea plans serve as policy
guides for future land use in the City of Kent.
-- CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan Map designates the northern portion
and area directly south of SR 516 as "MF" Multifamily
Residential and the southern portion and land along the river
as "Open Space" .
HUMAN ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: ASSURE KENT RESIDENTS AN AESTHETIC AND
HEALTHFUL ENVIRONMENT.
GOAL 1: Maximize the aesthetic qualities of Kent' s natural
and manmade environments.
Obi ecti.ve 2 : Encourage a high degree of aesthetic
quality in the manmade environment.
Policy 1: Require that new construction and
improvements be designed and built so as to
enhance the quality of the neighborhood in
which it is located.
2
Staff Report
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
Planning Department Comment
A multifamily residential development located along the Green
River can enhance the aesthetic qualities of the city if the
development takes advantage of the existing natural amenities
and shows a sensitivity toward the river environment through
site planning, landscape design, and building design.
The proposed apartment buildings will be clustered in units
of four, sharing an interior entry court. Each building will
be modulated to some extent. The clustering of the building
creates a more intimate, "human-scaled" design while allowing
larger open spaces within the development. However, the site
plan submitted with this application (dated April 22 , 1988)
indicates that many of the buildings are spaced too closely
to meet zoning code requirements for building separation.
specifically the separation between buildings marked 112D" or
112C" do not meet the minimum separation of 20 feet between
structures.
In addition some building appear to exceed the height
limitation. Shoreline regulations state that no structures
shall exceed two stories or 25 feet in height. The apartment
buildings will vary in size and height, with 25 foot high
structures located closest to the river. According to the
section submitted with this application the other buildings,
located farther inland will be a height of 35 feet and
situated outside the 200 foot shoreline area. However, the
site plan does not show that these taller buildings are
located outside the 200 foot shoreline area.
The layout of the site provides some large areas for
recreational/open space use. The developer states that the
residents will be provided two recreational facilities which
will include swimming pools, a gymnasium, a day care center
and meeting and lounge areas. Because the plan is
preliminary it is difficult to determine the design of these
site amenities These recreation areas are located along the
river and should be designed so that the river environment
and views from the site are incorporated into the final
design.
A typical landscape plan for a section of the site was
provided with this application. The proposed landscaping is
quite sufficient to meet code requirements and should enhance
the development and river environment. A landscape screening
buffer is also planned along the dike as required by
3
Staff Report
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
shoreline regulations. This landscape screen will soften the
effect of the apartment development as viewed
from
between rivers
edge while also acting as a physical
bufthe
river and the development.
_. VALLEY FLOOR PLAN
The Valley Floor Plan Map designates the property the same as
the Comprehensive Plan Map, "MF" Multifamily and "Open Space"
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
OVERALL GOAL: PROMOTE CONTROLLED ECONOMIC GROWTH WITH
ORDERLY PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT, RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND
PRESERVATION.
GOAL 4 : Assure adequate and suitable residential
developments.
Objective 1: Provide for planned residential development
between industrial areas and the Green
River.
Policy 1: Encourage low density residential uses
along the Green River.
Policy 2 : Preserve open spaces and public access when
permitting any development along the Green
River.
Planning Department Comment
The Valley Floor Subarea Plan designates the subject site
"Multifamily" for the northern parcel and the area south,
adjacent to SR 516. The southern portion and areas along the
Green River are designated "Open Space" . The entire site is
zoned MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential, which
allow up to 23 dwelling units to the acre. The density of
the proposed development is lower, at about 15 units to the
acre. The site plan indicates that smaller scale buildings
will be located closest to the river. This will in effect
provide lower density along the river' s edge. However, given
the unique configuration of the property being bounded by the
river on three sides, the density should be lower than that
of a typical apartment development located in the MRM zoning
district.
4
Staff Report
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
the river and should also help improve wildlife and aquatic
habitat in the area.
KENT SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
_.•. The Kent Shoreline Master Program designates the shoreline
area adjacent to the subject property as an "Urban
Environment" . The Shoreline Master Program provides specific
development standards which apply to construction along the
Green River. In addition, there are a number of standards
provided specifically for residential development.
The Shoreline Master Program also provides goals, objectives
and policy statements that relate to development along the
Green River. The following is a review of these statements
., as they relate to this application.
PUBLIC ACCESS ELEMENT
GOAL: Make the river's edge available to the public.
Objective 1: Provide improved public access to the
river' s edge.
Policy 5: Access points should be developed for
diversified recreational use.
Policy 6: Parking spaces shall be provided to handle
the designed public use of the access point
- and designed to have a minimum impact on
the natural environment.
_. Planning Department Comment
The developer proposes to provide a public access easement,
or land dedication of 50 feet along the entire length of the
Green River. Additionally an easement (for the purpose of
dike maintenance) between the ordinary high water mark and
the public access easement is also proposed. These easements
will then meet the requirement that public access along the
river be provided from the ordinary high water mark to a
point at least 50 feet from the dike or 50 feet from the
_.. ordinary high water mark, whichever is greater.
A typical landscape plan for the proposed development shows
that access points to the river will occur at least at every
building cluster. This provides one access point for every
6
Staff Report
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
250 feet, exceeding the shoreline requirement of one access
point for every 1, 000 feet of river frontage.
According to Shoreline standards public parking areas are
required at a rate of one space for every 175 feet of river
frontage. A public parking area is proposed north of SR 516,
and west of the entry road as it turns south. This lot
contains 32 parking stalls.A minimum of 27 stalls is required
for the 4,800 feet of river frontage.
II. HISTORY
A. Site History
The subject property has been primarily for agricultural
purposes in the recent past. It was annexed to the City in
1968 (Ordinance #1519) as part of a 52 . 2 acre annexation.
The initial zoning was C3 , General Commercial, which was _
changed to RA, Residential Agricultural, with the adoption of
the present Zoning Code, and then recently rezoned to MRM,
Medium Density Multifamily Residential .
Originally this property was proposed a site for a 600-unit
multifamily residential development known as Green River
Condominiums. The proposed was proposed in 1980 and required
rezoning the northern 8 . 5 acre parcel from RA, Residential
Agricultural., to MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential .
An EIS was required for the project. The FEIS was issued in
1981. The Hearing Examiner recommended conditional approval
for the rezone request. Conditions of the rezone were not
met and the rezone was not finalized at that time.
In January 1988 the developers of Signature Pointe contacted
the City requesting that they carry through on the rezone by .
fulfilling the conditions in the original approval. In
April 1988 the City Council adopted an ordinance rezoning the
8 . 5 acre parcel to MRM, Medium Density Multifamily
Residential , after all the conditions of the rezone were met .
B. Area History
Historically, the land along the Green River has been used
for agricultural purposes. In the general area the land
south of the river is still primarily in agricultural- use.
In the 1960 's commercial uses developed along Meeker Street
in addition to a nine-hole golf course located north of the
7
Staff Report
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
subject property. In 1985, a large apartment development was
constructed directly north of the subject property.
A bicycle trail is proposed along the eastern dike of the
river, known as the Green River Bicycle Trail. This section
will connect to an existing trail system located down river.
The bike trail will eventually connect Auburn, Kent, Tukwila
and Seattle, following the Green River and Duwamish
waterways.
I
I
III. LAND USE
Land use in the area consists of multifamily residential,
agricultural and commercial development. SR 516 bisects the site.
Directly north of the site is the Riverwood Apartments; a 336 unit
development completed in 1985. Property located south, east, and
west across the Green River is used for agricultural purposes,
including a nursery to the west. Another apartment development
and nine-hold golf course are located north of the river and west
of the Riverwood Development. An 18-hole golf course is currently
being developed across Meeker Street, to the north of the existing
golf course. A variety of commercial uses including a mini mart,
motel and restaurant are located along the north side of Meeker
Street.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
A. Environmental Assessment
A final Declaration of Nonsignificance with numerous
conditions was issued on May 11, 1988.
B. Significant Physical Features
1. Topography and Hydrology
i
The site is located on the valley floor and comprises of
prime alluvial soil.. Drainage is poor due to the high
water table and relative flatness of the site.
2 . Vegetation
In the past the subject property was used for
agricultural purposes. Currently, the site is vegetated
with native and naturalized shrubs and grasses.
8
Staff Report
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
Riparian vegetation consisting of grasses, hedges,
shrubs and a few trees are located along the riverbank.
C. Significant Social Features
1. Street System
The subject property has access to 64th Avenue which is
classified as a residential access street. The street
has a right-of-way width of 60 feet while the actual
width of paving is 44 feet. The street is improved with
asphalt paving, curb and gutter, storm water drainage
sidewalks, and street lighting.
2 . Water System
An existing ten-inch water main line is available to
serve the subject property, which is located at the
subject sites north property line, in 64th Avenue.
3 . Sanitary Sewer System
An existing 15-inch sanitary sewer line is available to
serve the properly. The line is located adjacent to the
north parcel in 64th Avenue.
4 . Storm Water System
A storm water system is necessary to accommodate the
proposed development. Improvements for the storm
drainage have been required through SEPA conditions.
5. LID's
The property is subject to LID #282 and proposed ULID
#306 for storm drainage.
VI. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
The following departments and agencies were advised of this
application:
City Administrator City Attorney
Director of Public Work Chief of Police
Parks & Recreation Director Fire Chief
Building Official City Clerk
9
Staff Report
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies
- within 300 feet of the site were notified of the application and
of the public hearing.
Staff comments have been incorporated in the staff report where
applicable.
VI. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
The Planning Department has reviewed this application in relation
to the Comprehensive Plan, present zoning, land use, street
system, flood control problems and comments from other departments
and finds that:
A. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map and Valley Floor Subarea
Plan Map designates the subject property as "Open Space" for
the southern parcel and land along the river and
"multifamily" for the area to the north and directly adjacent
of the SR 516 bridge.
_.. B. The Kent Shoreline Master Program designates the site as an
"Urban Environment" .
C. The site is currently zoned MRM, Medium Density Multifamily
Residential.
D. The site is currently undeveloped, surrounding land uses
include medium density residential , agriculture and
commercial.
E. The site has access to 64th Avenue S. which is classified as
a residential access street.
F. State Route 516 bisects the site.
G. An access easement located under the SR 516 bridge provides
the only access to the southern portion of the site.
H. The Green River confines the southern parcel, bounding it on
the west, south and east property lines.
I. The Green River is diked along the entire subject property' s
river frontage.
10
Staff Report
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
J. The Green River Bicycle Trail is proposed along the dike.
This trail will connect to the existing trail located to the
north.
K. Major flooding from the Green River does not pose a threat to
the project.
VII. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of this application and discussion of the merits of
this request and the code criteria for granting a shoreline
variance, the City staff recommends APPROVAL.
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
June 1, 1988
CITE' OF KENT
planning .
-o
CLOUOT 51 p
N
S 230T11 41 r`
; R 1 t'F'!7 /^n❑
rb
tiA
1 I � �
]4 JAIAU; ST 141 137 _4
23124
' •-' SAM ST
f IUI\II p�
�'•\Illy w .1•vtl Z
> O
j\ '
_..._- •. .M SM1111 ST 1t Z
aW 11ARn1so IOiI
2:
I
s 246111 sr 2 a w 2
y . WILU
Po19 STREET
Es Z INTCHG i
ofyl�00 IBI z
SIG =
Colony Park •,,"•,`" .:.GAsff "`_ ; 4
Coll Course .'� 11 n
1 s 1N7
1
� fr
((�^ kT�
-1- OY v'I N
� I
7 231 24 0
23 ----- i25 >
a
— v
I�
J IF
1>1
1� S
V
I; J Nt
n'
z
•• n 167
APPLICATION Name SIGNATURE POINT LICE NO
Number VMV-88_2 9 SMA-88_40010,1linP 19 - 1988 application site T11111111111
Re uesl toning boundary
�baroi;�P Varian B Shoreline Application City 11111its
Vicinity
SOLE _. 1":1000l
CITY or KENT
planning . -
RAD
a-.
MRM
usq�nftpttnRte ) �
7 w. ❑ ,
I 'Amer
OCi
r c�
'MRM r �/
i
=' ..........
i king
.71
NJ" _
APPLICATION Name sy NA uae_eniN1 _ LEGEND ^
Number 95My-ee-2 NSMA-as-a pale June 15, 1988 application silo
IteIIUOSI— Sh rali - Gar_iance-shur:e]1np App_licatinn toning boundary .► .
cily limits
Zoning/ Topography,
SCALE = 1":200- -�-
01 CITY OF KENT
1)lanninjz
1(�� •
VIA
q3 55 t 1 fl YS
�i 1 VL III I —I� I h m , ^, b r:. Fri
\f Ix
y
XX
S" S �14• Z°1 � 'Y �I
r ti t44• S t yS^ S � I'u 1', tll "� h \ —�4 .�,
'f i t C;• � L, 1 Yam'%�•p \
!i4 ° °•-i4..4i d ...q •rlt:;. ,. t 'le\ � /o � (
It if iii:l�I.i•ii , %1..rrrr
� .m -[�� - ..:( (�f.9 I Till \1� f \ I 'il .L-��I4 ly�l•'I.
z ,ti 1J7 __�. of 1�
` r :11„J till11.''F II rm III `!1 ��/ 1 i3 Slfililfl�t f(I
,i1.�.5 4 T '. ��y i ( (; L ( 1 f(•
—iA�)r!
I L_•, _ l.le_ I ,l 4�. �A �:J � °L Ill�fi �_ 1:(I
r i `i`{r� i' fi . i` Is�_� i ;'its
51 �''"'I! II` �� f�
°I I
EJ, ,.
---_;,_l
I�
r�
APPLICATION Name SIGNATURE POINT LECEND
NemberEMA-aa-z & aSMA-88-40ate _Jung. 1S_12813 application site
RCCICC$I_Shnr_elinp Variance h Shnceli P ApalSation zoningbolmdary
City limits
Site Plan
SCALE Reduced Scale .!
FINDINGS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT
FILE NO: #SMA-88-4 SIGNATURE POINTE
APPLICANT: TRIAD DEVELOPMENT
I
REOUEST: A request for a shoreline substantial development permit
application to build a 584-unit multifamily apartment
project within 200 feet of the Green River.
LOCATION: The project is located on 64th Avenue S. , south of
Meeker Street at SR 516. This property is located
within the river bend known as Good News Bay, where the
river bounds the site on the west, south, and east. SR
516 bisects the site.
APPLICATION FILED: 4/22/88
DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE: 5/20/88
HEARING EXAMINER MEETINGS: 6/15/88 3 : 00 P.M. (continued)
7/6/88 7 : 00 P.M.
I
DECISION ISSUED: 7/29/88 l
DECISION: CONDITIONAL APPROVAL
STAFF REPRESENTATIVES: Jim Hansen, Planning Department
Kathy McClung, Planning Department
Libby Hudson, Planning Department
Larry Webb, Fire Department
Ken Miller, Public Works Department
Ken Morris, Public Works Department
Ed White, Public Works Department
Sgt. Jones, Police Department
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: For Applicant:
Frederick Grimm, Representative
Beth Mountsier, Architect
Tom Rengstorf, Landscape Architect
Ralph Krutsinger, Civil Engineer
Walt Smith, Goodman Management
Dave Inger, Traffic Engineer
Mik Hulkman, Goodman Management
Other Comments_:
Grace Studer Larry Stougard
Joe Miles Tom Miller
Craig Moran Mary Williams
Tom Miskell Harold Porter
Dianna Miskell M. J. Patoc
Joe Slepski Jerry Studer
1
Findings and Decision
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
WRITTEN TESTIMONY: Walter Pacheco, Muckleshoot Indian
Fred H. Maybee, Department of Wildlife
INTRODUCTION
This matter first came before the undersigned Hearing Examiner for
public hearing on June 15, 1988 . As a result of the number of
witnesses interested in testifying concerning this matter, the public
hearing was continued until July 6, 1988 . In order to review the 27
exhibits submitted and the 85 pages of verbatim minutes, the
undersigned extended the time for consideration of the issues raised at
the public hearing until July 29, 1988 .
After due consideration of the evidence presented by the applicant, all
evidence elicited during the public hearing, and as a result of the
personal inspection of the subject property by the Hearing Examiner,
the following findings of fact and conclusions shall constitute the
decision of the Hearing Examiner on this application.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant, Triad Development, requests a shoreline substantial
development permit. The proposal is to permit the construction of
multiple family apartments within 200 feet of the Green River.
2 . The subject property is located on 64th Avenue S. , south of Meeker
Street at State Route 516. The subject property contains 38 . 8
acres and is known as Good News Bay. The River bounds the site on
the west, south and east and State Route 516 bisects the site.
The site contains an 8 . 5 acre parcel to the north and a 30. 3 acre
parcel to the south of State Route 516 .
3 . The original shoreline substantial development permit application
called for 584 units. However, at the July 6, 1988 public hearing
another site plan was submitted requesting approval of a 554 unit
development.
4 . The subject property is currently zoned MRM, Medium Density
Multifamily Residential. The subject property is designated as
open space in the City-wide Comprehensive Plan.
5. Surrounding zoning and land uses in the vicinity include GC,
General Commercial to the north along Meeker Street, and MRM,
Medium Density Multifamily Residential north and west where the
Riverwood Apartments are located. The staff report failed to note
the surrounding county agricultural zones located across the Green
River from the site to the west, south, and southeast. The land
2
Findings and Decision
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
located in this vicinity is part of the King County Farmland
Preservation District and is developed in a rural manner.
6. The subject property was originally proposed for a 600 unit
multifamily residential development to be known as "Green River
Condominiums. " The development proposal was initiated in 1980 and
an environmental impact statement was required in connection with
a proposed rezone of the northern 8. 5 acre parcel from RA,
Residential Agricultural, to MRM, Medium Density Multifamily
Residential. Following the preparation of and the acceptance of a
final environmental impact statement in 1981, conditional approval
of the rezone request was recommended by the Hearing Examiner.
The conditions of the rezone were not met and the rezone was not
finalized. Subsequent developers contacted the City of Kent in
1988 requesting to comply with the conditions in the original
rezone. The City Council concluded that the subsequent developers
(Triad Development) had adequately met the conditions of the 1981
rezone and adopted an ordinance rezoning the 8 . 5 acre parcel to
MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential in April of 1988 .
7. The original development proposal called for development of the
600 units to be accomplished in phases. The subject proposed
development of the subject 554 units is not phased.
8 . The subject property has access to 64th Avenue which is classified
as a residential access street. This street has a right-of-way
width of 60 feet, with actual width of pavement of 44 feet. The
site interior will be accessed by way of a boulevard which will.
pass under State Route 516. The boulevard will be two paved lanes
with related appurtenances and parking provided on one side. The
exact length of the boulevard was never clarified to the
satisfaction of the undersigned during the public hearing on this
application.
9 . The applicant prepared a traffic impact analysis which was
submitted as Exhibit 6 to the public hearing. It should be noted
that the traffic survey was not made available to the undersigned
prior to the date of the public hearing and was 12 pages long and
contained two complicated tables and six figures of projected
traffic volumes. At the time of the second public hearing on this -.
application on July 6, 1988 , a revised traffic survey in the form
of a letter admitted as Exhibit 18 was provided. The purpose of
Exhibit 18 was to update anticipated traffic generation figures in
light of the reduction from the assumed 600 unit project in the
original traffic analysis to 554 units. The revised traffic
figures were not made available to the undersigned prior to the
second public hearing. The revised traffic figures anticipate
that the 554 unit Signature Pointe complex will generate 3 , 330
average weekday vehicular trips when fully occupied. Of these
trips, 275 trips will be generated during the weekday P.M. peak
3
Findings and Decision
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
hour and 187 vehicles will enter the site and 88 vehicles will
exit the site during the P.M. peak hour period.
10. The site plan calls for 1, 099 parking stalls to be provided.
These parking stalls will include garages which the applicant
anticipates charging the tenants an extra fee to use. The fee has
not been established at this point, however the applicant's rental
agent indicated that the applicant would charge whatever the
market would bear for the use of garages. In a similar complex a
fee of $65 per month is charged for the use of a garage in
addition to rent paid by tenants.
11. At the time of the public hearing considerable opposition from the
public to the shoreline substantial development permit was
evident. Many of the witnesses objected to additional multifamily
development in Kent. Concern for the fish and wildlife in the
area was expressed by representatives of the Seattle Audubon
Society, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, the South King County
Division of the Northwest Steelhead and Salmon Council, and the
Washington State Council of Trout Unlimited.
i
I
12 . Other residents expressed concern with respect to the impact of
the subject development on the Kent School District.
13 . Additional concern was expressed with respect to potential traffic
problems, specifically the safety of only one ingress and egress
point.
14 . Representatives of the City of Kent Fire Department, while
indicating that the one ingress and egress point complies with the
applicable codes, indicated a strong preference for more than one
ingress and egress point for fire safety.
15. Other witnesses reminded the undersigned with respect to the
incompatibility of multiple family uses located directly across
the River from the King County agricultural zones.
16 . The developer is proposing some large areas for recreational and
open space use. The site plan indicates that residents will be
provided with two recreational facilities which will include
swimming pools, a gymnasium, a daycare center and meeting and
lounge areas.
17 . The site is serviced by existing water and sanitary sewer systems.
18. A storm water system is necessary and improvements for the storm
drainage have been required through SEPA conditions.
19 . At the time of the public hearing, a number of witnesses expressed
concern with respect to the SEPA process. Specifically, some
witnesses alleged not being notified with respect to the issuance
4
Findings and Decision
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
of the SEPA decision document. Further, in a letter dated June
30, 1988 directed to James P. Harris, Planning Director City of
Kent, the Washington State Department of Wildlife strongly urged
the City to consider requiring a new environmental impact
statement as a result of the alteration and destruction of the
wetlands and riparian areas of the Green River since the date
which the original environmental impact statement was prepared in
1981.
20. The staff report, with its recommendation of approval, is
incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. This development application is limited to consideration of
whether a shoreline substantial development permit should issue.
A shoreline substantial development permit is required as the
developer is seeking to build portions of the proposed 554 unit
multifamily development within 200 feet of the Green River.
2 . The Kent City Council has already determined that multiple family
zoning is appropriate on the subject site. Accordingly, the
question of whether the site should be utilized for multiple
family uses is not properly before the undersigned.
3 . The City of Kent Shoreline Master Plan, Comprehensive Plan, Valley
Floor Plan, and Green River Corridor Special Interest District
regulations contain goals and policies to guide development along
the Green River.
4 . As previously indicated, the City-wide Comprehensive Plan map
designates the subject site as "open space. " However, the Kent
Shoreline Master Program designates the area adjacent to the
subject property as an urban environment and as previously
indicated the City Council has determined the subject site to be
an appropriate location for multiple family uses.
5. The Human Element of the City-wide Comprehensive Plan seeks to
assure Kent residents an aesthetic and healthful environment.
6. Discussion of the Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan is
omitted in the staff report. However, the Circulation Element of
the Comprehensive Plan seeks to establish a balanced, safe and
efficient transportation system for all modes of travel. Further,
the Circulation Element of the Shoreline Master. Program seeks to
provide for circulation along and across the shoreline which
minimizes the effect on the river environment.
7 . The Economic Element of both the Valley Floor Plan and the City-
wide Comprehensive Plan seeks to promote controlled economic
growth with orderly physical development, resource conservation
5
Findings and Decision
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
and preservation. The Human, Circulation and Economic Elements of
the Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program are not
promoted by the site plan which anticipates only one ingress and
egress point for 554 multiple family residential units.
8 . Details concerning the numbers of one, two, and three bedroom
units were curiously omitted from the site plans and only
available to the undersigned on repeated questioning of the
applicant. It is easily conceivable that up to 1, 200 residents
-. and guests could be present on the site at one time. A major fire
or other disaster requiring prompt evacuation of residents would
be made nearly impossible by only one ingress and egress point as
proposed.
9 . The original SEPA environmental review report analyzing
environmental checklists 88-21 and 88-35 with respect to ingress
and egress anticipated a phased development. See e.g.
environmental review report decision documents Signature Pointe
Apartments #ENV-88-21 and #ENV-88-35, pages 5 and 6. With respect
to fire and police services the environmental document assumes
that because the original project was anticipated to be a phased
one that the fire and police departments would become acquainted
with the site as phased development occurred and would be able to
ingress and egress the site. The undersigned concludes that one
ingress and egress point on this site violates the goals and
policies of the City-wide Comprehensive Plan, the Valley Floor
Plan, and the Kent Shoreline Master Program.
10. The Kent City Council has previously determined the site to be
appropriate for multifamily uses.
RECOMMENDATION
For each of the above reasons, the recommendation of the Hearing
Examiner on the requested shoreline substantial development permit is
CONDITIONAL APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:
1. Development pursuant to the shoreline substantial development
permit approved herein shall be based upon the site plan submitted
at the July 6, 1988 public hearing and the number of units shall
not exceed 554 .
2 . The site plan shall be revised in order to provide more than one
ingress and egress point for public safety and to comply with the
6
Findings and Decision
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
City-wide Comprehensive Plan, the Valley Floor Plan, and the City
of Kent Shoreline Master Program.
Dated this 29th day of July, 1988.
ANE L. VANDERBEEK
Hearing Examiner
Request for Reconsideration
Any party of record who feels the decision of the Examiner is based on
error of procedure, fact or judgment, or the discovery of new evidence
may file a written request for reconsideration with the Hearing
Examiner no later than 14 days of the date of the decision.
Reconsideration requests should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner, 220
S. Fourth Avenue, Kent, WA 98032 .
Notice of Right to Appeal
The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written appeal
to Council is filed by a party of record within 14 days of the
decision. The appeal must be filed with the City Clerk and state the
basis of appeal which may be errors of fact, procedural errors,
omissions from the record, errors in interpretations of the
Comprehensive Plan or new evidence. See Ordinance #2233 and
Resolution #896 for specific information.
7 _..
CITY OF KENT
planning .
a.
CLOUOT sT Y
S 2701
II SI ~
I4 IAIAE't ST 141 13/ _4 —r
' r � •, SnM ST �
Itl . MCI I. w
. A1n. I:1r\I1 Zi
r: W OyI
pW W
- - w SMIT11 ST I� _ <
n
0
w Ilnnnlso °, '
z
\r'> 246111 Sr Z 4
W !
s WILLIS `
STREET u
\TSL, o INTCHG i
161 N
i-f,, n11 folio 1 516 i
516 ..!" n t
Colony Park 4 �.
GOII Course EpT C
IL' EEE �
T
r
516 If
ry�k
,^ e
I23 .--
tt 1 23124 0
Iz5 °
1 26 ---- --- — — —
J I =
1` S
.1,
z
n I67
APPLICATION Name SIGNATURE POINT LEGEND t _
__. Number scLu38a za�sMA--aa—ADala.11,nl5 . 1988 application site IIIIIIIIEIII
Re uesl toui�g 6aundany
�ltnr_e_linr Varianra � horeline Application Clly 1II111lS
Vicinity
SCALE = 1":1000' -�-
CITY or KENT
plalini ng ,
a..
MRM ,'�
r, >P
t F
• ."� , R
co tyiuull
1,
l2
MRt'�it
kin
I CO-An
k f JJ
I
APPLICATION Nanle—SInNATHRF pnTNT LECENO
NNUIllI1Cf 15MV-BB-2 NSMA-88-4 Oalo June 15, 1988 application site
Requoit_ ShQ'Q1 i 1. llarianro R. Chnr_el inc 11pp_11Laf an Zoning boundary odmopp
City limits fffffffffff
Zoning/ Topography,
SCALE = 1`200' A&
CITY or KENT
planning .
If
N
o �
.... N - ,, pion
--I "—IIIII� ,�
f{I A z
c>
01 >vcx I >
nm 02 r
—• �A• r
>
y rA
—i >Ro�z> m
C
0>
» i r I I y
7 0
> n
cor ?
z
i
� w � m c i
m x ff�,1}��J1FL rtUs{-11UFt I}�L1
pn
n N'>O 1-V V4 LW
Er m mrA
E O 0 nn
_ C ZirOr
r7N�N>
ZC O
Z Z m
N
In1 N
. I •
>
I _ D
I KRIS �
& rn ! r mR
m g o u��,Z, �o
m a, 4 0u2n.z hFzmai 0r
m momo CO;
i r c cso nmAs 0
>p A� !>t-M- 0 C s A�S n n 0g2220 n o0mr
m oA uminc
rnstz iNi XOi_ Nyyn0p A
." Z>A�:� nan.A I m C Z-L NN
Om� y22 A M,A
S_ AAz x NF
A '^0 `z0 ymm N
A Z y O N p
� O T AO
... O Cz > A x O
A O
D
m I x D
n D y
� x Q
APPLICATION Name SIGNATURE POINT LEGEND
NNumbe«SMA-88-2 & BSMA-88-40a1e june 15 laatl application silo
RUgUest. Shoreline Variance R Shoreline Application Zug boundaly
city limits
Site Plan
SCALE = Reduced Scale
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES
July 6, 1988
The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to
order by the presiding officer, Diane L. VanDerbeek, Hearing
Examiner, on July 6, 1988 at 7 : 00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall,
Council Chambers.
Ms. VanDerbeek requested all those intending to speak at the
hearing and those wishing to receive information concerning the
hearing, to sign in at the sign up sheet by the door. Staff
reports, agendas, and the description of procedure of the hearing
were available by the door. Ms. VanDerbeek briefly described the
sequence and procedure of the hearing. All those who intended to
speak were sworn in.
SIGNATURE POINTE
Shoreline Management Permit
#SMA-88-4
This is a continuation of a public hearing heard on June 15, 1988
at 3 :00 p.m. to consider the request by Triad Development for a
shoreline substantial development permit to build a 584-unit
multifamily apartment project known as Signature Pointe within 200
feet of the Green River. The property is located on
64th Avenue S. at SR 516.
Diane VanDerbeek: The first witness who I have signed up to
testify is Grace Studer. Is Grace Studer present? Do you wish to
testify?
Grace Studer: Madam Examiner, my name is Grace Studer, I live at
25607 68th Avenue S. in Kent. I 'm here tonight to ask you on
behalf of myself and many of the surrounding neighbors of the Good
News Bay site to ask that you deny this shoreline variance and the
shoreline building permit. We will show the Signature Pointe
.._ proposal does not comply with local and state laws. That the area
has been designated Open Space by the Comprehensive Land Plan. It
is also protected under the Washington State Shoreline Management
Act and the City of Kent Shoreline Master Program. Our
environment is also protected by the rules and guidelines of the
EPA, the SEPA and the City of Kent' s own SEPA policies. We will
show that the proposal by Triad representing Transcanada
Enterprises is in conflict with all of them. We will show that
the decision document, the environmental checklist were based on
inadequate and incomplete information submitted in an
environmental impact statement made for 1980--1981. The
1
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
environmental checklist do not describe the environment as its is
today. We will shows that there is enough information on the
current environment and the adverse impacts that this proposal
creates to mandate a new environmental impact study. We will show
that the short-term economic gains and convenience of the proposal
does not justify the long-term adverse impacts to the land or this
community.
Shoreline variance procedures they. . .the property owner must show
that if he complies with the provisions he cannot make any
reasonable use of his property. The fact that he may make greater
profit by using his property in a manner contrary to the intent of
the program is not sufficient reason for a variance.
I ' ll start with the variance itself. The variance can be obtained
if the property owner can show that the complies with the
provision of the master program and that he cannot any reasonable
use of his property by complying. The Master Program cities four
criteria for granting the variance. The way the variance reads is
that all four criteria must be met that one of the elements does
not take precedent over the others.
On May 23 and 31st, 1988, the Planning Commission met to hear
public testimony. I have the minutes here for you.
VanDerbeek: Do you want to enter the minutes.
Studer: I would like to enter those minutes into the record.
VanDerbeek: All right, if you could pass them to Chris Holden,
the recording secretary, they will be marked as an exhibit to this
hearing. I believe that will be exhibit #9, is that correct?
Studer: We believe that the Transcanada Enterprise Limited
created their own hardship by buying the Good News Bay property in
1979 . That' s when the title search revealed it. There' s also a
1974 map of the City of Kent's Comprehensive Land Plan that
clearly and distinctly shows that SR 516 does cross that property.
I would like to submit into the record the Real Estate Title
Search and the Comprehensive Land Plan that distinctly shows 516 in that area.
VanDerbeek: Is that a current Comprehensive Plan Map?
Studer: This is one that is available to the buyers in 1979 .
VanDerbeek: All right. Those will be marked as exhibits to this "
2
i
I
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
hearing. The Title Report will be marked as Exhibit 10 and the
Comprehensive Plan Map will be marked as Exhibit 11.
Studer: We feel that by poor purchasing the RA zoned land north
of 516 and having it rezoned to the. . . .the southern portion of the
property instead of purchasing the land directly east of the
property which was already zoned MRM and have the City of Kent
build coming onto it was the best possible alternative. The
planning staff report states that the land is completely
surrounded by the Green River. If you will look at the land
itself you will see that this site shows that statement to be
wrong.
The property over here is available. It is zoned MRM and does
adjoin West Valley Highway and a City of Kent road. Mr. Harris of
the Planning Department directed his remarks to only one criteria
and that being that the owner did not create the ownership. He
dismissed the Commissioners and the public remarks about
preserving public welfare and interest and our concern over harm
done to the area. Mr. Harris emphasized that the State had
approved that area on the riverbank as the only way on and off the
southern parcel of land. We believe that the State also
recognized the land as also an access. We tried to show in public
testimony the harm that could be done only with one access.
Again, Mr. Harris said that the issue was of paving a road on the
riverbank. Mr. Harris' remarks prevented the Commissioners
,•_ ability to completely address the criteria for the variance. We
tried to get the Planning Commission to discuss the fourth
condition of the variance and when the Commissioners tried to
question them they were cut off again by Mr. Harris. We feel that
had a full disclosure of all the facts available instead of
assumptions or statements prefixed by the words, "I believe" , the
Commissioners may have changed their vote. We have three items,
guidelines here, Shoreline Management Act Title 90, Chapter 58,
the State Environmental Protection Act, Title 197, Chapter 11 and
the Comprehensive Land Plan Subarea Valley Floor Plan. These
three major sets of guidelines and the laws were developed to
protect the citizens and the environment now and in the future.
We feel that the Planning Department in approving this project
along the shoreline have not only ignored those guidelines but the
laws of the City' s own codes, Title 15.08. 510A Subsection D1. The
Comprehensive Land Plan, Valley Floor Subarea, shows this area as
open space, pages 13 and 15 of the Valley Floor Plan describe what
open space is and I would like to submit those two items into
evidence or exhibit.
VanDerbeek: That's not necessary to make any official City
3
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
documents as exhibit because they are items that I have copies of
and that I will reference and consider when making my findings.
You may certainly reference those in your testimony and refer to
them but it's not necessary to make them part of the record.
Studer: O.k. The Washington State Shoreline Management Act.
Planning Department has denied the State's right. . .State agencies
the right to perform their duties to protect against the adverse
affects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and
wildlife. This is under Title 90.58 .020. The Shoreline Master
Program was adopted as written and approved by the State in
accordance with Title 90. 58 . The Planning staff by approving
Signature Pointe development without the development in total
compliance with the Shoreline Master Program and shows a disregard
for the Shoreline Management Act. Allowing and approving of the
variance and the building permit only water's down the intent of
the Washington State legislature and voters of the State of
Washington. Under SEPA, Title 197 Chapter 11, allowing the 1980
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the basis of comments on
the decision document when the environmental checklist does not
comply with the intent or the guidelines set down by SEPA which
basically states that the lead agency shall make decisions in
accordance with SEPA guidelines and shall be responsible for
obtaining all necessary information about projects. The intent of
the SEPA rules which would insure that proper studies to the
environment were made so that the public as well as those agencies
and departments of the county, state and government levels could
comply evaluate any proposal.
VanDerbeek: With respect to your argument concerning the SEPA
issues, the environmental document in this case was issued on
May 11, 1988. Have you or any other citizen filed a timely appeal
of that environmental determination.
Studer: I will get to that in a moment. I feel that we were not
allowed to because the documents were not available for us to see.
I will address that in a moment.
VanDerbeek: All right.
Studer: The City of Kent Sepa Code 15. 08.510 Section D1 provides
that the City of Kent be given further authority in protecting the
environment. We feel that the Planning Department did not act
properly on the best interest of the public when they use
inadequate and outdated information. It may argue that the time
for SEPA comments and appeals has expired but when the information
is not available or withheld from the public or the affected
4
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
- . Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
agencies and the affected Indian tribes then that argument does
not hold water.
VanDerbeek: How. . .what. . . specifically, how are you alleging that
the information was withheld.
... Studer: Because I was there on June 1 and 2 to review the entire
Signature Point file. This EIS, the DEIS, were not in it. In
fact, if you recall, on June 15 when you asked for those document,
the Planning Department could not provide them. I went down on
the 16th of June as soon as the Planning Department opened, they
said they did not have them, they were at the printers and I would
have to wait. For the time for the period of the appeal was way
over. . .we couldn't get the information.
VanDerbeek: Was the information provided in response for a
request for that information?
Studer: I requested all information pertaining to Signature
Point. I wanted to review and take excerpts from those documents
that we thought were necessary. But, when you consider that those
important documents, the checklist referred to the DEIS of 1980,
when I could not possibly review them because they were not
-.- available how could I make an appeal on those issues.
VanDerbeek: Right. But, I was asking were they ever. . .were you
provided with a copy of those documents by the. . .
Studer: Eventually I was able to buy the copies.
VanDerbeek: And when was that?
Studer: On June 16.
VanDerbeek: All right.
Studer: Which according to Mr. Harris the appeal time was over on
June 14.
VanDerbeek: All right. You may continue.
Studer: We also feel that proper information such as the
environmental checklist and the DNS 's were not distributed. And,
I will enter into the documentation the distribution list for the
DNS and the environmental checklist. They were not issued to the
affected Indian tribes which may against State law as well as
Federal law. We believe that the Planning Department has acted in
5
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
direct conflict to the directives. . .own City goals and policies
putting bottom line economies. . .economics ahead of the welfare and
the interest of the public. The environment and the agencies who
protect them. Further evidence of this is revealed by comments
and mitigation remarks in the DEIS, the FEIS. The total disregard
for the environment and the land, leaving their adverse impacts,
and the statements from the agencies who protect them virtually
dismissed and not discussed. Labeling those adverse impacts as
unavoidable and insignificant. If you will review the FEIS,
especially the letters from the Department of Fisheries, the
Department of Game, the Department. . .King County Land and
Community Management, you will see what I am talking about. Those
are just a few. By approving the Signature Point proposal we
believe that the Planning Department has also ignored the wishes
and intent of the previous agreements made by the City of Kent;
i.e. the River of Green and the Green River Corridor Plan. The
Comprehensive Land Plan and the State Plan that state that this
area is of significant value to the community as open space and a
potential parks area. By allowing the variance and conditional
use permit, time after time, the Planning Department has watered
down the intent of the voters of the State of Washington and the
City so that short-term economic gain appears to take precedent
over the long-term adverse impacts that this development and
others have created.
The blatant omission of the environmental agencies and affected
Indian tribe from the distribution list for the DNS and the
checklist will reflect this attitude. At this time I would like
to enter those, the distribution list. . .
VanDerbeek: All right. The distribution list will be marked as
Exhibit 12 to this hearing.
Studer: Also, the plans for the Green River Corridor Plan.
VanDerbeek: Excuse me, Mrs. Studer, just a moment. Is the
distribution list already a part of the official file. It should
be. Yes, is the SEPA distribution list already in the official
file. All right. The SEPA distribution list is already in the
official file so it is not necessary to mark it as an exhibit.
Studer: o.k. If you will note on that distribution list that
none of the agencies, i.e. , the Department of Wildlife, the
Department of Fisheries, and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe were not
notified. I do have a summary and some maps of the Green River
Corridor Plan, I would like to enter those into exhibit.
6
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
VanDerbeek: A summary of your comments.
Studer: What do you mean by comments, I would like to show you
these documents that show that the City of Kent in previous
agreements have made pacts with the other communities in this area
and they have agreed that these areas should be set aside as a
potential park and open space and deemed it significant.
VanDerbeek: Well, the Green River Corridor Plan and any other
City plan will be considered by me in making a recommendation to
the City Council on this issue. If there is anything there that
you want to submit as an exhibit that goes beyond a current
official City plan, I would be happy to consider that as an
exhibit but I will review all of the material that you are
referencing in connection with making my recommendation.
Studer: Thank you.
VanDerbeek: Any other comments.
Studer: Yes, I do. I 've just got lost in this.
VanDerbeek: That's all right, take your time, I certainly did
-• this evening, not purposely.
Studer: O.k. As a trustee for the citizens and the environment
within the City of Kent jurisdiction, we feel that they have. . .the
Kent Planning Department have the obligation to seek the advice
and comments from agencies and associations that have the
expertise and the knowledge of the resources of the land, again, I
will refer to 15. 08. 510 Subsection D1. By not doing so, the
Planning Department has ignored the people's right to enjoy the
rich and beneficial resources here in the valley, i.e. the native
wildlife to our area, the migratory animals that need and use the
land for refuge. The guidance for preserving native habitat will
be discussed further. And, I wish to submit these letters from
the Department of Wildlife and the Department of Fisheries and it
discussed with will happen when development occurs.
VanDerbeek: How many letters are there?
Studer: Two.
VanDerbeek: All right, the letters will be marked as Exhibit 12A
and 12B to this hearing.
Studer: I'm not an expert in ecology, so I requested the services
7
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
of the Seattle and Rainier Audubon Societies along with the Sierra
Club. They have provided invaluable information and they are here
to testify on their own behalf. I would like to tell you about
two more excursions just this last friday out on that point. It
was midmorning so the big animals were not out. But by an
untrained, casual observer we heard and saw a wide variety of
birds of animals and we saw also what the effects of man can do to
the environment. We saw squished weasels, a small snake tied in
knot with a firecracker in its mouth. We observed garbage strewed
along the pedestrian parkway along. . . .walkway along 516. We saw
broken bottles, aluminum cans in the river along with the
disregard of humans. Allowing this to be encouraged by further
development to that area will. . .the habitat will be destroyed. We
will loose the wildlife, native and migratory in the valley. This
is not just an old meadow. . . it is a seasonal marsh and its the
home for a wide variety of animals, birds and fishes. It is in an
area that a casual observer may enjoy the environment and walk
through and get in tough with nature all year long. The fact that
in just a short period of time we were able to see such a wide
variety of animals and birds shows the errors in the checklist and
the need for more and thorough complete EIS. I would like to
emphasize that we are not just concerned about the land and its
inhabitants but also the human element. Of those who live in the
valley, we see many problems with the Signature Pointe proposal.,
the mitigations and requests by the Planning Department. We have
a difficult time seeing how contributing to a 272nd east/west
corridor will lessen the traffic problem. . . flow on Meeker, 64th
and West Valley Highway. We also feel that some of the
mitigations were wrong. The mitigation listed for poor air
quality as an auto emission standard and the completion of SR 516-
-that will mitigate the adverse air quality impacts. I would like
to enter into exhibit the 1986 air quality data summary along with
the 1987 Puget Sound Air Pollution Quality Agency studies and
resolutions for the Kent area which clearly showed that these
measures were not enough and we have now reached a Federal
nonattainment area and much more extreme measures will have to be
taken to clean up our air.
VanDerbeek: All right. The air quality documents will be marked
as Exhibit 13 .
Studer: The DEIS list adverse impact after adverse impact not
only to our environment but to the human element; schools, sewers,
water, garbage disposal, to the police and fire services and even
the infrastructure of the City, the loss of wildlife and
rich. . . loss of rich agricultural soils. Traffic problems and poor
air are just a few. I ask you how many insignificant adverse
8
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
impacts may make a significant adverse impact? There's no mention
about crime or mischief or vandalism that occurs when more and
more developments are allowed in the area. And, you know, what
about the living conditions for the people who may eventually live
in that area. Smith Brothers' dairy has just least 100 acres of
land across the land to spread manure from their dairy. Another
,. neighbor across the river is bringing in their whole dairy herd.
We mentioned that the odor can be very extensive. We mention that
and other fields pertaining to only those who may live out on the
site i.e. the necessity for a second road. On May 23 and 31st we
questioned the wisdom of permitting just one access road that
would handle pedestrian bicycle as well as motor vehicle traffic.
We questioned the safety of a road so close to the river and down
.. by the 516 foundation. This area is shaded by 516 as to leave the
surface possibly icy and slick during the winter months. Children
walking to school and motor vehicle traffic converging on a small
limited space day after day seems a tragedy waiting to happen. It
seems to many of us that 516 poses its own set of problems.
During the winter cold, 516 is very icy and dangerous. The area
above the access road being one of the worst. Take until late
morning or early afternoon to thaw. It is that same area that
minor as well as lots of minor accidents occurs. I asked the
Planning Commission to consider the what ifs: a propane truck or
some other dangerous cargo truck were to be involved in an
accident on 516 above or near that one access road, how could the
fire department safely and effectively evacuate the population in
that area in a short time. Mr. Harris stated that he assumed
since the Fire Department was advised of this application it
foresaw no real problems. So I contacted Assistant Fire Chief
Marvin Berg, I posed several scenarios to him and asked why the
Fire Department didn't also question the wisdom of just one very
small access road and a very limited access to this portion of the
project. Chief Berg was quick to assure me that some of my fears
were unfounded that the Fire Department had been consulted and
that codes were met. But I pressed him on several unusual but not
rare situations. He too expressed concern and said that he would,
again, review the application. Our next conversation occurred
about a week later after he had reviewed the proposal . I asked
him for his personal and professional opinions about the one
access road. Fie stated that his personal and professional
opinions two a access roads were need but since the Kent Fire Code
does not require one, he could not require a second road. He said
that the Fire Department could only state that they preferred a
second road which is precisely what Lt. Webb did on June 15, 1988 .
We believe that it is in the interest of public safety to require
a second access road, not only for fire but also for the Police
Department. That' s my statement.
9
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Studer: Would you like a copy of that, refer to?
VanDerbeek: Well, sure, I 'm going to order verbatim minutes, I
think anyway but I would certainly, if you have a copy of it I
would certainly consider it. I don't think you need to mark it.
Joe Miles?
Joe Miles: Yes Madam Examiner. My name is Joe Miles, I 'm
representing as spokesperson for the Seattle Audubon Society this
evening. The society is a local, nonprofit environmental
organization comprised of over 4 , 000 members. Our organization
follows environmental issues throughout King County and of
particular concern is the rapid development of the Green River
Valley and the City of Kent. I would like to submit a letter as
an exhibit, this letter is from the president of the Seattle
Audubon Society in regards to the proposed Signature Pointe
apartments.
VanDerbeek: All right. That will be marked as Exhibit 14 to this
hearing.
Miles: I would like to briefly touch on a few points that are
included in the letter. In review of the City's Comprehensive
Plan, showing that this site was designated as an Open Space/Trail
at one time at that the Green River Corridor Plan shows it as a
site for a future park and that the site was also eligible under
the King County Agricultural Preservation Program, the
environmental community and the general public must question how
the City determined the most suitable use of the property to be a
multifamily apartment complex. The second point included in the
letter is that members of the Seattle Audubon Society visited this
site and observed a variety of wildlife species including Northern
Harriers and Barn Owls. Local residents have reported nesting
Hawks and feeding Eagles and certainly the success of the wildlife
is dependant not only upon the habitat that's provided by the
shoreline and the field but the isolated nature of the area. The
project would not only eliminate the majority of the habitat but
would force human intrusion into the remaining habitat. Yet,
neither the original EIS in 1981 or the addendum in 1988 included
an on-site study or inventory of the existing wildlife. The City
Audubon Society feels that a new EIS which specifically includes
an inventory of existing wildlife species and habitat be prepared
for this project and submitted for public review. The third and
last point that we would like to briefly mention is the mitigation
10
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
measures for the wildlife, mitigation measures for wildlife
presented in the decision document dated May 18, 1988 are less
than adequate. Seattle Audubon has reviewed the project and feels
that alternative designs that could partially if not entirely
protect portions of the wildlife habitat on the area. A possible
suggestion would be to transfer the entire density of the project
-• to the north of SR 516 by increasing the height of the buildings,
this would allow the development not only to obtain the same
number of units and reduce the construction cost of the project
but allow for the designation of the area south of SR 516 as
permanent open space. Finally, I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to comment on this and we will appreciate your
considerations of these issues in your decision. Thank you.
VanDerbeek: Thank you for your testimony, sir. Craig Moran or
Morgan?
Craig Moran: Madam Hearing Examiner my name is Craig Moran and
I 'm the conservation chairman for the Rainier Audubon Society. I
have been requested to appear at this hearing on behalf of the
concerned residents of the Kent/Auburn valley in regard to the
Good News Bay Development.
VanDerbeek: All right. Could you state your address for the
record, please?
Moran: 21804 SE 266th Place, Maple Valley.
VanDerbeek: All right.
Moran: It has been my experience with being involved with the
environmental wildlife education for past eight years that in
reviewing this environmental impact study regarding this area, it
is less than adequate. What this EIS fails to address, as the
name implies, how this proposed development will impact the
environment and to what degree. There is some mention of birds
and mammals that "quite" inhabit the area. However, the study
does not give numbers of population and their density of either
flora or fauna. If you do not know specifically what kind of
plants and animals are within a study area, you cannot know the
degree of impact on those populations that development would
incur. For the general observer it would be simple to stand SR
516 for a few hours and be able to observe a variety of birds.
However, there is little certainty that he or she could determine
what kind of plants and animals are there or in what or what is
the animal or plant population density and why is this important.
The importance of this information is to determine the degree of
11
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
displacement developing the area would have on this population.
Since a variety of raptors have been observed in the area such as
the Great Horn and Barned Owls, Redtailed Hawks, Marsh Hawks in
addition to Bald Eagles being observed fishing from the Green
Rivers. For those raptors that prey heavily on the rodent
population, it is evident that the lose of this habitat would
adversely affect their food source. When the food source
dwindles, so do the animal populations that depend on that food
source. Nest sites also are no longer available, further reducing
animal populations. Contrary to popular myths, raptors are very
beneficial to man in that they are part of the check and balance
for rodent population. On my personal survey of the land, I
observed a variety of animals to include Belted Kingfishers, Barn
Swallows, Yellow Throats, Cedar Waxwings, a pair of Marsh Hawks,
Redtail Hawks, Starlings, Robins, Crows, American Goldfinch and
House Sparrows. Other avian species observed by local residents
have been Barn and Greathorn Owls, Redtail Hawks, Marsh Hawks,
Bald Eagles, Great Blue Herons, Sandpipers, Quail, Rednecked
Pheasants. These can be seen by the simple observer. The
question is in what numbers do they exist, how dependant are they
on the land in question for both food and nest sites or material .
The land also demonstrates areas that exhibit seasonal marsh land
characteristics. Areas of very sparse vegetation with top soil
consisting of silty runoff from the surrounding slopes of the
riverbank. This season the marshland roots support a variety of
waterfowl using it on both north and south migratory routes. By
developing this area you have contributed to the already rapidly
shrinking marsh lands existing in the Kent/Auburn valley. In
addition to the displacement of the existing wildlife that would
occur if development proceeded, just as importantly, if not more,
the proposed land use would adversely affect the remaining
wildlife. At this time I would like to read into the record a
letter from Fred H. Maybe, Habitat Management Division of the
Wildlife, Department of Wildlife. The letter is dated June 30,
1988 directed towards:
Dear Mr. Harris:
This is to inform you that our concerns and
recommendations for residential development in this area
are even stronger than we expressed in our letter of
March 16, 1981. More and more wetlands and . . . .
VanDerbeek: Excuse me, the letter that you are reading has
already been marked and admitted as Exhibit 12A, so you don' t need
to read it, it is part of the record.
12
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
-. Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
Moran: O.k. May I just quote one paragraph from this, if I may?
VanDerbeek: Sure.
Moran• . . . .
"We recommend that a new environmental impact statement
should be prepared for this proposal. A document which
adequately and accurately reflects the adverse impacts
of which is made available for normal public review as a
necessity to the decision making process of the
development of mitigating measures to reduce significant
environmental impacts under the State Environmental
Policy Act" .
During my observation of Good News Bay, I observed an Eastern Mole
,.- and, I'm sorry, weasel carcass, both of which had been run over by
vehicles. But the most distressing of all was the small 13 to 14
inch garter snake that was tied into a knot about midbody section
with a fire cracker inserted into its mouth. These were all found
on the land in question. I don't think it necessary to describe
further the snake's condition suffice as to say destroying animal
and plant life and habitat with no regard to the consequence is
detriment enough but to demonstrate this blatant cruelty is beyond
acceptability. We as a society don't need to allow this cruelty
to humans when they. . . .when then is it allowed to animal
populations. With multifamily dwellings north of the proposed
site, apparently already amusing themselves at the expense of the
wildlife, can you not envision the impact on both flora and fauna
for the remaining wildlife. With the expectant increase in human
population we can expect far greater cruelty toward fish, plants,
birds and mammals. And, we as stewards of this plant should not
and cannot allow this to continue of the cruelty and destruction.
The City of Kent has a golden opportunity to demonstrate to the
rest of the surrounding communities its concern for the
environment. It is clear that with the ever increasing population
of western Washington there is a greater need to create and set
aside open space or natural areas for the immediate if not
surrounding communities. Habitat destruction is the number one
cause of reduce flora and fauna population. If the City of Kent
allows this development to continue at the rapid pace currently
underway, it will adds its name to the ever increasing list of
communities that are far more interested in the dollar value
rather than setting a positive example to save remaining habitat.
When you consider that usage of recreational areas nationwide have
dramatically increased it is obvious that there is a need to
maintain if not increase open space or natural areas. Ask
13
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
yourself why this increase in recreation areas have come about,
the population of the United States has not increased dramatically
and the availability of the automobile. What has increased is the
interest of the national population to observe wildlife in its
natural condition. More people visit zoos nationwide than all
sport events combined. Yet the dollars spent on sports events,
arenas and stadiums far out spend the dollars spent in zoos. This
simple statistic clearly demonstrates that there is a greater
interest in wildlife. However, it is evident that the developers
fail to recognize the importance of wildlife habitat and how
interdependent man is in his environment. And, I ask let us as
Washington residents not be put in a position where wildlife is
only available in zoos or hundreds of miles away. The City of
Kent should embark on a road to sincere environmental awareness if
only they stop to consider the environmental impact this rapid
increase of development would have the habitat and wildlife under
their jurisdiction. A simple stroke of the pen would send the
message, the City of Kent will either opt for further
environmental destruction and disregard the wishes of its citizens
or it will just continue this ever increasing habit of destruction
and take stock in the future for generations to come. I thank you
very much.
VanDerbeek: Thank you for your comments. Tom Miskell?
Tom Miskell: Good evening, my name is Thomas Miskell. I live at
25175 Frager Road in Kent. First, I would like to set the record
say on the length of the road from the southern tip of the bridge
to SR 516, we were told that it was around 800 feet at the last
meeting.
VanDerbeek: Right.
Miskell: O.k. Lined in blue is our land and from the north to
the south boundary, running parallel to the City limits its 1, 480
feet and you can see the proposed Signature Pointe in green.
Another point that I would like to mention is the fact that there
is only one exit and entrance. One access is serious. It is
noted in red under 516. I believe one access would be o.k. if you
were building homes but apartments I really don't think so. I
would like to show a video of the property and expand at the end
of the video on the parking situations. I though running a video
camera was like water skiing, I thought, you know, nothing to it,
but since this is my first video bear with me, it's pretty
incredible.
VanDerbeek: You have a lot of sky.
14
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
' Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
Miskell: You know it looks like I fell out of the car once and a
few things. There's no volume because if you do have volume, I 'm
sure there would be words taken in offense, you know, like. O.k.
the video is starting looking toward the West Valley Highway,
swinging to the north; this is the north side of SR 516, I am
starting at the top of the freeway as you can see the Riverwood
development; that's looking due north; now this is looking over
towards the river and an old oak tree and there's the bicycle
trail. That is not complete yet but will be. And there on the
other side of the river you can see the slaughter house that was
burned down and one other building which is still standing. And,
here' s where we fell down the hill. O.k. this is on 516 heading
towards the West Valley from Meeker Street looking out over the
land to the south of 516 it is, as you can see, agricultural. I
think that is one thing you asked the Planning Commission if they
-• knew what the land was zoned and the land in this area is all
zoned agricultural by King County. As past chairman for the Land
Preservation Committee for King County we have every bit of this
land in land preservation all the way down to 272nd. You can see
there's nurseries and right at this point is where they are going
to have 100 head of cattle. They are putting in a dairy.
Property had been owned by the Neff family for years. This is
looking at signature point. You can see we don't have a clear
view of the mountain. This is on the other side of the 516 bridge
over the Green River, would be on the West Valley side, the Green,
and that's looking to the south of Signature Point, looking out
over the vast area of Green Belt. Now's here where I would like
to point out that there is another access area. At that point
right there, that section is right about here looking out towards
the access. As you can see on this view foil that I do have
marked where there' s a City road.
VanDerbeek: Is that along the river?
Miskell : Yes, Mam'm, it is on the river, along the river.
VanDerbeek: All right.
Miskell : O.k. , now, this is also continuing along 516 looking at
that access that I mentioned. O.k. , now, this next portion, now
this is two small compact cars underneath the bridge at the one
access. Now my real concern is, I wish I could have got a couple
of motor homes parked next to each other and then tried to explain
how we would've ever had access for a bike trail also. This is
looking on the public street on. . .up against Riverwood. Now, one
of my main concerns, I understand there' s not going to be any
15
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes _.
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
motor home or RV parking in this development. Now, these RV's are
parking out on public streets because the RV parking available at
Riverwood is completely full. There's not any public streets on
this peninsula. . .that's the end of the video, thank you.
There are not any public streets in this and I know you are
concerned about the fire lanes. So, I am kind of wondering
where's everyone is going to be parking with a 1.8 allotment per
unit for parking. I don't expect to correct Ordinance #1554 which
was approved December 3 , 1968 . But, I would like to quote one
small portion:
Whereas it is found that said original zoning is in the
best interest of the health, welfare and morals of the
citizens of the City of Kent and is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and of the City of Kent and
consistent with good planning.
I would like to show the Comprehensive Plan. As you can see the
section in blue is Signature Point. You can see where the County
has the big A' s and over here that is all in agricultural
preservation down to 272nd. You can see where the 516 bridge runs
through there and you can also see where it was originally open
space. As you can see on the Comprehensive Plan, it shows open
space and with the King County land preservation in the County,
has purchased the development rights for all the land with the
letter A in the County. We are sorry that this piece of property
wasn't in the County and the Kent Planning Department didn't
continue to recommend an open space area as beautiful as this one.
I would like to quote from a meeting from December 6, 1972 from
the Planning Commission:
Commissioner Land asked if there was any disagreement
with an MRM zoning stopping at the south side of SR 516.
Now, this was in 1972 .
Mr. Hutchins stated that he feels this is where it
should stop. This is a natural buffer. .
I realize that the developer is going to help finance the light at
Meeker Street and 64th and I think I did hear something about the
one at James and 64th. Now that Meeker Street is complete with
one lane in each direction are they going to be willing to help
finance widening that road and also are they going to help finance
widening Meeker bridge? I hope I have given you a few reasons why
this development or any other development shouldn't be built at
16
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#sMA-88-4
this gateway to the City of Kent. And, if the City government
allows this to go on, at least make this builder build per the law
and no variances should even be considered. Thank you.
VanDerbeek: Thank you for your testimony. Diana Miskell?
Miskell: Could I mention one more thing. I would like to also i
leave as an exhibit a letter from the City of Kent from
Dan Kelleher, the Mayor, and this is dated June 27, 1988 and just
a comment from it:
We appreciate your valuable input on the issue of
multiple family development. Your comments and support
have enable the Kent City Council to make good decisions
on what help/shape our community to make a better living
environment for its citizens.
And that was when they reduced development 20 percent for
apartments.
VanDerbeek: Who's the letter to?
Miskell: It's to me.
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank's you for your testimony. Do you
want to submit that as an exhibit? I ' ll consider the letter as
Exhibit 14 . Do you want to mark the video as Exhibit 15.
Diana Miskell?
Diana Miskell: Hi, my name is Diana Miskell. I live at 25175
Frager Road in Kent. And my concern is the impact on schools.
Three new schools were opened in 9 of 187 and they opened over
capacity and since September 187 new enrollments were between 100
and 150 more students. Portables, that are. . .portables in use,
they added three according to the paper, June 16, 1988, they've
added three new portables for next year and this doesn't. even
consider the over capacity of the libraries, the restrooms or
cafeterias. And, the portables that were moved from schools were
basically, some of them were being used for band or music, which
by moving them, they will not longer have a place even for that
and they will have to find a new place if not discontinue. Too,
I 've been told that there are 10, 100 planned housing units either
in the planning stage or the building stage at this time which
will feed into the Kent schools. I'm also told that a new school
should be built or opened in this area in or about 1990 or 191
housing 600 students. To my knowledge this will replace O'Brien
Elementary which Signature Pointe as well as Lake Fenwick
17
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
apartments and also the Lakes will feed into. According to the
DEIS on page 418, Signature Pointe says that there will be 72
students coming from these apartments. According to the school i
district they are expecting 161 elementary school students, 40
junior high school students and 35 high school students. This
past year. . .
VanDerbeek: I 'm sorry, how many high school students?
D. Miskell: Thirty-five.
VanDerbeek: All right.
D. Miskell: O.k. This past year, O'Brien, they have a capacity
of 328 students. They averaged 345 students. So with, not
including the Lakes, when they are finished or Lake Fenwick when
they are filled that will put approximately 506 students into
O'Brien or into the new school with the others. This school will
also open over capacity. At the rate of growth, Kent School
District is afraid that the taxpayers are going to decide to start
saying no to the bonds as far as building new schools. The I
bussing situation, as you saw in the video, the entrance and
access. There will be no buses that will go back into that
complex. All students will be walking out to Meeker, they will
catch. . .at present they are catching the bus on the south side,
let's see, the south side going east. The pick-up area is
64th Street and Meeker. With a light there, the buses will
definitely impede traffic, if the bus is continue to stop there
and at this point it is. They recommend that a bus turn-out be
designated and built to accommodate the students because the
students from Riverwood will also get on at the same stop. And,
the road width, it has to be wide enough for a special aide or
wheelchair bus in case one would need to be used in this complex.
Also, in the growth of the Kent Schools, according to an article
in the Kent News Journal, about 150 more students than projected
signed up for kindergarten for the next fall which shows how the
growth is going. Kent elementary school enrollment grew more in
the past two years than it has in previous 15 years combined.
Total enrollment in the district grew 1,203 students in the past
two years to an official October 1, total of 18, 468. The portable
which were moved, there were 11 portable classrooms which were
moved and those elementary schools which received those portables
were Jenkins Creek which is one of the new schools opened in
September. Lake Youngs received two, Martin Sortom received two,
Martin Sortom is also a brand-new school which opened in
September. Meridian, Panther Lake, Pine Tree, Spring Glenn,
Springbrook and Ridgewood also received portables. So, I admit
18
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
that some schools lost some but those schools. . . it also states
here that if a school had a portable just for the band class they
will just have to find somewhere else to have band and if they
can't. . . in my opinion, if they can't find someone else to have
these classes that. . .eventually they will just be forgotten and
my. . .and that is my concern with the school, really, hard. Thank
you.
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. I have a
couple of questions concerning your testimony, if you don't mind.
The figures that you gave me for the anticipated number of
students to be generated by the developer. How did you get those
figures?
D. Miskell: I spoke with Fred High in the Finance Department and
also a lady--her first name was Donna, I don't know what her last
name was.
VanDerbeek: So, you spoke with people at the school district.
D. Miskell: Yes, I did.
VanDerbeek: O.k. And, what about what you told me about the
buses, who. . .
D. Miskell : O.k. I talked with Transportation.
VanDerbeek: With the Transportation Department.
D. Miskell: Yes.
VanDerbeek: So they assume that all the school children will walk
down this, however long, access road to the end?
Miskell: They will have to catch the bus on Meeker.
VanDerbeek: So probably at least 200 students on any one day, is
that your understanding, from high schools to. . .
Miskell: From Signature Pointe, that. . .at the bus stops will
" include the students from Riverwood.
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Joseph Slepski?
Joseph Slepski: Good evening, my name is Joe Slepski. I live at
22028 SE 270th, Maple Valley. I represent the South King County
19
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
of the Northwest Steel Head and Salmon Council, Ltd. The national
direction of our organization is to the dedication and enhancement
of the cold water resources. Our Chapter. . .project is the Green
River and we have been around and involved in Green River issues
for at least 19 years. Our (unclear) starting a project in Icy
Creek that ended up in a large fisheries rearing facility. A
rearing facility that we manage on, from the Geyser Park and
numerous cooperative project with Departments of Wildlife,
Fisheries, Parks, U.S. Forest Service and the Muckleshoot Indian
Tribe.
The Green River we see is a very unique resource. The
affects. . . it affects our quality of life, our economic and the
water quality in Puget Sound. In the Green River there's wild
fish that spawn in the river and this is a statement that we feel
about the people and the residents of Washington and King County
and in the City of Kent. We are not. . .don't feel that whatever
involved, that we want to be like areas. . . .like Los Angeles who
accept cement troughs for rivers where steel head once spawned and
reared or the people on the East Coast through their previous
ignorance must now accept dead streams that once support Atlantic
salmon. The Green River is also nationally recognized through the
U.S ./Canada Treaty as an indicator stream. This means that our
commitment through the U.S./Canada treaty to enhancement and
preservation of that resource affects the management of all salmon
resources along the west coast.
Recently, if you remember, we got a fish kill on the lower Green.
That subject came up in the U.S./Canada treaty negotiations and
effective management. . .the catch management of those resources in
the Pacific. So we are very closely watched in what we do along
the Green River system. Our Chapter's involvement has been,
historically, of stream enhancement and putting more fish in the
river. We've determined that because of development and because
of growth we cannot limit ourselves to those kind of activities
and because of that I 've personally become involved in the Puget
Sound. . . In nonpoint pollution activity through the Green River
Early Action Watershed and the South King County Groundwater
Advisory Committee. Involvement in these areas has enlightened me
greatly. It definitely shows that the out of river functions
drastically impact the Green River system. The Green River. . .King
County values the Green River fisheries at $19 million annually.
The cumulative impacts of development such as these adds up. You
know, each one is claimed to be small impact but, and—and,
cumulative impacts of developments as these especially adjacent to
rivers are those that affect the river resource the most. Service
water management by covering up land as we are doing currently in
20
__i
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-as-4
the Kent Valley very much affects flows in the river and
groundwater and thus, water quality. Groundwater is the major
contributor to flows in the river. Also, by adding more
impervious surfaces we increase winter high flows and decrease
summer flows. Those are direct. . .the people recalls. .the public
recalls these studies are direct impacts to the capability of the
river to support fish runs. In the development here there is a
noted high water mark. Because of developments going on
throughout King County, that high water mark will not be same two
years from now as it is currently. I think FEMA has even noted
that in requirements for additional diking and modifications in
flood control planning and insurance rates. I guess our major
concerns are with the variance. . .on this particular project are
the variances that are being considered. We see that these
variances will add impacts. . .adverse impacts to the river through
runoff, oil from roads and from cars, obviously lawns are going to
be fertilized, there 's supposed to be fill to make this area more
buildable. All these things will contribute to runoff into the
river and will definitely affect, we feel, water quality.
There's another issue as there 's a lot of agreements being levied
being upon the builder to allow this development to continue and
ongoing with our concerns is we've been through this process a few
different times, like for different setbacks or (unclear) setbacks
or whatever and over a period of time there's no mechanism to
monitor compliance with those agreements. So that is a grave
concern. Also, my involvement in these water quality issues have
led me to the acceptance of regulations set forth by water quality
and shoreline management standards Experts have put a lot of time
and effort in to coming up these standards and these standards are
minimum standards, o.k. , not suggested standards, but minimum
standards and then for us to allow additional variances to these
to us seems unacceptable. Another suggestion is, from our point
of view, is in that area with the development we see some impact
to rearing capacity of the river. We would like to see some
mitigation considering for rearing capacity of salmon and steel
head— that section of the river. Thank you for your
consideration.
VanDerbeek: Thank you for your testimony. Would staff turn off
that fan. Is there some fan on? Oh, is that the air
conditioning, leave it on. I thought it was the fan on the
overhead projector. That 's fine, we don't want to turn off the
air conditioning. All right. All right. Larry Stougard, would
you like to testify, sir?
Larry Stougard: My name is Larry Stougard. I live at 1007
21
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
Garfield Avenue in Kent. I 'll keep my remarks brief but I want to
address a specific part of this proposal that I 'm interested in
and that is on page 8 of the Planning Department's proposal
here. . .staff report and which it states, "the developer proposes
to construct a trail around the border of the property. " As a
bicyclist, canoer, kayaker, I have interest obviously in this
area.
VanDerbeek: Something about you suggested to me that you might be
interested in bicycling.
Stouaard: Traditionally the City of Kent had been slow to mature
as far as constructing trails as compared to other municipalities. -
And, bicyclist and other recreationalist always seem to welcome
any new trail proposal . I believe this trail proposal is
basically offered to construct a trail at the Green that the King
County is already proposing to do in the future. Along that area
though, I do have some questions I would like to have answered.
Basically that pertains to the trail . First of all if the
developer builds the trail by what standards will the trail be
constructed. Another question is who is responsible for
maintenance. History has shown me that when the interurban trail
was constructed, the maintenance became very poor to the point to
where the trail became about three feet wide after growth of
blackberry vines. And, trying to get response for maintenance, I
could not get one agency to admit it was their responsibility. So
I think that should be addressed. Also, I believe the proposal
also said that they would provide public access to the river. I
would like a definition of public access, does that mean that I
can walk up and look at the river or could I launch a kayak or
canoe. Also, I 'm different than most people as far as the use of
trails. A trail system is basically recreational in use with few
exceptions such as the Burke-Gilman and the Interurban which give
you direct commuting lanes to work. obviously, the trail that are
proposed by the County that would go along this property is
considerably longer than the public streets. I prefer to use my
legal rights to riding on the road and so I would probably more
likely riding on Meeker Street than on this trail for commuting
purposes. I have not seen any addressing by the Planning
Department on how my safety would be preserved with the increase
in traffic. That' s basically it. We enjoy trails and we would
love to have them whenever we can get them but we would like these
questions answered. _
VanDerbeek: All right, I ' ll direct staff to answer some of your
questions during the rebuttal period.
22
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
Stougard: O.k. Thank you.
VanDerbeek: Thank you for your testimony. Tom Miller?
Tom Miller: I 'm Tom Miller. I live at 26811 Military Road S. in
Kent. I'm here representing the Washington State Council of
Tribe, Unlimited. I sat for a year-and-a-half on a Water Quality
Committee here in the City of Kent by Mayor appointment and help
draft a water quality ordinance. I also sat for little over a
year on a storm drainage committee and help draft a storm drainage
ordinance and the density that I see in this project, that close
to the river doesn't meet criteria of either of those two
ordinances let alone the Shoreline Management Act. I wished I had-
been aware of this problem a lot earlier in the process so I could
have been more involved and better prepared this evening. Several
of my concerns on behalf on Tribe Unlimited: 1) the setbacks,
obviously. The variances that are being given in the setbacks on
this totally unsatisfactory to Tribe Unlimited. The proposed
access trail along the river if the project is, in fact, built, in
Tribe Unlimited' s opinion at thease a portion of the setbacks
would have to be retained because to mitigate the fisheries damage
to the fertilizers and things of that nature that would come from
a development like this and the additional runoff from the
impervious surfaces and the soils from the parking lots, and so
forth, would be a stepped dike whereby we reclaim some shallow
water habitat that were lost when the river was originally
channelized. If we gotta give then we want to take. The
vegetation that is mentioned in the staff report as part of the
mitigation that' s going to create some shading and potential help
for the fisheries resource. To my knowledge the Corps of
Engineers has not changed their standard on that. We have been
working with them for a number of years. King County has
attempted to get a couple of vegetation test programs going to
find a vegetation program for the dike system that the Corps of
Engineers will approved. If this project has found a vegetation
system for the dike that the Corps of Engineers have approved, I
would like to know what it is because we've got another three
miles of river we'd like to put it on. So, as far as I 'm concerns
at this point time, that's a pie in the sky. We request Madam
Hearing Examiner that you deny the shoreline permit until a full
EIS addressing the fisheries impacts for this reach of the river
can be put together and presented in the public forum. Thank you.
VanDerbeek: Thank you for your comments. Mary Williams?
Mary Williams: I 'm Mary H. Williams. I live at 25331 68th
Avenue S. , Kent, on the West Valley Highway. I 'm a long-time
23
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
resident of the valley and I 'm just plan heartsick and very
disturbed about what's happened to us. No amount of meetings or
pleading have seem to do much good. Way back with the Army Corps
of Engineers when they stripped the river of all the brush, put
shale rock in which was immediately poured out down into the
sound. And, we begged them not to do these things but it did no
good. I kept telling people that we can't eat money and we better
leave Mother Nature alone. All of the fountains and all of the
shrubbery and all the things that we can put in simply do not
measure up to what we have had and I just wish that we would a way
to having fewer people and more of the land used for wonderful
food which we can produce out our way and, just forget all this
other nonsense. Thank you.
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony.
Harold Porter?
Harold Porter: I 'm, excuse me, Harold Porter. I live at 1420
W. Willis in Kent. There are a number of statements that are
untrue in the Kent Planning staff report. Those untruths match I
the Signature Pointe presentation as incorrect statements or
omissions that make the statements essentially untrue or at least
misleading. Page 1, D, on zoning, the shoreline designation, the
statement, surrounding zoning, about surrounding zoning fails to
define the zoning to the east of the south section. I believe
they should add that the zoning for the property to the east of
the south section, over to the existing Holly Road off. of
West Valley Highway is MRM. The public is being mislead by
statements that fail to recognize available MRM, yet to be
developed, but available for development, land to the east that
offers access to the east in addition to the proposed north
entrance. The State, the County, the City and the property owners
have never agreed that SR 516 underpass was or is to be the only
access to this property. The property owner bought land north of
SR 516 highway to connect to that underpass as the cheapest way to
gain access while the MRM land has been right along. The property
owner chose to buy that land fully aware of the risks involved in
this development and need for the shoreline variances to develop
it. Reference to page 8 , the Area History. The statement about
the bike trail is correct as far as it goes. But by omission the
public is again mislead. The existing County-owned ten-foot wide
bike path route parallel to State Route 516 is ignored. The river
edge bike path in these plans deadends at the Porter property line
on the dike. There will be no connection to the upriver end of
the path. This will become a public issue when the property is
developed and goes from the plan to reality. The City Planning
Department has been fully aware of this discrepancy yet has
24
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
directed the developer into this dilemma. A suggest solution is
to require the developer to make the bike path across the northern
border of their property to connect to the County-owned east/west
segment parallel to State Route 516. To require the developer to
erect a barrier gate that is adequately secure and signed to
prevent passage over the Porter property to the east and leave the
- deadend as a monument to the lack of foresight by the City of
Kent. Trespass will be met by many calls for our local Police
Department and court appearances to protect my property. In
regard to page 10, Planning Department review, paragraph G, the
statement that the SR 516 underpass or easement provides the only
access is untrue. A look at the maps shows that just saying it
does not make it so. Flat level MRM zoned land exists to the east
of the City street. It should be rewritten. The owner bought
that south section fully aware of that land and that the underpass
may not be the only access if the City were to require it to have
two. Maybe the easterly access should only be the only access to
the south property that would relieve the traffic problem. The
platting review, paragraph H, the statement that the Green River
confined the southern parcel is just not whole truth. That River
does not touch the south side of State Route 516 except at the
bridge underpass on the west side. Once again, failure to
describe the MRM zoned land on the northeast line is misleading
and intended to justify approval of the only access they want to
develop. The City is a part to this misleading the public and
should be required to correct. Planning review, Item J,
statements about the bike path are here misleading in that they
only speak to connection to the north bike path, the downriver
lake. It fails to mention any connection to the upriver trail . I
believe that information was intentional since there is no
connection at all, as planned, under this Signature Pointe
proposal . Deadending the bike path should be a planned, stated
condition or change the plan to actually connect should be
condition required. In general, I speak to the next item, it's
about open space and loss of wildlife. Nothing is being required
or planned to mitigate the loss of wildlife and habitat. The 14
chinese pheasant clutches including a 28 adults and an estimated
60 chicks will be forced out and will die. I 've personally
counted them three or four times in the past two weeks. Open
space is not short clipped grass, it is not people space, it is
not agriculture use, it is for animals and birds and will not
exist here. The rabbits, quail, pheasant, raccoons, skunks and
all will die.
The next item is having to do with a single street access and
public safety. The variance should be granted allowing the
underpass but we should not allow them to have only a single
25
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
access street. If we had the other access street we could have
through bus service for the schools and alleviate that problem.
On the matter of on-site parking, while this issue was raised by
the Examiner at the previous meeting and I agreed that the plan
leaves parking an unresolved issue that must be addressed. In
summary, as an adjacent MRM property owner, I wish to state that I
am for the project. It makes sense to put housing here where the
City has invited all this business and all these jobs. I do
expect approval of this project but I hope we do it right. If we
approve building within the 200 foot setback, my property will, by
this precedent, be also to have more units per acre and be of
higher value. If the street is not now required to the east,
don't ask me to connect the street to Signature Pointe in the
future, require it of them now or don't try to fix the problem at
my expense later. Thank you.
VanDerbeek: Thank you for your testimony. All right.
M. J. Patoc?
M. J. Patoc: Good evening. My name is M. J. Patoc. I live at
25575 West Valley Highway, Kent and I have questions on the final
EIS statement from ER Tech Corporation, its dated May 26, 1981,
and I just wanted to bring out some points from the following
letters:
One, on page 10, of the EIS is the letter from the City of Renton,
addressed to James Harris, Director, Kent Planning Department, and
there's an excerpt here in the letter which I which to state, it
says:
The Greenriver Condominium project, as proposed, appears
to be in conflict with the River of Green Report and the
City of Kent Green River Corridor Plan.
There' s another letter here, on page 14 , and this letter is from
the Department of Planning and Community Development and it's
addressed to J. R. Edmondson, Budget and Program Development, Item
3 , it says:
This statement totally shirks the questions of nuisance,
complaints against farm practices and odors. Such
complaints and even lawsuits can most definitely can be
expected from. . .to emanate from this type of high
density, nonrural residential community.
There's another item here, on page 16, from the Division of
Planning, it says:
26
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
We have reviewed the subject DIS, DEIS, excuse me, and
feel it raises a number of significant issues that need
to be discussed and resolved prior to the City taking
further action on the proposal.
and then they list a number of things which I won't go through
because I 'm sure you have a copy of this. On page 25, there's a
letter from the Department of Ecology, under Item 1, it says:
The list of licenses and authorizations to the
induction, introduction, excuse me, does not list all
the permits required for the proposed project. All
required permits should be listed included a flood
control permit from the Department of Ecology.
I have one last item here, and on page 33 , from the Department of
Army Corps of Engineers, it states in here to Mr. Harris:
The proposal to develop the Greenriver Condominiums in
Good News Bay is in direct conflict with Seattle
District' s flood damage reduction study with the Green
River Valley.
and the thing is, that I want to bring out, as a 1981 ' EIS, it
seems that there 's a lot of things that, you know, been added on
around to the area. This was before SR 516 was constructed and
this was before a lot of the other neighboring developments have
been constructed. And, as you can see with a lot of the speakers
here concerned with the fish and wildlife and everything that
maybe we should reconsider this EIS and put together a new one. I
would like to commend, you know, all the people involved with
doing this, you know, for our, you know the public benefit because
I didn't think they would go through all this much trouble, you
know, and it just amazes me and I 'm glad someone, you know, is
doing something but I think a seven year old statement like this
should be reconsider and maybe a new one put together.
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Jerry
Studer?
Jerry Studer: o.k. My name is Walt Studer. I live at 25607
68th Avenue S. And, I would like to tell you what the intense
development of the valley floor has caused to the people who live
in this area. one is less time spent with our families because of
traffic congestion and accidents in the area. I have to leave
earlier and get home later, that hurts and at times I 've spent 15
27
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
minute sitting in my driveway trying to get out into traffic and I
live right on the West Valley. We have an increase in crime and
vandalism and mischief in the area. Throwing rocks in the river,
throwing firecrackers in the river over the Fourth of July, M180 's
and M1001s. People blatantly throwing garbage out all over. All
you have to do is drive around and look. We have dirtier air, we
are getting into one of the areas where it's getting to be a
hazardous health area. We have unsafe roads, they are doing
something to try and correct it in front of our place but I don't
know about the rest of the area. We're running into a higher home
and auto insurance because of the congestion in the area and the
vandalism. Higher flood insurance because of what is being done
to the river and method of controlling it. We have higher water
bills, higher garbage bills due to the increase of population and
having to pay to get rid of all this stuff. Buying more from
other people who are taking it over. We also have a loss of the
rural way and quality of life that we are now living. Now, where
in all these documents that have been present is the adverse
impact to us listed and who is responsible for guaranteeing our
quality of life. According to the city's official statements,
either an ordinance, policy or goals, it is the City' s
responsibility but where are we given the slightest mention let
alone the actual environment. According to Mr. Harris in a recent
Kent News Journal article, there would be any hearings if this
site were out of the 200 foot area of the river. The Planning
Department's policy of issuing DNS is in direct conflict of
allowing the public to be heard. Written comments are allowed but
as in the case of this development, it seemed to be ignored except
where the law may be broken. Even then, has with the Muckleshoot
Indians, they may ignore the important issues. Again, we must
emphasize the need for a thorough, complete and accurate
environmental impact statement made for today and tomorrow. Thank
you.
VanDerbeek: Thank you for your testimony. Karen Johnson? Is
Karen Johnson here? Michael Koons? Is Michael Koons here. Is
there any other interested member of the public at this time who
desires to give testimony, sir?
(Voice) : I have one thing that I neglected to do when I gave
testimony--Tom Miller.
VanDerbeek: All right.
Miller: I have a letter here to James Harris from Walt Pachico,
Fisheries Manager of the Muckleshoot Tribe dated June 23, and I
would like to enter this into the record.
28
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
VanDerbeek: June 23, 1988?
Miller: Yes Ma'am.
VanDerbeek: All right. The letter will be entered into the
record and marked as exhibit 16, is that right. Any further
public testimony, ma'am. Yes, certainly, so long as you are not
repeating your previous testimony.
Miskell: I 'm Dianna Miskell and it was brought up that if the
second access was made that that would made an access for the bus
to drive through. The buses will not drive through the complexes.
This was what was told to me by Transportation.
VanDerbeek: Do you know why?
Miskell: No, they just don't. They are not guaranteed that they
will have safe passage through due to cars and parking and such.
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. All right,
I believe that I raised a question at the last hearing that I
wanted to direct to. . . Is someone here from the Police '
Department? I wanted to ask a question to the representative of
the Police Department please? Sir, if you could step to the
microphone and identify yourself for the record.
Sett. Brian Jones: Hello, I 'm Sgt. Brian Jones, I 'm the
supervisor for the traffic enforcement unit for the City of Kent
Police Department.
VanDerbeek: All right. Sgt. Jones perhaps I 've spent too much of
my career prosecuting traffic offenses and sitting as a magistrate
in Bellevue court hearing 95 traffic cases a day, I raise some
concerns at the last hearing with respect to whether the Police
Department sees any traffic enforcement problems specifically
parking enforcement problems in this development.
Jones: With any type of multiresidential apartment complex there
is always the potential for traffic parking problems that exist.
I don't see this one as any different from any of the others in
the City. The majority of our problems deal with after 5 o'clock
traffic arriving home from work, parking in unauthorized areas,
though specific places being fire zones or fire lanes and
handicapped parking areas. It always impacts us later in the
evening when people who do come home cannot find parking places,
park in those unauthorized areas and other folks who have to walk
29
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
a ways to their apartment who park legally always call and
complain about those unauthorized vehicles in those particular
locations. That is one aspect that is a conctrn to us because it
takes our manpower time away from other calls for service that we
have to deal with. In addition to that, we also have concerns on
this particular project of the second access. We would like to
see one, however, in conjunction with the Fire Department, I don't
believe it is mandated that that occur. We would like to see it
primarily for emergency response by police vehicles and also any
time we have access to an area, you know, more than one access it
makes our job a lot easier with more effective service to the
residents who reside in that complex.
VanDerbeek: Typically, when persons park in unauthorized areas do
you typically ticket or impound these vehicles?
Jones: We have a policy that we do not like to impound a vehicles
out of those particular areas. However, if they adequately marked
by law and a lot of times we have no choice, you know, but to
impound them. A lot of time tickets will suffice if we can locate
the registered owner of the vehicle however, with apartment
complexes it is very difficult at times to do that. They don't
normally have their apartment number or telephone number readily
accessible to us.
VanDerbeek: Typically, the Police Department is going to impound
a vehicle that was parked in an unauthorized area, how much time
would that take an officer to perform an impound.
Jones: A minimum of 30 minutes for impound.
VanDerbeek: Do you have any other comments on this development
from the perspective of the Police Department, Sgt.
Jones: No mam'm.
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Jones: Thank you.
VanDerbeek: At this time I will hear the rebuttal testimony from
the City of Kent Planning staff. There were several questions
asked by various citizens which the staff could perhaps answer and
then give any rebuttal comments that you wish to make.
Hudson: I 'm Libby Hudson with Kent Planning staff and, first of
all I would like to address some of the concerns you had at the
30
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
last hearing that you brought up. I apologize for not having the
EIS and DNS in your file. However, the site plan and the letters
that were addressed to myself have not been received by the
Planning Department until after the hearing of last. . -of June 15.
Another revised plan has also been received the 28th of last week
and it is up here. There' s just some slight changes, three
clusters of buildings, the buildings have been turned.
VanDerbeek: Which buildings.
Hudson: These buildings, can you see this, these buildings here
are turned this way now.
VanDerbeek: Oh, I see.
Hudson: And these buildings here and I believe, here. We have
received a letter of voluntary condition that the applicant would
like to alleviate some parking problems that may be created
because they are provided garages, there is a tendency we found in
other developments that garages have been used for storage and not
for parking of vehicles. So, the developer is agreeing that
within all the rental agreements signed, that the garages will be
used for vehicles and not for storage.
VanDerbeek: So, who's going to go look in the garages and see
whether there's cars in there or boxes. But, who could go look in
there, garages don't usually have windows. So who is going around
and enforce that.
Hudson: Well, it' s just a precaution. . .a standard to cover that.
Sometimes the garages are "open and if you are driving through
there and there's a parking problem and we could check with the
manager and make sure that they are enforcing the rental
agreement.
VanDerbeek: All right.
Hudson: We also have received the cultural study that has been
conducted on this site. At that just received today. That's a
SEPA condition so we haven't had time to review that.
VanDerbeek: All right, the letter with respect to the voluntary
condition will be marked as Exhibit 17 to this hearing.
Hudson: Let me move on to the public testimony and some responses
to some of the public. First of all I would like to clarify that
this is a substantial use development permit and not a variance.
31
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
The variance has gone through the Planning Commission was only for
access road underneath the SR 516 bridge and that is the only
variance that the applicant is requesting. They are meeting the
setback requirements as proscribed in the shoreline regulations.
That seems to be a misunderstanding by several of the public that
has testified here. Let me also clarify a little bit about the
history of the site.
This portion of the site was annexed. . .well the whole area was
annexed in 1968 and the initial zoning of this southern portion
was R3 which at that time was low density multifamily. The zoning
for that property was changed to the current MRM zoning medium
density multifamily with adoption of the Zoning Code in 1973 .
Now, the property to the north was initially zoned, this section
right here, was initially zoned C3 , General Commercial . With the
adoption of the Zoning Code in 1973 that was changed to RA,
Residential Agriculture and then April of 1988 that was rezoned to
the MRM zone which it is now after the conditions were meet. The
site has never been in the farmland preservation program and it
was not targeted for preservation primarily because it has always
been zoned multifamily and it is serviced by Meeker Street. The
farmland preservation program within the City has been the area to
the south of the river where its within the City and to the west,
those areas were targeted for purchase of development rights with
the County farmland program. The area south here, this is the
City boundary that runs along the river, this is all in the County
zoned agricultural, A, and most of the development rights have
been purchased, all of them that run along the river here and
border the river directly across from the project, so those all
are preserved as farmland and their development rights have been
purchased and they won't be developed. The Open Space designation
on the Comprehensive Plan seems to be another thing that's
misunderstood by several people. This doesn't designate an open
space/trail for the project. This is basically a vacant piece of
land as it stands now because its zoned multifamily and hasn't
been used for agriculture in many years. The designation for open
space is on the Comprehensive Plan Map and we look at, to guide
growth in the City, we look at not only the Comprehensive Plan Map
but also the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. And, within
that goals and policies of the Open Space designation specifies
preserving buffers between developments along the Green River. It
does not preclude development of apartments in the goals and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan along the river. But, to
actually have the design be fitting within the rural setting of
the river and also provide buffers between the river and the
development.
32
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
Regarding the. . .
VanDerbeek: But, just a minute, when was the Comprehensive Plan
Map designation designated that the subject site is Open Space?
When was that designation made?
Hudson: The generalized Comprehensive Plan, I believe, was
adopted in 1972 and believe it was Open Space at that time.
Jim Hansen could speak to that. It's not the entire site that' s
designated. Let me show you. This is the property here and the
Open Space designation was here and multifamily . . . .
VanDerbeek: Well , is it designated Open Space south of State
Route 516? I mean. . .
Hudson: Yes, this just shows the proposed state route but goes
right through here. The southern portion shows multifamily
designation and then beyond that is Open Space designation. Is
this in your way.
VanDerbeek: Well, no.
Hudson: Did you have any other questions on the Comprehensive
Plan?
VanDerbeek: Well, on the Comprehensive Plan Map, the Open Space
designation has not changed on the site ever since the
Comprehensive Plan Map was first adopted, is that correct.
Hudson: I believe so.
VanDerbeek: In other words, through the Valley Floor Plan and the
Green River Corridor and all those studies, it never changed.
Hudson: No. One thing that did change, originally this area was
designated on the shoreline regulations as Conservancy and the
Council made some changes in the shoreline program and also
changed that to Urban in 1980. But as far as the Open Space
designation I believe that's always been.
VanDerbeek: So it was changed from Conservancy to Urban, when
1980?
-- Hudson: Yes.
VanDerbeek: How many multiple family zoned parcels in the City
are designated open Space on the map?
33
i
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4 4
Hudson: That are zoned for multifamily?
VanDerbeek: Right. I mean it seems to me somewhat unusual that
its zoned for multifamily uses but designated Open Space on the
Plan Map. I don't expect you to answer that question right now.
I am interested in your response to that at some point later.
i
Hudson: O.k. There are several areas within the City that the
multifamily zoning is along the river and it goes up to the
river's edge and the open space, if you look on the Comprehensive
Plan, it generally follows the river.
VanDerbeek: All right.
Hudson: There were several questions that dealt with draft EIS
and the final EIS. These were done for the original project in
1981, Greenriver Condominium project. This was looked at during
the SEPA process and an addendum was added. All the EIS was
reviewed by the Planning staff and each of the conditions that
were originally applied, the EIS itself were looked at and
reviewed and the addendum expanded the EIS and brought it up to
date and added several conditions. And, you have a copy of that
addendum in your file. As far as the SEPA process itself, the DNS
was issued May 20 and the process for SEPA, there is a 15 day
comment period which end June 4 and after that there is a 10-day
appeal period which ended June 14. The City did not receive any
written request for appeal. Grace Studer stated that she came to
the Planning Department and looked at the Signature Point file and
there wasn't. . .the EIS wasn't in there. I 'm not sure she looked
at the Signature Pointe variance file or shoreline. . .substantial
shoreline permit file. There was a copy of the DNS in both of
those files. The EIS and draft EIS were not in the file. They
were part of the SEPA file so if she didn't request the SEPA file
she would not have seen that.
VanDerbeek: Well, what efforts does the City make to notify
citizens that there might be multiple files on one project?
Hudson: Well, I 'm sure if she came to the counter, the DNS was in
the file and if she looked at that. It depends on what kind of
questions of that. The person helping her would explain that its
either been through the SEPA process or its in it or something
like that. We generally give them an update on where the project
is at the time.
VanDerbeek: What about the testimony that the Muckleshoot Tribe
34
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
was not notified of the issuance of the DNS and that certain
other, I believe it was some fisheries groups weren't notified, do
you have any response to that.
Hudson: Well, the way the project is proposed none of the runoff
will be directed into the Green River, it will all be directed
into the City storm water system and the Muckleshoots have to my
knowledge never been notified on anything. They have not come to
the City and requested to be notified on any development in the
City. They sent a letter after the comment period and appeal
period for the SEPA process had ended and basically their letter
states that they request to be notified of on any development that
happens along the Green River. Fisheries were not notified
because there's no direct impact to the Green River itself, I
believe. But the SEPA questions can be better answered
with. . .Lin Ball is our SEPA person, she' s on vacation. She dealt
with the project in SEPA. That process is complete as far as the
rules and regulations of SEPA.
VanDerbeek: All right. Any further comments.
Hudson: Yes, I have some other ones. Did you have a comment on
SEPA?
James Hansen: If I could. Jim Hansen, Kent Planning Staff. I
sense there' s a lot of confusion by the audience over the SEPA
process and the environmental review process but by State law
versus the issue before us and we are not really prepared to get
in any depth in SEPA at this time in that by law they are very
separate process and, if at some point in the future, you would
like us to provide additional information on that, we'd be glad
too. We are not prepared tonight because by law they really are
not one and the same issues. But, I wouldn't want the public to
construe that as a lack of interest or an intent by the City to
mislead any of the public they are simply very separate processes
and as Libby noted, the process for the environmental review is
complete at this time and we really don't have an avenue to
address that any further. But, it certainly is for lack of
interest it' s just that by State law the appeal period has lapsed,
we didn't receive any comments and we proceeded forward.
VanDerbeek: Well, that may be the case but I think that some of
the citizens present have raised issued, significant issues with
respect to whether the proper persons were notified of the
issuance of the DNS and I understand staff' s position because they
are two separate process and, in fact, if the DNS had been
appealed there is an entirely separate procedure for the hearing
35
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
of that appeal. However, given the concerns raised by the
citizens, I think, perhaps those issues should be addressed at
some point during the hearing process. All right, any further
comments.
Hudson: Yes, I would like to make a comment on the bike trail
that is being proposed as well. This is a SEPA condition that
they provide a bike path. The developer intends to construct this
bike path and will be the entire length of their project along the
river and connect to the bridge that goes under the SR 516 bridge.
There's a foot bridge that exists at this time. Also, this will
be part of the Green River Corridor bike path which is planned to
go from Auburn to the Duwamish along the Green River and Duwamish
waterways. The bike path will connect to the south and to the
north eventually and by following the river. This includes the
property that's located to the east of this site, here, and will
follow the river whether that 's purchased outright or through
condemnation of some kind, the bike path will follow the river.
VanDerbeek: Who' ll be required to maintain the bike path.
i
Hudson: The bike path will be maintained by the City. The
developers will be required to provide an easement or actually
they are deeding the property to the City, I believe. . .and, some
of the other questions that Larry Stougard had. Public access to
the river is also required to be provided by the Shoreline
requirements and that is the width of 20 feet. That will probably
go up to the bike path itself so as far as launching a boat or
something it might be a problem as the dike has two sides and you
have to go down to the river. So, there isn't any requirement to
build any sort of launch. But, for a small canoe or kayak, it
should be feasible. As far as his questions on bike paths along
the street, there's no plan with this proposal to incorporate any
street bike paths to my knowledge. And, there was a question on
the groundwater. I think I talked a little bit about that. With
the amount of impervious surface that will be generated by this
development of project, the water quality of the river will be
protected because all the impervious surface runoff will be
directed to the City' s storm system and they will be filtered
through biofiltration as well as oil/water separators in the
parking lot. Nothing will go to the Green River and there is
going to be quite a buffer along the river between the development
and the river itself. The developers are required by the
shoreline regulations to setback 75 feet from the centerline of
the dike which they are doing. Now, that's greater than the 100
foot setback that's between. . .that's by the ordinary high water
mark, so it's actually a greater setback. And, they are leaving
36
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
the shoreline area itself on the dikes, the river side of the dike
undisturbed. There will be some work done on the dike itself
that's required by a SEPA condition to strengthen the dike for
flood control and at that time, after the dike has been repaired,
the bike trail can be constructed. And, also, with the
construction of the bike trail other plantings may be planted at
that time to provide shade along the river. The shoreline
regulations require that a vegetative buffer be provided along the
development which the developer's are providing and its an average
of 25 feet with a minimum of 15 feet and that will be located on
the inland side of the dike. So, the Army Corps cannot address
what kind of vegetation goes in there. It won't affect the dike
at all but as far as the vegetation that goes in with the bike
trail itself, the Army Corps will be consulted on that. So, we'll
try our hardest to get some sort of trees that add some sort of
trees that add vegetation and don't cause any problem with
maintenance of the river. That's all I have at this time.
VanDerbeek: What is the City's response to concerns raised by
Mrs. Miskell about the over impact of the proposed development on
schools and also about the problem associated with the school
buses impeding traffic and does the City any problem with 200
students waiting for buses there near the underpass.
Hudson: Well, it was my understanding in the environmental'
checklist there was 72 students, that' s what was presented to the
_ City that would be generated by the project. And, we received no
comment from the school district that that would cause any impacts
to the school systems. As Mrs. Miskell there is a school being
proposed and that's located near the Lakes project. That was the
mitigation measure that was addressed in the EIS that this new
school would absorb the additional students that this project will
generate.
VanDerbeek: Right. But, that was in 1981 .
Hudson• Yes.
VanDerbeek: Well, and how many units is this. . .
Hudson: The new revised plan, 554 units.
VanDerbeek: 554 units. And who prepared the environmental
checklist, the applicant, right.
Hudson: No, the architect did the environmental checklist. The
architect that drew up the plans that you have there.
37
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
VanDerbeek: Was the school district notified of the application?
Hudson: I believe they are notified of all applications within
the City for multifamily. We have received letters previously on
multifamily developments that there was some concerns. That was
last year. There were concerns of overcrowding in schools.
VanDerbeek: All right. Well, it seems to me that a majority of
these units are going to be two or three bedroom and since the
proposal includes a family pool, a daycare facility, it appears to
me to be a very family oriented proposal.
Hudson: I know there 's an area of the development that's proposed
just for families and maybe the developers can speak to that
better. I 'm not sure how many units they are intending to be but
that's where the daycare center is located in close proximity to
the family area.
VanDerbeek: Well, staff does see any problem with the possibility
of all this children, whether its 72 or 200 or. . .as suggested by
the witness assuming that all the high school students would ride
the school bus which is probably an erroneous assumption. But, if
they did, that would be 236 students or do you accept the number
suggested in the environmental checklist, 72 students, staff
doesn't see any potential hazard with that number of students
waiting for the school bus in one location.
Hudson: Well, I think there are hazards, of course. They have a
long way to walk there, it appears and they will have to walk
under the bridge. . .the underpass that goes under the bridge. But
I would assume, I 'm not sure on the figures, they all won't be
waiting for the bus at the same time. We haven' t really looked at
the impact of waiting for the bus. O.k.
VanDerbeek: All right. Any further comments. '
Hudson: No, not at this time.
VanDerbeek: Is there anyone here from Traffic Engineering? I
have a question that I would like to enquire of the Traffic
Engineer.
Ed White: My name is Ed White and I 'm Assistant Traffic Engineer.
VanDerbeek: Mr. White, could you refresh my recollection with
respect to the anticipated number of AM peak hour trips to be
38
I
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
" Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
generated by the proposed development?
White: Well, we didn't do any of that; the City didn't do any
evaluation of AM trips. Mainly our concern with is the highest
peak of the day which is generally the PM peak. We did, though,
do some AM and PM existing traffic counts, if you'd like to be
provided with that information.
VanDerbeek: Well I think I 've been provided with the traffic
study. So you don't have any information concerning the AM trips.
White: Correct. Not outside of the actual traffic counts.
Again, because the PM is generally the most critical time of the
day.
VanDerbeek: Well the actual traffic counts that you are
discussing are. . .
White: They were conducted yesterday and I guess, I believe, the
day before yesterday. They are existing manual counts that were
conducted between 7 and 8 o'clock in the morning.
VanDerbeek: Without regard to the traffic to be generated by the
proposed development.
White: That is correct.
VanDerbeek: But can you refresh my recollection with respect to
the total number of daily trips that would be generated by .the
development?
White: OK. Based on the current letter that we received from the
engineer who conducted the study for the developer, they have
revised their traffic projection from 3600 vehicles, which was
part of the original study, down to 3330 vehicles a day, with an
estimated 275 PM peak hour trips now being generated by the
development.
VanDerbeek: When was that figure revised? Do you know?
White: Well, the letter I have is dated July 6, 1988.
VanDerbeek: Today.
White: Correct.
VanDerbeek: Did anybody plan on making that letter an exhibit?
39
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
White: I understood you already had a copy.
VanDerbeek• No.
White: Can I present it as an exhibit then?
VanDerbeek: Yes. I guess the reason why I am asking about. . .
no, not I guess, I know the reason why I am asking about the AM -
trips to be generated is because of the anticipated conflict
between children waiting for the bus and a lot of traffic exiting
at this one exit point.
White: OK. Three thousand (3000) vehicles a day would be
typical, local volume street. When you're starting to get in the
neighborhood of 8000 to 10, 000 vehicles per day you're starting to
look at a collector type arterial. So, again, this would probably
be characteristic of a fairly high-end local street, local
neighborhood street, with the 3000 vehicles.
VanDerbeek: But what are the current average daily traffic
counts?
White: We conducted a one-day count day before yesterday and came
up with a volume of roughly 1800 vehicles currently.
VanDerbeek: Well, day before yesterday was the Fourth of July,
was it not?
White: Yeah. OK, yes it was. Let me check the actual date. The
day of the count was 7/6, 1988.
VanDerbeek: Today.
White: . Correct. It was done yesterday. It was started
approximately 11: 00 and ended approximately midnight this morning.
So it's not a full count.
VanDerbeek: So, how many trips per day were there in what area?
White: Now this was on 64th Avenue. We do have an existing
traffic count on Meeker that was done over a series of days,
starting with 6/18 and ending approximately 7/1 of this year. The
average, or the low of the weekday--because these counts also
included the weekends-the lowest was 15, 690 and the highest was
21, 803 . Now that's a two-way volume; that's both east and west.
The lowest was on a. . . let me correct that, the lowest volume was
40
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
- Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
21, 100. I was quoting you a Sunday count. The 15, 690 was on a
Sunday. The lowest weekday volume count was 21, 101 and that was
on a Monday on 6/20 of this year. The highest was on, again, a
Friday, which is typical.
VanDerbeek: Well, what was the result of the one day average
daily traffic on 64th Avenue.
White: OK. The result again. . . Because we did not have a full
and complete count, we projected the count over the remaining
uncounted hours and came up with around 1800 vehicles. And again
that was based on that one day count.
VanDerbeek: Eighteen hundred (1800) , 18, 000?
White: Eighteen hundred (1800) .
VanDerbeek: Eighteen hundred (1800) .
White: Yes, one eight zero zero.
VanDerbeek: Per day?
-- White: Correct. So you're looking at possibly between 4000 and
5000 vehicles with the traffic generated from the development once
it is 100 percent occupied.
VanDerbeek: Four to five thousand?
White: Correct. Now that is when the development is fully
occupied.
VanDerbeek: Well how does one consider the information contained
in Exhibit 18 which suggests 3300 vehicle trips per day, and all
the other statistics you have given me, and then end up with 5000
trips per day.
White: The 3600 which was adjusted down to 3330 were the number
of added trips that would be added by the development. The 1800
which is the existing volume right now.
VanDerbeek: Right.
White: So you'd add them together. . .
VanDerbeek: So, five thousand.
41
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
White: Correct.
VanDerbeek: So what was your testimony previously about the
amount of traffic that could be expected on a
collector/distributor street where people, children, would
normally wait for a bus.
White: Correct. I would say this is not unusual of a
neighborhood street--the traffic volume.
VanDerbeek: And I 'm saying what is the traffic volume on a
neighborhood street.
White: It could range anywhere from as low as a thousand to as
high as three to four thousand, possibly even five thousand,
depending on the street. I think the critical volumes here are
not on 64th but on Meeker.
VanDerbeek: Right. Well thank you for your testimony Mr. White.
I may have some additional questions later on traffic after I look
at Exhibit 18 a little bit more carefully, but thank you for
answering the questions.
Is there any further rebuttal comments from the City Planning
staff or members of any other state department?
Alright, at this time I ' ll hear rebuttal or any additional
comments from the applicant or the applicant's representative.
Fred Grimm: I 'm Fred Grimm with Triad Development, the applicant
for this project called Signature Pointe. Much of the testimony,
in rebutting the testimony, one must note that a lot of it is
geared toward concerns about any kind of development on this
property. These are concerns that were more properly addressed to
the question of the zoning of the property. It ' s been noted that
the property has been zoned some kind of residential zoning ever
since the property was annexed into the City of Kent. This
property is not part of the agricultural zoned property. It's not
part of the King County Bond Program where the development rights
have been purchased. So ever since it's been part of the City
it' s been designated as multifamily in some kind of zoning or
another.
The other aspect of a good portion of the comments were geared
toward the SEPA. We are prepared today to talk about the
Shoreline Master Permit and we're caught off guard by these SEPA
concerns--in the sense that the SEPA has its own process which if
42
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
there are any irregularities in that process there's other
recourse available. The EIS was drafted before 516 but it did
address 516 in that that was presently envisioned at that point.
The checklist that was done was an expanded checklist in which the
original EIS was fully reviewed by the City. The aspect of the
hearing that we're most prepared to discuss and the most relevant
under the Shoreline Master Plan permit process is the Shoreline
Master Plan itself and how it conforms to, how our project
conforms to its requirements and how our project conforms with the
Comprehensive Plan. We've noted and there's been some question
raised about the designation of open space on this property. It's
been pointed out that all along the Green River, open space has
been designated in the Comprehensive Plan. There is no open space
zoning. There is no zoning for parks. Thus, all that open space
can do for us is to provide us some kind of guideline in the
Comprehensive Plan in developing the property consistent with the
underlying zoning, which in this case is multifamily. And the
open space requirements through the Master Shoreline Permit
process are substantial and I would like to offer a few exhibits
to discuss that open space requirement. I 'm going to ask my
architect, Beth Mountsier to bring up a couple of diagrams. The
first one is just a perimeter drawing of the open space along our
project. In this simple context, this may not look like that
much, because of the size of property we're dealing with. But in
actuality, the part of the property that we are keeping open--and
this does not include any of the open courtyard space between the
apartments , or any of the playfields for the apartments
themselves--this constitutes over 11 acres of property that has
remained open. We've also noted here on this exhibit, which I 'd
like to introduce, that this total 11 acreage of open space is
more space than two-thirds of the present parks in the City of
Kent. I would next like to show the buffer between the dike and
between our project. In that open space, we've got a section that
will show how much land we' re actually talking about in terms of
distance. What we have here is a cross section of the Green
River, the dike and the 75 feet from the center line of the dike
back to the building. In this drawing you will note that these
apartments are not sitting on the edge of the River, indeed no
improvement is done from the River's edge to the existing top of
the dike except for the planting of supplementary willow trees as
an additional amenity for the River preservation and the
steelhead, providing shading. The dike itself, there is some
questions asked about the dike. It is going to be developed in
cooperation with the Engineering Department of the City of Kent.
By developed, I should clarify that, the dike is existing
presently at different points; it will be supplemented and
ultimately the bike trail will go on top. Then from that point
43
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
WSMA-88-4
down we have this buffer zone which includes again the planting of
trees and other vegetation, including wildflowers. This is not a
park setting in the terms of a playfield, where there will be a
lot of active use. It's more of a passive designation in keeping
with the preservation of the shorelines. I 'd like to enter that
as an exhibit.
VanDerbeek: All right. That will be marked as Exhibit 20.
Grimm: Um. . . Next I 'd like to just show a cross section of the
entire property. This site is a very unique site in that it is
the only one in the City of Kent that has so much shoreline for so
little area. When the Green River Corridor Plan was first
adopted, there was provision made for various setbacks. At that
time, when it was presented to the City Council, in the minutes it
was suggested that some kind of special provision should be made
for this site because a good portion of the land will be rendered
unusable. We're not asking for that. We're not asking for
variances with regard to the bulk of this site, as has been
suggested by some of the testimony. We're keeping the density and
the buildings off of the shoreline area. The next exhibit I have
is a cross section of the entire project from riverfront to
riverfront. I would like to offer this as an exhibit as well . In
it you will note again some requirements of the shoreline and, in
keeping with the open space concept of the Comprehensive Plan, you
will note the large setbacks and you will also note the way the
buildings are structured in that they're only two story along the,
up to, the 200 foot setback and then because the entire site is
within the Green River Special Interest District zone, there is a
restriction against any buildings over 35 feet, which we're also
in keeping with here. These buildings are much smaller than most
of the developments, multifamily, in the area and I 'd next like
to, and that is also a function of the Shoreline Master Program
and the open space designation.
VanDerbeek: That will be marked as Exhibit 21 to this hearing.
Grimm: What I have next is to show the difference between what
may otherwise be developed in a regular multifamily zone of this
same nature. Do we have these marked? OK.
The small building there is obviously our smallest building on the
property that would be facing the shoreline. You can see that it
has extensive modulation and it also is only two stories. The
next building is our largest building on our property. In keeping
with the concern of visibility of the shoreline, not only is there
a requirement to have this buffer, which is not only to buffer use
44
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
of the shoreline, it's also to provide a visible buffer along the
shoreline both from the River, across from the River and from the
trail. What we have here in this long building is a scale model
of the largest building at the Riverwood, which is right next to
the subject property. It provides a comparison of what kind of
mitigation is actually required by this Shoreline Master Program
and by the open space concept. So to say that there aren't any
concrete measures being taken is incorrect. I might note that
this same length of building could be allowed on our zoning, in
that the zoning is the same, but for the Shoreline Master Plan.
In looking again at the Shoreline Master Plan there are certain
sections that are applicable to us under the use regulations which
are specific requirements that adhere to and follow the policy
objectives and goals outlined in the Shoreline Master Plan. I
simply note those in Chapter 5, under use regulations for all
developments and also further on in that same chapter with regard
to residential development itself. Those are the guidelines which
really direct us in terms of what standards and what things we
should do in terms of how we develop the property and I would note
that all those requirements have been met. That was one of the
basic checklists that the City staff went through in making its
recommendation.
There are specific aspects of the concerns that were raised that I
would like to touch on besides showing what I have just done with
regard to the open space. One I guess I would like to talk about
is the bike path. The bike path is presently envisioned to go
along the top of the dike. It is over 4800 feet. And I have and
I would like to also enter as an exhibit, a map of the City of
Kent Parks and Recreation Department. In that map, on that map, I
will show you, I 've highlighted areas of the property along the
river which has been developed for the bike path which is not
along an existing road. It's starting up at Vrisco green belt and
that ultimately connects into the Tukwila system. Goes along the
river as I 've highlighted and this was from information I obtained
from Barney Wilson, the Director of the Parks Department. Then it
goes along the river on Russell Road, again it dips along the
river off the road, gets back on the road, goes off. . . The point
is that presently this bike trail system ends here at the golf
course in terms of the north or east side of the river. The City
is presently planning to improve the levee here that would take it
to our property line. We would then provide the substantial
.-. portion of the missing link between this southern portion and the
northern portion along our property. Speaking with Barney Wilson,
he told me that our improvement of this trail, which is
substantial--it is 4800 feet--is the first improvement of the
45
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
trail in the City of Kent by a private developer. And I also
would note that it is a substantial investment. Let me keep this
for one more point, in that the Green River Corridor Plan, when
they recommend the acquisition of property for the trail and the
projected cost of actually making the trail improvement, they
projected a cost in 1980 dollars of $22 . 50 per lineal feet. Which
at 4800 feet that would result in an estimated contribution of
over $108, 000 for improvement of that trail. Some testimony was
given by the neighboring property owner that somehow this trail is
not going to connect and is going to deadend. Presently it is
correct that it would deadend at his property line which is right
here. He envisions, Barney Wilson envisions that either through
development of his property and the neighboring property next to
it, that trail will be continued at that point, or because we are
providing substantial trail improvement and deeding to the City,
that he will perhaps have sufficient funds to purchase the
remaining bicycle access along the dike. Development of that
property would be required to go through the same process that we
would in terms of shoreline permit. The testimony also was given
that there is a right of way along the north part of, excuse me,
the south part of 516 and that the two trails are not going to
connect because we end our's here at the dike and they're going to
end their's at that point. I addressed that with Barney Wilson
and he said that when 516 went through that there was in fact a
provision made for the City of Kent to have access to, 12--
actually Barney said 10 feet; the state tells me it's 12 feet--
plus 2 feet on each shoulder for a total of 16 feet along 516 and
that what it will do is that the City will someday develop the
bike trail along 516 from our property line all the way to
Washington Street. When I say property line, they will be
developing it from our western portion of our property line, which
will be from here to here. The idea, he said, as you'll see in
the plan, is that there are many cross sections that are made that
do not follow the river. In other words there are shortcuts
connecting with the interurban cutting through here, through there
and so on, as well as ultimately cutting through here. It is not
shown on this because this is a City bike path and originally this
had been considered a county trail connecting with the interurban
trail. But anyhow it would be connected going straight across
here providing a short cut for those people who are either tired
and don't want to do the full loop or perhaps want to drop off at
some other point and continue on--more of a commuter's type of
path, rather than a recreational path along the horseshoe shape of
our property.
VanDerbeek: All right, the map will be marked as Exhibit 22 to
this hearing.
46
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
Grimm: I would also like to reiterate in terms of some of the
requirements of this open space concept and Shoreline Master Plan
and that is again providing access for 27 vehicles. This is,
according to Barney Miller, again the most substantial parking
provided on private land for public access to the riverfront. And
finally, I would like to enter the summary of the bike trail
access as another exhibit.
VanDerbeek: All right, that will be marked as Exhibit 23 .
Grimm: There's some access questions that were raised which
obviously pertain to the traffic. We have brought our traffic
engineer that we have hired from TP&E who actually did the various
studies that were provided for the City. At this point I 'd like
to interrupt briefly to give him a chance to answer any questions
you may have or to add any supplementary comments to those given
by the City's traffic engineer.
VanDerbeek: All right.
Dave Inger: I 'm Dave Inger with Transportation Planning and
Engineering Incorporated. Our address is 2101 112th Avenue N.E. ,
Suite 110, Bellevue, 98004 . Our firm prepared the traffic study
and two subsequent letters, I believe all of which are in the
record.
VanDerbeek: What was the date of the other letter. There's that
one letter that' s Exhibit 18 that's dated today's date.
Inger: Well there' s a letter that was dated May 27, 1988 .
VanDerbeek: Is that. . . I ' ll ask the ever efficient recording
secretary. . . is that in the record? No. . . I don't remember ever
seeing it. Who was the letter to and who was it from.
Inger: It was from me to Fred Grimm and it addressed the issue of
traffic queues at the Meeker Street, 64th intersection--traffic
backups.
VanDerbeek: I don 't remember reading it. Well, I 'll double check
the exhibit list. . . All right, that's all right, I just wanted to
be sure the record was complete. Please continue Mr. Inger.
Inger: I think most of the traffic, the off-site traffic impacts,
are addressed in the three traffic documents. There are a couple
of questions I 'd like to address briefly and then entertain any
47
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
questions you might have. You did ask about the AM peak hour trip
generation. We do have some numbers for that. For the 554 unit
project, we estimate approximately 281 vehicle trips during the AM
peak hour, that includes approximately 230 exiting the project and
51 entering the project. On the issue of the school buses, we
would like to emphasize that the project will be constructing a
turnaround at the south end of 64th Avenue within a public right
of way which will be adequate for turning a fire truck and I
believe that would also make that adequate for turning a school
bus at the end of the cul de sac. Now I don't know whether the
school district would entertain the idea of buses coming down 64th
and picking up right at the project frontage or not, but I think
that possibility would exist with the turnaround that will be
built by the project. A couple--well let's see--one comment on
the parking supply. As stated in my letter dated today, it was I
believe Exhibit 18, I do believe that the total number of parking
stalls on the site will be adequate to handle the peak parking
demand. As I . understand it, the number of parking stalls meets
all of the City requirements for parking stalls and also exceeds
the peak parking demand rates that have been listed by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers for various studies of
apartment projects around the country. We've also got some local
data that has been collected on parking supply and parking demand
at some local apartment projects and I believe we want to enter
that into the record possibly a little later.
VanDerbeek: What part of that information is contained in Exhibit
18?
Inger: Right, that was the. . .
VanDerbeek: . . .about the Riverwood Apartments.
Inger: Right, apartment count taken at Riverwood.
VanDerbeek: No there's never been any issue that the parking
provided on the siteplan complies with the City's requirements.
My question is , you know, when the big multiple family
developments come in for phase 3 and 4 then all the people who
live in phase 1 and 2 come in and complain that there's no room
for their company to park. So I 'm not questioning whether this
proposed development is complying with the City's requirements.
I 'm just trying to determine whether the City's requirements are
sufficient.
Inger: I believe that the current plan shows approximately 1, 099
parking stalls on the site. Divide that by the 554 units, it
48
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
results in an overall rate of about 1.98 stalls per unit, which is
in the letter.
VanDerbeek: Does that include the 27 spaces for public access.
In er: Yes, I believe that's the total number of stalls on the
site.
VanDerbeek: Well then the total number of stalls. . . If 27 stalls
are for public access then really there's 1,072 stalls available
to serve the residents, so what is 1,072 divided by 554 . . .
They're all wrong? 1.94? All right, the record should reflect
that Mr. Grimm is indicating that the proper ratio is 1.94 , well
because it' s erroneous to assume that those stalls set aside for
public parking should be included in the total count, because the
idea is that the public parking stalls are for public access to
the river. All right.
Inter: Well, my letter addresses the total number of parking
stalls on the site as a ratio of the number of units, which is the
measure used in the Institute of Transportation Engineers data for
apartment projects around the country. The IT data does not
separate out parking stalls reserved for residents versus public
access etc. It' s a total gross number of parking stalls. That's
the comparison made in my letter.
VanDerbeek: All right
Inner: And that' s a little bit different from some of the other
ratios that might be addressed in other data.
VanDerbeek: But presumably the IT&E ratios don't anticipate
multiple family development alongside of a public amenity such as
a river where you'd want to provide public parking, so. . .
Inaer: Well, we don't know that. Some of them may. Probably
most of them don't.
VanDerbeek: All right. Any further comments?
Inaer: Nope. Not unless you have questions.
VanDerbeek: Thank you, no. Thank you for clarifying the number
of AM peak hour trips. I was interested in that. Thank you.
Grimm: For the record, I 'm Fred Grimm returning. The question
about the parking that was raised, it is 1.94 when we count the
49
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
1076 spots. The reason why the 27 additional spots may have been
included is because the peak parking period is deemed between
sometime between 9 and 10 at night, which would be the maximum
anticipated cars on the property with the combination of everyone
being home while some still having visitors. That is also, would
be, according to Barney Wilson, one of the lower periods of time
in which the public access parking would actually be used by the
public. We asked that the Goodman Management Group give us some
actual information with regard to what the reality of parked cars
are in some of the various apartment buildings they manage. I 'd
like to turn the microphone over to Mik Hulkman of the Goodman
Management group to provide us the basis for his study and the
results of it.
VanDerbeek: All right.
Mik Hulkman: Good evening. I 'd like to enter right away an
exhibit of the study right here.
VanDerbeek: All right. That will be marked as Exhibit 24 to the
hearing.
Hulkman: My name is Mik Hulkman and Walt Smith had addressed this
group earlier. Walt and I work together for Goodman Management
and we ' re , involved with management of property for Triad
Development. Goodman Management manages approximately 10 to 12
thousand units in Washington and we're the largest fee management
company in the state so we do have some experience in the area.
VanDerbeek: The largest what management?
Hulkman: Fee management. That means we manage for developers for
a fee versus developers managing for themselves.
VanDerbeek: Well I figured that you weren't a nonprofit
organization.
Hulkman: No. Our apartment study was done over several projects
we manage and also we think the most comparable neighboring
project, Riverwood. You can see on the study it takes both into
account the number of occupied units at a complex versus the
parking stalls and we break those down into two different ratios:
1) the overall number versus units of stalls ranging from a low of
1. 19 stalls per unit to a high of 1. 94 . So out of the various
units we surveyed and studied, the lowest parking stall per unit
ratio we studied was 1. 19 and the highest anywhere was 1.94 which
is exhibited at Riverwood and will also be at Signature Pointe.
And that takes into account 176 units, which is the number you see
50
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
for parking stalls at Signature Pointe. That number does not take
into account the 27 extra stalls, which would be for the parks.
VanDerbeek: Maybe it's too late at night to do math, but when I
subtract 27 stalls from 1099, I get 1072 not 1076.
Hulkman: That's right, that number is incorrect. There have been
some adjustments since then. There will be 1076 stalls for the
complex and 27 for the parks, bringing to a total to 1103 .
VanDerbeek: All right.
Hulkman: You can see from the study there that the parking stalls
for the Signature Pointe complex would be 1.94 per unit which is
the highest in the survey, which is also what's seen at Riverwood.
Then in the next column over you can see the actual usage of
stalls; this was done by actual count between 9 and 10 o'clock at
night at the complexes. It ranged from a low at a project in Kent
of .98 to a high of . 147 at Riverwood. Do you follow that?
That' s the last column to the right. It's actual number of stalls
used during peak hours.
VanDerbeek: Ratio of parked cars versus occupied units.p
Hulkman: Correct. Is that clear or can I help you with that?
VanDerbeek: Well, I guess I was thinking more in terms of
percentages as opposed to ratios. But, no, I can figure it out.
Hulkman: OK. What it' s showing is rather than a percentage, the
ratio is, at the first one there you see which is River Point,
which is a building in Kent, . 98 stalls were used for every unit,
to a high at Riverwood of 1. 47 stalls are used per every unit.
VanDerbeek: As opposed to 1.94 that are provided.
Hulkman: To extrapolate from that an average of 1. 28 would be
safe to assume. But if you wanted to take the high, which is
Riverwood which is next door, you would still come in
approximately . . 5 stalls under per unit, which would leave you with
this number of stalls, approximately 250 extra stalls.
VanDerbeek: And how many different dates was this study
-• conducted.
Hulkman: The study was done over one day at each project. It was
done on Tuesday night.
51
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
VanDerbeek: Thursday night. Thursday, June 30th this says.
Hulkman: Excuse me. Thursday, June 30th that's correct.
VanDerbeek: all right.
Hulkman: It was done by staff at the properties and we also
counted the parking at Riverwood. You can see and look at that
later and if you have any questions, I 'd be happy to answer them
for you.
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony.
Hulkman: A couple of other issues is regarding the police and the
fire. The police department said approximately 30 minutes of its
time was taken up to remove cars from fire lanes or areas such as
this marked on properties. We through our management do not
involve police in those issues. We simply have a car towed. The
areas are posted and the police do not have to be involved to have
the car towed. There is very thorough rules and regulations at
every property which are given out as part of our management
process. The police will not get involved. Anybody parks in the
fire lane they're towed. Anybody that parks in an improperly
marked space will be towed. Anybody that parks in a space that is
designated for another resident will be towed. Police are not
brought into this. We have a very strict policy here.
VanDerbeek: Are there resident managers that you have on duty 24
hours a day.
Hulkman: Yes, at a property this size, we would also have
security guards in the evening just to maintain a very peaceful
complex and under control. As far as motor homes, boat trailers
and things of this nature, if you allow them to exist which they
do at Riverwood and I would say that Riverwood might not be an
example of real intensive management. It's a company from back
east and they're not real involved. They don't manage quite the
same way that we do, or intensive companies in this area. But
vans, boats, motor homes, things of this nature would not be
allowed to park in right of ways and on streets. Vans and boats
are things that should be stored mini storage and if this is made
very clear from the beginning you don't get it. It' s an issue
that is very easy to control through proper management. If you
allow it to exist it will, if you don't it won't. I really do not
believe that there will be any parking problems at this complex.
In any complex I 've ever managed with a ratio as high as 1.94 has
52
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
never presented a parking problem. Thank you for your time.
VanDerbeek: Thank you. I just have a question from your
standpoint about the enforceability of this requirement in exhibit
17 about the owner requiring in all rental agreements the use of
the garages by tenants will be exclusively for the purposes of
parking. I mean what kind of problems do you anticipate with
enforcing that kind of a regulation. From a property management
standpoint if a tenant was using the garage to store things or
grow marijuana, or do whatever, what would you do, how could
you. . .
Hulkman: If you allow it to exist it will. We simply do not. I
could show you another project in the Kent area where we have
garages and they're used. I believe you plan on using garage door
openers? Something we suggest and people really do use it for
parking. Fairly easy to control. What we do is you will assign
every unit one parked. . .
VanDerbeek: Garage?
Hulkman: No, one assigned parking place, whether that be a garage
they rent or covered parking that they rent. And then the other
spaces would be open to anyone but we would control the number of
cars that any one person could have. our lease applications
require identification of all vehicles by license plate number and
they also require a count of how many vehicles will be on the
property and what they will. . . it actually asks what the license
plate is, what type of vehicle it is, and we monitor that. We
have a list and our maintenance people and our security people who
patrol the grounds have those lists available to them to control
the situation.
VanDerbeek: But how will you make sure that the garages are only
being used for parking.
Hulkman: That' s all we permit them to be used for.
VanDerbeek: Well, I know. But how will you check? That' s what
I 'm trying to figure out, how you will know.
Hulkman: That it won't be used for storage, something of this
nature?
VanDerbeek: That it' s not used for storage or for other purposes
other than parking.
53
i
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
-' Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
Hulkman: Use routine checks. It's fairly easy to see when
someone is parking a car in a garage or not parking a car in a
garage. When they rent a garage our garage rental agreement,
` which I can provide you with one of if you'd like, specify the
automobile to be used in the garage and the license numbers.
Obviously, if you know we persist in finding these cars aren't in
these garages, then we'd discuss that with the resident.
VanDerbeek: You mean when you rent an apartment you don't get a
garage, you have to pay extra for a garage?
Hulkman: Correct.
VanDerbeek: Well how much extra do you have to pay?
Hulkman: Whatever the market will bear, basically. There are
several complexes in the Kent area that rent garages on an extra
basis. And for the developers, as well as the management company,
you maximize the use of the garages by finding whatever rate they
will be totally used at. Because if they go unused it' s costly.
VanDerbeek: Well, do you have to be a tenant to rent a garage.
- Hulkman• Yes.
VanDerbeek: Well . . .
Hulkman: Is it your worry that the garages won't be used for
parking and that will intensify the density. . .
VanDerbeek: I 'm just worried that these tenants might not
necessarily rent. . . Well, first of all the total number of
parking spaces is inclusive of the garages, right?
Hulkman: Correct.
VanDerbeek: How many garages are there?
Hulkman: I 'm not exactly sure on that number. Walt, the
gentleman who I did the study with, did more on the actual
Signature Pointe property.
VanDerbeek: Well, like at the other Triad Developments, how much
do they charge for a garage.
Hulkman: It varies. Another property in Kent which I am
currently managing--River Point--we charge $65 for a garage.
54
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
VanDerbeek: Sixty-five dollars a month?
Hulkman: Sixty-five dollars a month.
VanDerbeek: For a garage?
Hulkman: Yes, it has a garage door opener, you turn a key and it
goes up, you pull in you get your own opener and you drive in.
Fifteen out of twenty of those are currently being used.
VanDerbeek: I 'm pretty interested in this whole garage issue.
Now I had no idea you had to pay extra for a garage. This is
quite interesting to me. So, I 'm very interested to know how many
garages there are going to be because it seems to me that most
people won't charge extra for the garage and that's just gonna. . .
Hulkman: I think if you look anywhere in Kent I don't think you'd
find any complex that didn't charge anything for a garage. I just
recently did a study of the Kent area for another building up on
Kent. I forget the name of the property but it's owned by another
owner who I manage for. For a 40 unit property he put in 24
garages and we plan to have approximately 23 to 22 of them used at
$55 a garage. And that's a very high ratio of garages.
VanDerbeek: I guess I just assumed that the rental would be show
an increase to reflect the benefit to the tenant of having a
garage. Now, I don't mean to be overly concerned about the
parking issue. However, in hearing these cases for a number of
years, I have seen the biggest problem of any of these large
multiple family developments is always traffic and parking. Those
are always the biggest two concerns and there's definitely an
obligation to look into this.
Hulkman: There' s no question and if we're managing it' s a very
large problem if it' s not managed properly. If it is managed
properly it 's not a problem.
VanDerbeek: Well, so I want to know how many garages there are
going to be. . .
Hulkman: I don't know. . .
VanDerbeek: . . .and if we could provide that information at a
later date then that would be helpful.
Hulkman: If you'd like we could put together a total parking plan
55
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
for you.
VanDerbeek: The information that I would find helpful would be
how many garages are there going to be and is each unit going to
have a garage. I assume there's not going to be 554 garages.
Grimm: I can answer your question. This is Fred Grimm, Triad
Development, returning. There are 130 garages presently planned
for the property. In charging, determining rent for a unit, you
look at what the unit offers in terms of its amenity, its view,
its location, and its size, and also would include whether or not
a garage was provided for. So, when you have a limited number of
garages, such as we do--it' s approximately one-tenth of our total
parking-- you can either include that garage with a particular
assigned unit and thus charge a higher rent because you're
commanding, creating more value for the tenant, or you can charge
specifically for the garage which gives you more flexibility in
that someone with a particular unit maya not necessarily want a
garage. So it provides greater flexibility. The remaining spots
,.. are either open or carports.
VanDerbeek: How many of these units (it was on one of the
previous site plans, but since there are 23 exhibits in this
` hearing, 24 , I don't have them in front of me now) . . . Can you
refresh my recollection with respect to the number of two and
three bedroom units.
Grimm: I ' ll have to get some information from the side, here. . .
While they're digging for it, in the interest of saving time
perhaps I should continue on.
VanDerbeek: Yes, please do.
Grimm: I would also like to note in the study that was done in
showing the Riverwood at 1.94 , I would like to comment that the
Riverwood parking ratio is greater than the required 1. 8 because
-.. they had less open space and there is an option provided that if
you provide greater parking you can reduce your open space. In
our case we have 1.94 ratio without any kind of open space
reduction or tradeoff.
The next issue I 'd like to discuss is the question of access that
has been raised. Looking at the site plan, there has been some
questions raised about statements incorrect about there only being
one access and the purchase of property and so on. First I 'd like
to correct the mistatement that the northern part of the property
was purchased knowing that there was only a single access to the
56
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
south and that as an option they could have purchased property to
the east. This was one combined site. It always has been just
one site. To say that access can be obtained through neighboring
property is correct. That may be a possibility, but it requires
the cooperation from somebody else. Likewise, perhaps access
could be obtained by additional bridge over Green River which
we're certainly not suggesting and the Army Corps of Engineers
probably wouldn't particularly want to see that. So in reality,
for the property that we own, there is only one access to it and
there is a big concern raised about what that access means. I 'd
like to note that the access under 516 is 24 feet wide and this
meets code and is more than adequate for a fire engine to pass
even if some car were to be illegally parked. I have another
exhibit that I would like to have brought up that exemplifies
this. What we have here is another cross section of the overpass
of 516, the pedestrian bridge underneath and showing an eight foot
sidewalk and a 24 foot road, before we begin the riprap up to the
bridge. A fire truck is 8 feet. This is a fire lane. In the
event a car were to be illegally parked in the fire lane and had
not been removed at the time of a fire, there' s still an 8 foot
passing ability--actually a total of 16 feet--to go around that
parked car. So it is not an unusually small road upon which fire
access is required. I 'll likewise show another drawing at the
bottom which is the main boulevard. Again it's 24 feet. If a car
were to be parked illegally along the fire lane, there is still an
additional 10 feet which would allow a fire truck to pass by. One
of the firemen' s concerns is that they want to be able to
obviously park and still have access around it. If you will note
that the site plan, a question was raised, whether or not there
would be two illegally parked cars at the same time in the fire
lane. This shows that if that were to be happen, that there would
still be room for the fire truck to pass in the middle. But I 'd
also like to show on the site plan the boulevard is not a solid
road in that on one side is a fire lane, on the other side are
parking spaces and islands. While parking on a fire lane may
happen from time to time, it is very unlikely that a car will park
behind other cars blocking parking spaces. I would like to enter
this as an exhibit as well.
VanDerbeek: All right. That will be marked as Exhibit 25. -
Grimm: The single access is also not without precedent. There
are presently two apartment projects developed where the
construction has been complete and they're either rented or are
leasing up--Hampton Bay and Island Park. They both have 558 units
combined. Presently all of these units plus some additional
condominium units spill out onto a 36 foot wide single access
57
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
road. Similarly, Woodland Estates which is located at 821 Kent
Des Moines Road has a total of 190 units with again only a single
access which is approximately 21 feet wide. So the concerns of
what ifs are certainly a concern of everyone, but at the same time
they must be considered in the context of what likelihoods we
protect against and as can be seen by these other projects, that
provision isn't made for every possible tragedy. In terms of
evacuating in the event of such a tragedy, there is access through
the neighboring property for emergency--for people to escape
something that was happening. We have designed the interior
roadway system so that it can connect to the east, south of 516,
with the roadway system of the adjoining property at such time as
it is developed, which is right here. So that would give us the
ability to connect. Likewise, there it's going to be more
desirable for them to have an alternative emergency access and
combining the two of those together design-wise would provide that
in the long run. There also was comment made with regard to the
public road that is below 516 coming from Washington. A look here
at the drawing; the public road only goes a small portion--its
_ about three tenths of a mile short of actually coming to our
property. The public road goes along here and it stops. There's
a little tail off that goes up here, but from there on it's a dead
end; a private road in which there are two and perhaps three
property owners who have some kind of reciprocal easements which
allow them to cross each other's property to get to theirs. So
it's not as easy as why don't we just connect to a public road.
It requires the purchase of someone else's land, perhaps two or
three other people's land. Finally, I spoke with both the Parks
Department and with Mike Evans of the Fire Department that at such
time as the bike trail is developed on the south side of 516 that
path will continue on to Washington and it will be at least 10
feet wide with two foot shoulders on each side and in the
emergency that would be another emergency access point along that
bike trail which the Fire Department could and would use if the
primary access point was blocked. I 'd like to enter a summary of
these remarks with regard to the Lakes Development and Woodland
Estates as another exhibit.
VanDerbeek: All right. That will be marked as Exhibit 26.
- Grimm: I have our unit mix in front of me. It is 214 one bedroom
units, 208 two bedroom units and 132 three bedroom units.
-- VanDerbeek: So isn't it true that the two and three bedroom units
are likely to own more than one car?
Grimm: It is quite possible that many of the two bedrooms and
58
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
three bedroom units will. A two bedroom and a three bedroom unit
does not necessarily suggest a household of more than two or more
than one person. We've found from our surveys--we did an
extensive survey of 1500 residents in the Kent area that live in
apartments--and we discovered that a good many single people were
living in two bedroom units because they would use the extra
bedroom for a study or den. Likewise some of the three bedroom
units were only used by a family of two. So it does not
necessarily reach the conclusion that a two bedroom unit would
have two cars or a three bedroom unit would have three. Indeed
our ratio of units is not abnormal in terms of the ratio of one
bedroom units to two and three bedroom units and thus it should be
viewed in context of the parking study that was done at the other
apartment buildings.
VanDerbeek: All right, thank you for your comments.
Grimm: I 've got a couple more things.
VanDerbeek: Oh. With your stops I thought you were done. Go
ahead.
Grimm: There was a suggestion that was made that, back to the EIS
requirements, that there was particular concern about the wetlands
or about the Army Corps of Engineers. I have a letter. One of
the first things we did on this property was got the involvement
of a soils study and a wetlands biologist and the review of the
Army Corps of Engineers with regard to this property and what
impact it may have on vegetation that would have special concern--
which is primarily a wetlands vegetation. This letter that I 'm
going to enter as the next exhibit is from the Department of Army
Corps of Engineers with regard to no wetlands permit being needed
and that they found no evidence that the site contains any
wetlands. Recently the Army Corps of Engineers has been the body
which has assumed jurisdiction over wetlands issues.
VanDerbeek: All right, the letter will be marked as Exhibit 27 .
Grimm: I guess I would like to summarize our presentation by
saying that the concerns raised by the individuals who attended
tonight are concerns that we also have tried to incorporate in our
development here. We have developed similar, other projects that
have closely related to the concerns of citizens with regard to
habitat. Having a carefully designed apartment community does not
necessarily mean the destruction of a particular habitat. For
example, we've developed a 198 unit apartment community along a
three acre pond. We actually improved that by providing
59
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
additional vegetation along the pond and to this date the tenants
are able to enjoy viewing such animals as, we had a couple of
otters through there; blue herons still fly through the property.
We have in this project, I think, taken the Master Shoreline
Permit requirements, the zoning requirements, and the open space
Comprehensive Plan to heart. I don't think that the City of Kent
has seen a public community designed with this much involvement
and this much concern and I understand that those who would like
to see no development at all understandably would be frustrated by
our efforts but I go back to the point that this is not an
agricultural zoned piece of property. The development rights
certainly haven't been sold off under the bond program so we are
simply using the standards given to us to develop what the zoning
tells us we can. Thank you.
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. I just had
one question for the Fire Department with respect to one of the
exhibits. Didn't want you to sit here until the end of the
hearing and not answer any questions. Could you hand me that,
Chris, could you hand me that one exhibit right there.
Larry Webb: Larry Webb, the Fire Marshall, City of Kent.
VanDerbeek: This exhibit purports to be a to-scale diagram of how
much space would be left if there was an illegally parked car and
a fire truck and all this. Is a fire truck eight feet wide?
Webb: We like to think they're wider because when we go to a fire
we open all the doors on the side and the ladders come out from
the top hydraulically another four feet probably. Our biggest
concern is once the first fire engine gets there we want another
fire engine to be able to pass it. And another thing about that
drawing is that a, the statement was made, is it a main boulevard?
Is there parking on one side? Or are there fire lanes on two
sides?
VanDerbeek: I got the impression that there was parking on one
side. That was my understanding.
Webb: That's what I thought I heard Fred say. Parking on one
side, fire lane on the other?
Grimm: The parking that is on one side is not parking along the
boulevard lane, it is parking that is off so that you're correct.
It's right 90 degree parking on the boulevard.
Webb: Is there a sidewalk anywhere there?
60
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes i
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
Grimm: Yes.
Webb: . One side, two side?
Grimm: Both sides. The sidewalk on the fire lane side obviously
closer to the road which would allow emergency bypass. And the
sidewalk on the parking side is on the backside of the parking.
VanDerbeek: Well, how wide is the emergency medical aid unit. Is l
it wider or narrower than a fire truck?
Webb: Narrower. We still have some concerns about turning
radiuses that we're working on upstairs. But at the present time
we're going to have to take the oncoming lane to turn into some of
these roadways. Now you can look at the drawing. Some of these
are very tight turns here.
VanDerbeek: Uh huh.
Webb: That we will not be able to make without some revisions.
But we're working on that. Plans have been submitted and we're
working on those problems right now.
VanDerbeek: All right. But you remain concerned with respect to
the width of the boulevard and the ability for two fire trucks to
pass, right?
Webb: Well we were at 24 feet?
VanDerbeek: Right.
Webb: Well, I think that's OK.
VanDerbeek: Twenty-four feet would be adequate provided that
there were no cars illegally parked in the fire lane.
Webb: Yep, that would be fine.
VanDerbeek: Do two fire trucks usually go on most fire calls? I
mean it seems everytime I see fire trucks it seems like all of
them go--or a couple three and then a Medic One. I don't know. I
guess, why don't I ask you a more specific question; under what
circumstances do you send out more than one fire truck.
Webb: Basically it's by the life hazard that you would see. An
apartment complex would probably get two fire engines, one aid car
61
r
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
and a aerial ladder and one command vehicle and that complex would
get that on a first response.
VanDerbeek: All right, thank you for your testimony Mr. Webb.
Grimm: I do have that letter if it wasn't_ ever found. . .
VanDerbeek: May 27th. It is a part of the record we discovered.
-- Grimm: You've got it.
VanDerbeek: Yes. All right at this time I 'll close the public
hearing with respect to application SMA-88-4, the Signature Pointe
shoreline substantial development permit request. I can indicate
that because of the number of exhibits and the anticipated length
of time that it will take me to receive and review the verbatim
minutes, that I will not be able to issue written Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law within 14 days of today's date. Because I
assume that it will take me at least seven days to receive the
verbatim minutes. Is that correct? At least seven days. . . How
long will it take me to receive the verbatim minutes,
realistically? . . .oh, because you're going on vacation. So
you'll have them ready in seven days? All right, well I 'm going
to extend the time for consideration of the issues on this case
because of the fact that I don't feel I can adequately consider
the issues until I have the opportunity to review the verbatim
minutes. So if I get the verbatim minutes seven days from today,
seven working days which would be the 13th. . . oh the 15th. . . oh
seven working days. . . oh all right. . . I 'm going to be on
vacation. . . I 'm going to extend the time for consideration of
the issues in this case and I ' ll issue my written Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law on or before July 29th, 1988 pursuant to
the authority granted under the ordinance establishing the Hearing
Examiner system for the City of Kent. And that additional time is
necessary because of the anticipated time to review the hearing
record, the verbatim minutes and the exhibits in this case. So at
this time, we'll conclude the public hearing. I would like to
take this opportunity to again remind the audience about the rule
on ex-party communication. Because I am an impartial decision
maker the rule on ex-party communications strictly prohibits my
discussing any matters which come before me for hearing with
anyone except in a public forum where all persons have the
opportunity to hear and to comment. So I would therefore
discourage very strongly anyone from approaching me and attempting
to discuss any of the issues in this case because then I would
have to disqualify myself and we would have to start all over
again. All right, so with that we' ll be off the record.
62
ii
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES
June 15 , 1988
The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to order
by the presiding officer, Diane L. VanDerbeek, Hearing Examiner, on
Wednesday, June 15, 1988 at 3 : 00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, Council
Chambers.
Ms. VanDerbeek requested all those intending to speak at the hearing
and those wishing to receive information concerning the hearing, to
sign in at the sign up sheet by the door. Staff reports, agendas,
and the description of procedure of the hearing were available by the
door. Ms. VanDerbeek briefly described the sequence and procedure of
the hearing. All those who intended to speak were sworn in.
There were two hearings held this date. Tri State Construction #CE-
"" 88-2 minutes are available separately in synopsis form. The
following are verbatim minutes for Signature Point #SMA-88-4 .
SIGNATURE POINT
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
#SMA-88-4
A public hearing to consider the request by Triad Development for a
shoreline substantial development permit to build 584-unit
multifamily apartment project known as Signature Pointe within 200 '
feet of the Green River. The property is located on 64th Avenue S. at
SR 516.
VERBATIM MINUTES
(1-1466) Libby Hudson: My name is Libby Hudson with the Kent
Planning Department. I ' ll be presenting the staff report this
afternoon. The applicant for the Signature Point substantial use
development permit is Triad. And, they are requesting that a 584-
unit multifamily project be built within the 200 foot shoreline area
of the Green River.
The project is located south of Meeker Street here with Highway 516
dissecting the property. It' s an area known as Good News Bay, big
horseshoe shape here with the Green River bounding it on the north,
south and east side. The project is to develop 51 buildings of 584
units total within the site. The size of this property is 38 . 8
acres, divided into two parcels with the north half, north of 516
bridge being 8 . 5 acres and the southern parcel 30. 3 acres.
I
The zoning of the property is presently MRM, Medium Density
Multifamily. Surrounding zoning is GC to the north and MRM, here.
The City boundary runs along the river here so County is located
south, east and west of the River.
1
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
VanDerbeek: What, what are the zoning designations.
Hudson: Its agricultural in the County, preservation area.
VanDerbeek; All of it, on all sides?
Hudson• Yes.
1
VanDerbeek: What' s the County--what' s the name of the County
designation, if you know?
i
Hudson: I don't know that. It's an agricultural zone that' s all.
i
VanDerbeek: All right. I can't take screams from the audience
so. . .perhaps response from--perhaps someone who knows what the--of
the zoning designate is, can testify later.
Hudson: Let me show a video right now of the property.
VanDerbeek: All right.
(VIDEO SHOWN FROM 1587 TO 1672)
Hudson: To give you a little bit of the history of the property.
This project was originally a 600 unit multifamily development
proposed as the Green River Condominiums in 1980. An EIS was -
required at that time to rezone. . .and they intended to rezone the
parcel, the northern parcel 8 . 5 acres to MRM from RA. The rezone was
conditioned and approved by the Hearing Examiner and the Council
adopted it. The conditions were never fulfilled the rezone never
took affect. In January of 1988 , Signature Point developers
contacted the City and they requested to carry through with the
rezone by fulfilling these conditions that were originally given on
the approval. So in April of 188 the City Council adopted an
ordinance rezoning the 8 . 5 acre parcel to MRM. The land uses in the
area, adjacent to the proposed project. There' s existing Riverwood
multifamily complex that I showed in the video tape which is located
in this area here, north of the property and there' s agricultural
uses to the west, across the river, south and east and there' s also _.
the City golf course which is located to the northwest and there' s
another apartment complex there.
The new 18-hole golf course is located across the Green River--I
mean--across Meeker Street. I ' ll show you on this map--in this area
here. And, there' s retail located along Meeker Street. An
environmental assessment--the EIS was adopted with some revisions as
part of the requirements for this project and they are rather lengthy
so they aren't part of this staff report. The street system that the
property will have access to is off of Meeker Street, 64th Avenue
comes down, it' s not on this map, but it does extend, it does extend,
2
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
where' s Meeker Street, down this way and it dead ends here.
Riverwood was required to extend that when they built their project.
So, currently, it dead ends here. It' s improved with asphalt paving,
curb and gutter at 44 feet. They are required as part of their EIS
and DNS that was issued to improve that with a cul-de-sac. Currently
Meeker Street which 64th lets out onto is at 18 , 000 cars average
• daily traffic. Meeker Street has a capacity for 25 to 30, 000 and the
development, as the Engineering Department estimated, will produce
approximately 31600 additional daily traffic on that street with 293
of that being during the p.m. peak hours.
VanDerbeek: Is that 3 , 600 daily trips. . .
" Hudson: Daily trips?
VanDerbeek: The total trips to be generated?
Hudson: Right, by this project.
VanDerbeek: Because your testimony was on Meeker Street, but that' s
the total?
Hudson: That's right, on Meeker Street. When we review projects
such as this. Put up the site plan here. This is the site plan that
we reviewed this project with; apparently, there's a new revised site
plan. We have not received a copy of it as of yet. This shows 584
units and apparently, that' s been reduced but the way the project is,
this is the access road that comes down underneath the SR 516 bridge
and most of the development is within this horseshoe area. We looked
at this project. . . the Comprehensive Plan and the Shoreline
application to see how it, you don't have a copy?
VanDerbeek: Well, I was going to ask is there a readable size copy
of the site plan because this, well , because the one attached to the
staff report is so condensed that you need a magnifying glass to read
it and I really can't read this one either. There wasn't one in my
file, usually there is.
Hudson: Here is the revised one.
VanDerbeek: All right, thank you.
Hudson: As I was saying, the Comprehensive Plan was. . .the City-wide
" Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City in 1969 . We use the
goals, objectives and policies of this Comprehensive Plan to analyze
any development within the City to see if it meets the requirements
and expressions of the community' s intentions and aspirations for
development within the City. The, this development falls within the
Valley Floor Subarea Comprehensive Plan. It' s designated Open Space
on both the City-wide and the Valley Floor Comprehensive Plan. Under
3
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
the Human Element of the goals and policies, the overall goal is to
assure that Kent residents (reside) in an aesthetic and healthful
environment. This proposal . . .along. . .because it's being developed
along the Green River needs to take careful consideration and enhance
the aesthetic qualities of ' the City while taking advantage of the
natural amenities that exist on the site and show some sensitivity to
the river. The project is proposing to cluster the units in or
building clusters. This way they leave more open space than
stringing them along the river. They have entry courts, interior
entry courts into each of these clusters. The larger open spaces are
going to be used recreational amenities that they are also providing
as part of this project. These recreational amenities include a
swimming pool, a gymnasium, a day care center and meeting and lounge
areas. The location of these need to be taken into consideration and
design to enhance the views of Mt. Rainier that are available on this
site and the views of the river too. At this scale, you can't really
tell what the design is. A typical landscape was submitted; with
this section provided for this project and it shows that this
landscaping will be sufficient to meet Zoning Code requirements and
they will also meet the shoreline requirement of 15 feet along the
river and this should enhance the river area as well as buffer the
development. . .the river from the. . .the development from the river
side.
The Valley Floor 'designation for this property is MF, Multifamily,
and Open Space. The MF, being the northern portion and the open
Space being the southern portion. Under the goals and policies of
the subarea plan under Waterways, the Overall Goal is to provide for
preservation of valuable water ways . A policy under that is to
retain vitally need natural buffer strips along the Green River. The
developer does propose to provide a landscape buffer between the dike
and the development and they intend to leave the river' s edge
undisturbed. The buffer strip will include evergreen trees,
deciduous trees, shrubs and also wildflowers and grasses. And, it
will be a minimum of .15 feet in width.
Under the shoreline program, this shoreline area is designated as
Urban Environment. And, the goals and policies in the shoreline area
of the section under Public Access Element is that the
goals. . .river' s edge be made available to the public for use. The
developer intends to provide public access along the Green River.
They intend to dedicate 50 feet along the length of the river and a
requirement of the EIS is that they provide a bike path along the
river.
VanDerbeek: How come I didn't get a copy of the EIS? _..
Hudson: You didn't get a copy of that.
4
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
VanDerbeek: No. I didn't get a copy of the EIS and I didn't get a
copy of the conditions until right now and they are quite a few pages
long. Is the EIS available?
Hudson: Yes, I can get you a copy. A typical landscape plan for the
proposed development shows access points at least at every building
cluster along the river so that works out to be about one access for
every 250 feet. The shoreline requires one for every 1, 000 feet.
They are also providing public parking as required by shoreline
regulations. The parking area is proposed north of the bridge here,
in this area, and they intend to have a 32 parking stall. According
to rough calculations of their river frontage being 4 , 800 feet, they
are required to have at least 27 stalls. The Planning Department
reviewed the application in relationship to the Comprehensive Plan,
the present zoning of the land, the land use in the area, the street
system and flood control problems and any other comments from the
departments--City departments. Oh, I forgot we got a letter from the
Fire Department, let me give this to you, regarding access.
VanDerbeek: There was a copy of that here, when I came in,
indicating that the Fire Department would prefer two access points.
Hudson: Yes, they prefer that the development have two access
points. They can't actually require it by the Uniform Fire Code but
upon re-reviewing the application, they would prefer to see two
access points. Now, there 's one coming off of 64th and going under
the bridge.
VanDerbeek: How high is the bridge?
Hudson: I 'm not sure on that. There is a condition in the
environmental. . .the DNS, that the Washington State Department of
Transportation requires that the developer must provide adequate
clearance under the bridge for any emergency vehicles or City
maintenance vehicles along the dike road there and at 16 feet. I
think it' s 18 feet. The developer may know the correct answer for
that. So the staff recommends, upon reviewing this application and
discussion of the merits of this request, and the Code criteria for
granting a shoreline development permit, that we recommend approval
for the substantial development permit.
VanDerbeek: With no conditions?
Hudson: With no conditions.
VanDerbeek: In the event that, that ' I recommended conditional
approval of the shoreline permit, what, if any, further review or
permits would be required prior to the issuance of building permits?
5
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
Hudson: Prior to issuance of building permits, they would have to
meet all shoreline regulations, the Green River Corridor Special
Interest regulations, which is part of the Zoning Code, any MRM
zoning regulations for development and they'd also have to meet all
the conditions of the environmental checklist--the DNS that was
issued for the EIS.
VanDerbeek: Do those conditions adequately address and require
mitigation of the proposed traffic impacts of the development, in
your opinion?
Hudson: Now the traffic, just for your reference here, the traffic
conditions are outlined on page 11 of the Decision Document that you
have there.
VanDerbeek: My document does not have any page numbers.
Hudson: Oh, it doesn't, sorry. It's under environmental checklist
#ENV-88-21 and 35 and then it says Transportation Systems.
VanDerbeek: My page 11 is talking about surface water drainage
conditions. Is that the right thing? No, this is ' different because
this is a 22-page document and that document is only 11 pages long,
that I got before.
Hudson: Well, this is combined with two. It's Environmental
Checklist #88-21 and Environmental Checklist #88-35 .
VanDerbeek: Were there two environmental checklists?
Hudson: Originally they intended to phase the project in and then it
was combined into one. The transportation conditions are outlined
on, did you find them, on page 11. One is to improve 64th Avenue and
meet collector standards with a cul-de-sac turnaround; the second is
the condition that the tran. . .
VanDerbeek: Collector standards is what. . . to refresh my
recollection, what do. . .
Hudson: Collector streets as designed by the Engineering Department,
the design criteria from that as opposed to arterials, the width
and. . .
VanDerbeek: Right, but one lane in each direction.
Hudson: Right, with curb, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, that
sort of thing. It's currently at collector standards, I think,
except for the cul-de-sac turnaround because right now it' s 44 feet
width and there's sidewalks--I believe they're on both sides. I know _
on the Riverwood side.
6
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
-- Signature Pointe
WSMA-88-4
VanDerbeek: Is the Traffic Engineer here?
Hudson: Yes, he is.
VanDerbeek: Well, I have questions about how 293 vehicles are going
to stack into this site on a collector street, so that' s going to be
my question. But, I have some other questions for staff, too. All
right, what' s the radius of these European looking turn around things
,., on this site, do you know.
Hudson: This one in the center has the landscape island in the
middle so it' s like a circular drive. I don't know the actual
radius.
VanDerbeek: How wide are the access or the roads that go--the access
roads that go throughout the site?
Hudson: The minimum is 20 feet--under the bridge.
VanDerbeek: Well, how would fire trucks be able to ingress and
egress the site. That' s my question. With 20 foot lanes and, I
don't really understand this site plan particularly since it was just
given to me. But, it kind of reminds of Roman, quite frankly, an
Italian city, and I 'm just wondering how if there were a fire or
other need for emergency equipment, whether they would be able to get
through here, how would that work?
Hansen: Excuse me, we have a representative of the Fire Department
here that can address that.
VanDerbeek: All right.
Hudson: I ' ll let Larry answer that. Do you have any other questions
for the Planning Department?
VanDerbeek: Well, I understand that this southern portion, the site
is zoned for multiple family uses but since the site is designated in
the Comprehensive Plan as Open Space perhaps you can explain how the
recommendation was reached that the proposal was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Hudson: Our Comprehensive Plan, unfortunately, does not have
definition of what Open Space but the goals and policies of any
development within the City and especially along the river are that
we protect the environment. And the river area, we require a buffer
along there and that would provide open space. Initially, the
development by clustering the buildings there, they are allowing more
open space within their project that will be used for recreational
use by the residents and also the access points along the river will
7
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
allow. . .will provide open space and recreation use for the residents
of the City of Kent.
VanDerbeek: But, how would the residents find the public parking and
the access points in this development, there's no recommended
condition that there be any signs like there are often times have
been in other riverfront developments where public access is
provided.
Hudson: We could require that as a condition. I did talk with the
developers about signing the parking lot that it is public and they
had not problem with that. So, I didn' t see that it was necessary to
require that as a condition.
VanDerbeek: Well, I have. . .I feel like I have a lot more questions
but since I only got the SEPA conditions today and I only got the
site plan today and I don't have the environmental impact statement,
I can't ask any more questions, so I 'm not going to at this time but
I suspect that we are not going to conclude this hearing today.
Thank you for your testimony. All right, I will hear either from the
Fire Department representative or the Traffic Engineer, whatever, I
don't care, whoever wants to go first.
Larry Webb: Larry Webb from the Fire Department. There has been
about three versions of this drawing. At one time, our access in
here was going to be a fire lane, no parking through this area and
any turnaround that we needed would be here, here and here. We can
reach all the units by just staying on this access road right here.
These are short enough little stubs here that we did not need a
turnaround.
VanDerbeek: What if there were cars parked on this road?
Larry Webb: The last width of this road, I don't remember the
footage. If it did not meet our access width then it would have to
be fire laned and marked as it would underneath the bridge here and I
believe that' s about 20 foot. . . 20 to 25 feet in height and there's no
problem there for the fire department. But it would basically have
to be fire laned all the way in from 64th, if it wouldn't meet our
access.
VanDerbeek: Do you have any idea how long that is? How long is
that?
Webb: From. . .total?
VanDerbeek: Right, I mean, if it was fire laned all the way in. . .
Webb: It could be red paint from Meeker to the end of the road.
8
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
-' Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
VanDerbeek: Right, and as a former Traffic Magistrate, who has just
spent five years in Traffic Court, that's a lot of parking tickets.
I mean, how long is that, do you know?
Webb: I don't remember the length, I sure there' s representatives
here that. . .
VanDerbeek: All right. All right, but you could turn around
adequately in this round part if you needed to.
Webb: But the last. . .any cul-de-sac here we have minimums that have
to be met and they have been met on the drawings that we did read.
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Is there any
testimony from the Traffic Engineer?
Ed White: My name is Ed White and I represent the Traffic
Engineering. The only comments that we would have are that as a
result of this development they are required to install a traffic
signal at 64th Avenue and Meeker Street. This development, the
Greenriver Condominiums , any improvements necessitate . . . .
substantial. . . .by private development will not be constructed with
public funds. We also as part of the signal installation at the
intersection would require a right-turn lane 'at the intersection of
64th and Meeker.
VanDerbeek: Was it your understanding that a traffic survey was part
of the environment impact statement.
White: Right, there was a traffic impact analysis done.
VanDerbeek: Well , I guess, I was just wondering if the estimated
traffic impact was 3 , 600 trips per day, 296 p.m. peak hour trips, and
there' s only one ingress and egress point and it ' s only a two lane
road. . .
White: How can you do that.
VanDerbeek: Right. Where are all these cars going to go. I mean
how long is it going to take all these people to get into here.
White: O.k. , as identified in the traffic impact analysis for the
Triad Development Company, it' s done by the firm, Transportation,
Planning and Engineering. They've identified. . . As identified in the
traffic impact analysis prepared for the Triad Development Company by
Transportation, Planning and Engineering. They've identified 1990
projection with traffic volumes generated by the site of. . .now, this
primarily during the p.m. hour of 119 vehicles going in and 94 going
out. They have a projected traffic volume of 3 , 600 vehicles per day
9
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
which would. . .could be accommodated by a two-lane roadway. I 'm not
sure if you have a copy of the analysis.
VanDerbeek: No, I don't. And, I 'll have to review that prior to the
next hearing.
White: Because, I 'm not sure. . .
VanDerbeek: Well, 119 plus 94 is 213 p.m. peak hour trips. There's
other testimony in the record that there's 293 p.m. peak hour trips.
How many p.m. peak hour trips are there from this development.
White: Well, I 'm not sure where your figure came from. I can
presume that they were from the Environmental Impact Statement.
VanDerbeek: They were from Planning staff.
White: O.k. The reason why it's different is that the way we supply
the original numbers was based on trip generation manual where we
took the basic land use and based on this, its called the Institute
of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual which is a
national publication that. . .
VanDerbeek: I 'm familiar with it. So, you are saying that that the
figures given by the Planning Department were from the ITE trip
generation and that the figures you just gave were from the site
specific traffic study.
White: Correct, so ours would be a lot more general than the traffic
analysis would be.
VanDerbeek: So, which ones are correct, in your opinion?
White: . I would say the ones based on the site analysis with the
traffic analysis since they are actually based off of computations
and traffic counts where the ITE manual was based off of more
generalized assumptions.
VanDerbeek: Well, in your opinion, is the ingress and egress to the "
site adequate to handle the 119 p.m. inbound trips?
White: Yes, it should be, provided there was signal at the
intersection of 64th and Meeker.
VanDerbeek: All right, I don't have any further questions at this
time. I would, however, indicate that I feel that I can't ask
meaningful questions concerning traffic impacts without having
reviewed the traffic study which was not provided to me previously,
so, , I would like to request that someone from the Traffic
10
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
Engineering Department be present at the time of the next hearing so
that I can have the benefit of asking informed questions after I had
read the traffic study.
White: All right, o.k.
VanDerbeek: Any further testimony from the City. All right at this
time I will hear the testimony of the applicant or the applicant' s
representative.
Fred Grimm: My name is Fred Grimm and I 'm with the Triad
Development, the proponent of the shoreline permit. I 'm sorry that
you don't have the information that would have given you the
opportunity to review this beforehand. We've submitted everything
that' s been asked of us to the Kent Planning. The shoreline, the
Kent Shoreline Master Plan, I should say the zoning for this property
tells us that we can build apartments at this location and tells us
how many we can build. The Kent Shoreline Master Program, the
Comprehensive Plan and the Valley Floor Plan tells us how we are
going to build those apartments. It sets forth goals, objectives and
policy points within which should guide the development. . .guide the
nature of the development. What we have proposed has taken into
consideration those goals, objectives and policies and I would like
to set in somewhat more detail some of the aspects where those are
met.
I would first like to provide you with a copy of a letter that is
addressed to Libby Hudson with regard to some points in the staff
report where they had a few concerns about changes that would have to
be made. You have already before you a copy of the amended site plan
and specifically, there is a question with regard to the existence of
some impervious surface within 75 feet of the centerline of the
existing dike that has since been adjusted so there is no impervious
system within that 75 feet. The revisions also indicate that 554
units are now being proposed which is a density of 14 . 3 units per
acre. Going back to the zoning which tells us how many apartments we
can build a maximum density would be 890.
VanDerbeek: 890 units?
Grimm: 890 units. You asked about the designation. . . of the open
designation of the Comprehensive Plan and how that fits in
conjunction with the multiple zoning and the way it does is by
limiting the density by requiring these other things to be I
considered, particularly the shoreline. In this shoreline area j
itself, we have a density of approximately ten units per acre. There
is a total of 168 acres located. . . .excuse me, 168 units that are
located within the 200 feet range of the river which the shoreline
master plan is concerned with.
I
11
�. t
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
VanDerbeek: When you are referencing the shoreline area, do you mean
the density of ten units per acre is limited to the area within 200
feet of the river.
Grimm: Correct, that is not a specific requirement, that is what it
ends up being after we've considered all the policy points of the
shoreline master plan. So, if you were only to consider the 200 feet
area from the high water mark, we would only have the density of ten
units per acre within that area. That's how the two interplay. The
other modifications that have been made and corrections that have
been made is that the courtyards have been expanded so that the
buildings are separated by a minimum of 20 feet. There was a point
raised about a couple that were not, that has been corrected. In
addition the location and the height of the buildings have been
clarified with regard to the 200 foot setback so that there are no
buildings over 35 feet in height within the 200 feet of the
shoreline. And, there also been some corrections with regard to the
landscaping, in terms of the buffering in the public right of way.
VanDerbeek: And, those are all reflected on this site plan dated
June 9?
Grimm: Correct.
VanDerbeek: All right. Do you want to offer the letter as an
exhibit to the hearing?
Grimm: Yes, I would. I would also like to offer the corrected site
plan as an exhibit.
VanDerbeek: Right. We' ll have the corrected site plan marked as an
exhibit, would that be Exhibit 2 , the file is Exhibit 1? All right,
the site plan will be Exhibit 2 and the letter will be Exhibit 3 .
Grimm: In terms of my presentation I have a number of different
people who have assisted in various stages of the design and
development aspect of this project and I would like to call them up
specifically to address different points with regard to the question
of how we develop this property since the decision of a
number. . .since the question of zoning is not an issue. The first
person I would like to bring up is Beth Mountsier who is the
architect at Driscoll.
VanDerbeek: All right.
Grimm: She' s going to talk about design concept.
Beth Mountsier: My name is Beth Mountsier. I 'm actually the project
manager with Driscoll Architects, address: 2121 First Avenue,
Seattle.
12
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
VanDerbeek: All right, would you please spell your last name for the
record.
Mountsier: It' s M-o-u-n-t-s-i-e-r.
VanDerbeek: Thank you.
Mountsier: I guess the points that I wanted to address is how the
site plan is arrived at and what the goals and objectives were of the
architects on the project. As Mr. Grimm stated because of the
original site plan that was submitted to the Planning Department and
their comments on it, we have revised the site plan. We now have 554
units on the site. There are a number of different things that we've
tried to do. . .one is that the area north of SR 516 is primarily what
we are calling a family area has mostly three bedroom and two bedroom
units. The day care facility and the family pool are located in that
area also to take advantage of the families that might be located
there. Then we have another area around the recreational facility
which we are calling more of passive family area which has a lot of
two bedroom units and so on and the rest of the site is a mixture of
units. One of the things that we've realized that -the public in Kent
and the public officials are concerned is sort of the scale and
massing of the buildings. What we've tried to do. . . .we have a
variety of 'almost--it's 9 to 10 different units and we have nine
different building types. The buildings range from two story to
three story height with the two story buildings within the 200 foot
setback of the river and the three story buildings being towards the
interior of the site and that' s what Mr. Grimm was referring to about
the density being much lower along the edge of the site.
VanDerbeek: I 'm sorry, anywhere on the site plan, does it say, how
does one tell by reading the site plan which of the buildings are two
or three story.
Mountsier: ' The buildings that have. . .that are all initialed like 2A,
- 2B, 3A, 3B. Any three-story building has a three in front of it, the
two-story buildings have a two in front of it. The attachment to the
site plan that you received shows the, the second page there, shows
the dimensions of all the buildings. There ' s also a scale on the
drawings. I guess, what we were trying to do with this site is
primarily to run one boulevard through the site that organized it
with the buildings in clusters so that each one of those created sort
of an identify for themselves . We've already had approval by the
post office that we can locate like little mail box kiosks at each
one of those clusters. So that there. . . it ' ll be as if you are
entering one little area for each grouping of buildings. We also
tried to site the more public buildings on the site in places where
they could take advantage of the views and the rec facility right now
is right in the center of the site as you come into that center sort
13
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
of plaza. And, the lounge areas and so on are located to the north
with views looking toward the south, toward Mt. Rainier. The other
documents that I brought along was a comparison study that we did in
our office. I think there has been a lot of concern about the
project that's to the north of us, Riverwood which has almost no
modulation, buildings are all three stories tall and when we went out
and looked at how long they were, they are close to 195 feet long.
The longest of our buildings is 118 feet with most of them, most of
the long buildings being around 114 feet and the smaller two-story
buildings are, as shown on the plans, are more—well, 50 x 52, 60 x
57, so they are a lot smaller, so this is another. . .
VanDerbeek: All right, we' ll mark that as Exhibit 4 . What is this,
this is a comparison study of apartment buildings which will be
marked as Exhibit 4 to this hearing.
Mountsier: And, I guess the last thing that I wanted to comment on,
in terms of trying to achieve a lot of different building types and
different roof forms, we were also aware of the visibility of the
site as you drive over SR 516 and that was a major reason for
planning the boulevard down the center of the site so that it looks
like it is organized and reflects sort of the geography of the river
wrapping around the development. And then the roof forms varying so
that you are not just looking at a sea of buildings that are all
exactly the same but, in fact, we have a lot of different gabled
roofs and varying heights and so on.
VanDerbeek: What are the dimensions of the recreation facility, how
large will that be?
Mountsier: The total building area shown there is around 10, 000
square feet. Part of that building will be used for maintenance,
what do I want to say, maintenance vehicles that can be stored that
actually go out and pick up the trash from the different trash
locations around the site. And, there ' s also an outdoor pool at that
area, between the two legs of the building.
VanDerbeek: Well, do these buildings have garages?
Mountsier: Some of the buildings do have garages. The ones that
front along the boulevard, the buildings, in fact, that are marked 3B
are similar to townhouse structures in that their garage is on the
ground floor and the units are above those. Then there are also
enclosed garages in the parking areas and some carports as well .
VanDerbeek: Is there any visitor parking on the site?
Mountsier: Yes, we 're required to provide 27 trail/access parking
stalls. The majority of which we are providing in that lot that' s to
the north of SR 516 and then we were also going to provide the rest
14
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
of them on the south portion of the site where's there, back by the
recreational facility. I think your question that you addressed to
Libby about signage was something that we had discussed with the
Planning Department that we are planning on having, I believe, as
part of the requirements of the shoreline permits that we designate
and mark those parking spaces as being public spaces. There are also
parking spaces that are provided for the recreational facilities that
are in addition to the 1. 8 parking stalls per units.
VanDerbeek: Well, how many parking stalls ate there. . .does it say
somewhere on the site plan how many parking stalls there are versus
how many are required? Because what often times I have seen in these
large multiple families developments is that the developer assumes
that the people who live in these units do not have company. So
there's nowhere for Company to park when they come over. The 27
parking spaces are not visiting parking. They are parking for
people. . . for members of the public who are accessing the river. And
so, like when people have company over and there's only 1. 8 spaces
per unit, I 'm just wondering, I mean you're the architect, I realize,
I don't know whether you designed the parking, did you?
Mountsier: Yes, we have been working on the parking.
VanDerbeek: Well, so do you have any opinion or is there any. . .
Mountsier: Well, I think, the other thing. . .what's required by MRM
zoning is 1.8 parking stalls per unit but then when you also look at
the composition of the units, the mixture of one bedroom, two
bedroom, and three bedroom units and how many cars are actually going
to be needed, we felt that 1. 8 parking stalls was adequate.
VanDerbeek: Well, how many one bedroom units are there?
Mountsier: That figure I can't pull off the top of my head. It's
split fairly evenly, that there. . . . out of 584 it' s like 201 one-
bedroom, 202 two-bedroom and then the rest are three-bedroom units.
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Did you have
any other comments.
Mountsier: No, I do not.
VanDerbeek: Thank you. Further testimony on behalf of the
applicant?
Grimm: Yeah, and this would. . .and, some of the 'things that she had
discussed. . .
VanDerbeek: I 'm sorry, could you identify yourself again for the
record.
15
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
Grimm: I 'm Fred Grimm, Triad Development, the applicant. Some of
the things that were addressed by Beth, again, touch into the one of
the policies of the City-wide Comprehensive Plan and the Open Space
as outlined in the staff report. Instead of just building apartments
on a regularly zoned piece of property without consideration for
these policy points we are changing and adding a lot of extras that
would not otherwise be required and that is why we showed you the
difference between the elevation at the Riverwood and the elevations
here to . show that the aesthetic goal is being achieved, is being
pursued by these different design criteria. The reason why we are
here in front of you is because this site is unique along the river's
edge. Otherwise, there would be no shoreline permit process.
VanDerbeek: I know that. I know why you are here.
Grimm: Good. The protection of the river, I would like to have that
addressed by Tom Rengstrof our landscape architect.
VanDerbeek: All right, good. Thank you.
Tom Rengstrof: My name is Tom Rengstrof. I 'm the landscape
architect on the project. My address is 911 Western, Suite 412 , in
Seattle. You spell my last name R-e-n-g-s-t-r-o-f. I was originally
retained to look at the site planning as well as the perimeter and
what we 're going to do along the edge of the project. And,
essentially, as we see it right now we are going to maintain the
existing buffer of vegetation along the shoreline, it will not be
touched in the dike area to the water. No trees will be cut and the
shoreline area will remain as is. No large trees or as required no
trees larger than 4-inch caliper will be disturbed as well. . .well,
basically no vegetation from the dike down. The owner will provide
trails from the cluster as Libby mentioned, to the Green River Trail
System on a regular basis and on a much shorter required quantity
than the 1, 000 foot as required by the City. Once the levee work has
been completed by the County or what requirements will be done to do
the levee work, the owner will put in pass systems with benches, bike
trail , and then that system will then connect to the trails that he' s
providing from the clusters, from the units. There ' s also a
discussion right now of providing a fitness trail, exercise stations
along that trail . So, essentially, what is happening is that the
buffer is becoming a linear park and the client is providing a nice
park for the community use. The 15 foot buffer along the project
essentially screens the building clusters and the parking lots from
the trail system. This is done with a combination of berming and
large plant material to meet the six-foot high regulation at the end
of the parking lots. We are going to use evergreen trees, shrubs,
grasses, wild grasses and wild flowers to meet that requirement.
Because of the style this particular client feels towards
landscaping, I think I want to mention that they have a very strong
16
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
feeling towards upscale landscaping on their projects and that their
budgets are considerable more than projects I 'm giving in the area,
say Lake Fenwick which is probably a quarter of a mile away--we have
twice the budget and easily twice the landscape or is being put in
their now by the Mueller Group. And, I say that because I designed
Lake Fenwick.
With the 75-foot dike. . .setback from the dike to the building edges
we have essentially if you count from the water, we have a 100-foot
of linear park from the river' s edge to the building clusters for the
project. The view from the freeway then, as you look along these
linear parks or as you look south, here from the freeway, looking
south, you will see both sides of the project which is essentially a
100 foot park which will be then as you add both of them up, 200 feet
plus we are providing a 50 foot boulevard worth of planting down the
center of the project. That will give us a visual consistency of
approximately a third of the width of the project looking south of
landscape planting. j
VanDerbeek: Just a minutes, I 'm sorry, there' s going to be plantings j
down the center of the boulevard?
Renastrof: The boulevard, if you can think of a street tree system,
" a double row, actually a double row of planting on both sides of the
boulevard. Four, a double row, so there would be four sets of trees
across proceeding south, similar to maybe New York or a larger more
urban environment that has, you know, the need for more trees. And,
what we are going to have that way is a stronger clustering of a
large tree and we are anticipating putting at least a three-inch
caliper, 14 to 16 foot trees in, so the impact will be immediate.
That way, as you look south, you' ll see both green belts on both
sides as well as a boulevard green belt down the middle and it will
really help reduce the scale of the project being its 750 feet wide
and we are providing 250 feet of it in a very upscale landscape
development. The foreground, also, looking south will be dominated
by a water feature or a fountain in the center of that large
turnaround in front of the rec building. That will also be shown as
you. . . it will act as a visual anchor to the project as you are going
on 516 looking south. The focus will be. . .on the three roads coming
together in the center in front of the recreation building and yes,
it does have a Rome or European feel to it and that's the idea of
plazas and turnarounds in courtyards. It isn't something you see in
a lot of apartments today and I think it's going to be very, very
attractive. The shrubbery will be above average, large in quantity,
evergreen shrubs, trees. We are planting trees along the edge of the
right of way of the freeway to help screen the parking lots there as
well as block or downscale the massing of the buildings along the
freeway but also not block Mt. Rainier and the view of the fountain
and the boulevard. Questions?
17
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
VanDerbeek: Well, another witness indicated that the center of the
plaza, is that what you called it. . .
Rengstrof: Well, there' s a turnaround plaza with a fountain in it,
o.k.
VanDerbeek: Right. All right. That' s where another witness
indicated that there was going to be landscaping in the middle.
Rengstrof: Well, there' s also going to be landscaping with seasonal
color around the edge of the fountain.
VanDerbeek: How large will the fountain be, do you know?
Rengstrof: We are designing it this very minute. And, the fountain,
I can just say, that these smaller radiuses or the radiuses on these
smaller turnarounds here are 45 feet. This one is considerably
larger than that. I would say at least 30 to 40 foot across .
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you. I don't have any other
questions. Thank you for your testimony. At this time, prior to the
next speaker's testimony, I 'm going to take a brief recess because I
have to make a phone call prior to five o'clock. However, I think at
this point I need to determine the number of witnesses who intend to
testify. Generally, these hearings don't last much past 5 o'clock
and I suspect that I 'm going to have to continue the public hearing.
However, there is a procedure in the ordinance to set these hearings
in the evening time if there is a lot of public interest and so, I
guess, at this point I would like to inquire how many interested
members of the public who are here intend to testify in the hearing?
So about eight speakers. . .nine. Does anyone have a preference with
respect to the time of the next hearing whether it be in the daytime
or the evening time? (Voices stating evening) . All right, so the
public is indicating that they would prefer the hearing to be
continued to an evening time. Is there any objection from either the
City or the applicant? (No objection) . Well , the ordinance is
fairly clear that when public interest is expressed in having the
hearing in the evening, that we have the hearing in the evening. How
many more witnesses does the applicant have? Three more. . . all right,
well I don't intend to place any limits on anyone' s testimony and so
at this point I will take a brief recess and when we reconvene I will
determine whether we should just continue the hearing at that point
until the next date or whether the applicant wishes to complete his
presentation this afternoon.
One of the applicant' s representatives: May I ask the Examiner, if
your possible extension time would be greater than a week from now I
will be out of town and my testimony would be only about three to
five minutes max.
18
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
VanDerbeek: All right, well, the date I was thinking of was July 6,
so. . .
Voice: That's when I return.
VanDerbeek: All right, well, I don' t have any objection to hearing a
couple more witnesses. I mean I don't turn into a pumpkin at 5: 00.
All right, we' ll take a brief recess.
We are back on the record following a brief recess in the matter of
the Signature Point Shoreline Management application File #SMA-88-4 .
Prior to the recess the applicant' s representative was going to
continue testifying. Do you wish to continue your testimony at this
time.
Ralph Krutsinger: Ralph Krutsinger, K-r-u-t-s-i-n-g-e-r, with Group
IV Engineers related to the civil engineering for the project.
Basically, I would like to clarify some of the aspects that you may
not have been given in your data and for the record the collector
street 64 entering the site at the northeast corner is 44 feet of
paving with curbs, both sides and a sidewalk, one side. In that
street are the utilities, sewer, water and storm drainage system
which we contemplate connecting to. The turnarounds that were on the
drawing have been reviewed with the Fire Department and, we believe,
meet the requirements as Mr. Webb stated. The construction of the
streets within the project will be 24 feet wide, curb, to curb, with
no parking contemplated between that area. All parking will be off
of the boulevard as Mr. Rengstorf indicated the trees will be outside
of the curb and behind the curb.
VanDerbeek: How long is that street? That boulevard?
Krutsinger: From 64th. . .
VanDerbeek: Um hum, all the way in.
Krutsinger: Oh, approximately 800 feet, thereabouts. I may not be
accurate on that distance. The storm drainage is rather unique from
the standpoint that we will not be discharging into the Green River
at all from our site. The storm system is comprised of drainage
swales, glass lined swales and a piped system, which at the request
of the City will connect from the southerly point of the site through
natural swales of grass-lined. . . excuse me, grass-lined swales
commencing flowing water this direction, picked up in a pipe and
carried by a pipe throughout up to 64th, the northeast corner. The
grass-lined swales on the far side also being collected into a storm
system and transported on up to 64th where our only existing storm
system is. As I indicated the sewer and water will be connected at
64th and all the criteria has been discussed with the Engineering
Staff and those plans basically, at this stage had been agreeable.
19
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
The bridge clearance with the existing ground at the lowest point is
around 18 and one-half feet and that is in compliance with one of the
conditions of the mitigated DNS that said we must have 18 feet of
clearance.
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Does the
applicant wishes to give further testimony?
Grimm: I would like to discuss. . .
VanDerbeek: I 'm sorry, I can see you but the record can't.
Grimm: Frederick W. Grimm, Triad Development. You had asked some
questions about mitigation that was required that corresponds to any
traffic concerns. Part of that has been already addressed with
regard to the stop light at 64th and Meeker. We are also going to be
participating in a stop light at 64th and James Street to the north
of the property. We are executing a no-protest LID agreement with
regard to the 222nd Street Corridor with an estimated contribution of
over. . .of approximately $125, 000. We are working with Metro to
provide information and set up a commuter exchange in the facility,
have Metro rider information pamphlets and metro •transit maps. We
are also pursuing the idea of having a peak hour shuttle to the Kent
park and ride provided as part of the service of the
management. . .professional management of the completed project. We
include bicycle racks, storage areas to the site to help reduce some
of the sidewalk traffic. I 've got a letter that, again, is addressed
to Libby Hudson that outlines the mitigation in. . . for the traffic
concerns. I would like to present that as an exhibit.
VanDerbeek: All right, that can be presented as, I believe, exhibit
6, is that right, Chris. . . . five.
Grimm: I also have. . .would like to present as an exhibit, a copy of
the traffic impact analysis that was done by us that apparently you
haven't received yet. It was prepared by Transportation Planning and
Engineering, Inc.
VanDerbeek: All right, good. We' ll make that exhibit 6.
Grimm: And, as exhibit 7 , a letter that supplements that, dated
May 27 , 1988 , and it addresses the vehicle backup potential at the
stop light, addressing those concerns.
VanDerbeek: Who's the letter to?
Grimm: The letter is to Fred Grimm from David Inger of
Transportation Planning and Engineering, Inc. If this hearing is
going to be continued as suggested, I will have the Traffic Engineer
that performed the study here to answer the questions directly.
20
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
VanDerbeek: All right, thank you.
Grimm: The last person I would like to come up for the appellant
today is Walt Smith of the Goodman Management Group who will be
providing the professional management services for the completed
project.
VanDerbeek: Do you want me to ask you or Mr. Smith where the company
_,• is going to park?
Grimm: You can ask Mr. Smith.
Walt Smith: Walt Smith, Goodman Management, address: 320 Andover
Park E. , Seattle. I 've been involved with the project in the
planning stage as far in making the project work from a management
-• view point. Such things as the unit mix, how we would go about
taking care of the landscaping, discussions of the amenities and how
they would be involved in, the clubhouses and just the overall
management of the project. I guess to profilate a little bit, but
the landscaping will be professional landscaping with a landscape
contract, there will also be professional security which will be
patrolling during the evening hours from approximately 8 to 8. As
far as the amenities are concerned they have placed in a manner which
we feel will take advantage of views of Mt. Rainier and views also of
the river shoreline. Any questions.
VanDerbeek: Well, will part of the security person' s job to be to
enforce some people parking on the boulevard.
Smith: Most definitely. If it is indeed fire lane, wherever there
is a fire lane, that is part of their job and those rules will be
laid out strictly when someone moves in that if they are in a fire
zone, they will be towed.
VanDerbeek: And, as someone in the management end of multifamily
housing, isn't it your opinion that it' s important for residents of
multifamily units to have places for visitors to park.
Smith: No question about it. I have been involved with projects
that have had as low as 1. 4 to 1 ratio of parking and the only way
that could be made to work is to designate every parking spot. When
you approach two to one and you have a unit mix as there is here with
over 50 percent of them towards the adult, less than fifty percent
towards the family units where you are more likely to have more than
one or •two cars, that' s when you run into problems and the system can
be set up, in the case of this exact project where there is ample
parking in each one of those sections and when the exact family
sections are identified and they have been in general. But, there
are several buildings on the edges of those which could go either way
21
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
because they are two bedrooms, one bathroom units, that will be
designated visitor parking.
VanDerbeek: But, if you are required by the Code to have 1. 8 spaces
per units and you designate it visitor parking then you are probably
taking away from the required number of parking stalls and, although
I recognize the Kent City Code does not require visitor parking in
multiple family developments and you know, I 've heard a lot of
testimony of residents of other large multiple family developments in
this city and others, that, that parking is a horrendous problem
because there' s no where for visitors to park and when I see a 800
foot long boulevard with a potential for probably 400 cars to park
illegally then I just wonder, I guess, I mean, I guess I 'm just a
practical person, and I haven't ever seen a car that's a . 8 of a car,
so where are the visitors going to park. You don't anticipate that
this is a problem.
Smith: Well, like I say, I 've managed, an example 453 unit project
in South Tacoma called Chambers Creek Estates, we rented it up from
inception and at the time it was sold and we gave over the management
of it, we had set up a program where there was covered parking in
areas where there was restricted parking. We made sure that we had
at least one parking spot for a resident in that area and there are
different ways you can set it up so that the cars will not be in the
fire lanes. Like I said, there has been several other project where
we've had a lot more restricted parking than this. Number 1, the
Fire Department is not going to hesitate if there is a problem in
alleviating it and will certainly put the pressure on us to make sure
there isn't a problem because we have dealt with that in the past.
VanDerbeek: All right, thank you for your testimony. Any further
testimony from the applicant or the applicant' s representatives. All
right. I will indicate that because of the hour, it being almost
5: 30, I am going to continue this matter for public hearing until the
next regularly scheduled hearing date which is July 6 which is a
Wednesday and because of the number of citizens present and the
amount of public interest pursuant to the procedures for setting
hearings in the evening time, I 'm going to set the time of the
hearing for 7 : 00 p.m. in the these chambers. I would indicate that I
need, I would like to review the environmental impact statement and "
so that should be submit as an exhibit to me at least ten days before
the next hearing. I also as I previously stated would like to have
someone from the City' s traffic engineering department available to
comment on any questions which I may have as a result of reviewing
the traffic survey which was not previously provided to me. In
addition, I am interested in Planning staff contacting the Police
Department and obtaining some input from the Police Department with
respect to the anticipated enforcement problems of the no parking
zone along the 800 foot boulevard and, of course, anyone can submit
any other information that they want to. At the time of the next
22
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
hearing I will hear the public testimony and then I will hear
rebuttal testimony first from the City staff and then from the
applicant. Are there any questions concerning the remaining hearing
procedure. All right there appearing to be no questions, I would
indicate since the hearing has been continued the rule of ex parte
communication requires that I remain neutral as a decision maker.
Therefore, I cannot hear anything concerning this hearing except
formally and on the record where everyone has the opportunity to hear `
and to comment to keep the hearing process fair, so I would ask that
-.. any witness would refrain from approaching me and discussing any
subject concerning this hearing with me because if you think we have
been sitting here now, I would have to disqualify myself and another
Hearing Examiner would have to be appointed and we would have to
start all over again, so I would ask that anyone refrain from
discussing any of these matters with me off the record. With that we
will be in recess until the sixth of July at 7 :00 p.m.
End of verbatim minutes for June 15, 1988.
c:sma884mi
23
V
i
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 20, 1988
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: CITY OF KENT PARKS DEPARTMENT RIVERBEND GOLF COURSE
REZONE NO. RZ-88-3
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: On August 31. 1988, the Hearing Examiner
recommended conditional approval of a request by the Kent Parks
Department Riverbend Golf Course to rezone approximately 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.
' 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff report, minutes, Findings and Recommendations .
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Recommendation of Hearing Examiner August 31,
1988 . Approval with one condition.
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
_ 5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ None
SOURCE OF FUNDS-
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: G�� Les,
Councilmember m Councilmember seconds
to,__ ad LModify the findings of the Hearing Examiner and to
" o��ontr' with disagree with the Hearing Examiner ' s recommendation
--*pVT-ev l with one condition and to direct the City Attorney
to prepare the required ordinance.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4B
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF. THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT
FILE NO: CITY OF KENT PARKS DEPARTMENT RIVERBEND GOLF COURSE #RZ-
88-3
APPLICANT: NEIL SULLIVAN, AGENT FOR CITY OF KENT PARKS DEPARTMENT
REQUEST: To rezone approximately 2 .4 acres of land from RA,
Residential Agricultural, to GC, General Commercial.
LOCATION: The property is located on Russell Road approximately 350
north of Meeker Street.
•-- APPLICATION FILED: June 23 , 1988
DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE: June 23 , 1988
HEARING DATE: August 17, 1988
RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: August 31, 1988
RECOMMENDATION: CONDITIONAL APPROVAL
STAFF REPRESENTATIVES: Kathy McClung, Planning Department
Greg McCormick, Planning Department
Ed White, Public Works Department
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Neil Sullivan, Parks Department
WRITTEN TESTIMONY: None
INTRODUCTION
After due consideration of the evidence presented by the applicant, all
evidence elicited during the public hearing, and as a result of the
personal inspection of the subject property by the Hearing Examiner, the
following findings of fact and conclusions shall constitute the
recommendation of the Hearing Examiner on this application.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant, the City of Kent Parks Department, seeks a rezone
from RA, Residential Agricultural, to GC, General Commercial.
2 . The subject site is 2 . 4 acres in size and is located on Russell Road
in the vicinity of Meeker Street approximately 350 feet north of
Meeker Street.
1
Findings and Recommendation
City of Kent Parks Riverbend Golf Course
#RZ-88-3
3 . The subject property is part of a City-owned parcel which is
currently being developed for a new 18-hole golf course. Currently
the southern half of the subject property is zoned GC. The evidence
establishes that the northern portion of the lot is zoned RA,
Residential Agricultural, and that zoning in the vicinity to the
north and west is Residential Agricultural as well . As previously
indicated, land to the south is zoned GC, General Commercial, and
to the east MHP, Mobile Home Park, and MRM, Medium Density
Multifamily Residential.
4 . The subject rezone request contains no site-specific development
plan. However, the City proposes to possibly sell the parcel and
the rezone will provide for uses which will be compatible and
complementary with the golf course use. Staff suggests that the
subject site may be developed as an upscale motel or restaurant in
the future.
5. The site is relatively flat and undeveloped and covered with native
grasses.
6. The site is served by existing water and sanitary sewer systems and
pursuant to the City of Kent Public Works Department's
recommendation, a drainage plan will not be required for the rezone
application.
7 . The evidence establishes that the site has frontage on both West
Meeker Street as well as Russell Road. The first of these two
streets is classified as a minor arterial and improved with three
lanes of asphalt paving and related appurtenances. The average
daily traffic count on the street is almost 20, 000 vehicle trips per
day.
8 . The Comprehensive Plan Map designates the subject site as
Multifamily Residential , as does the Valley Floor Plan Map.
9 . The staff report, with its recommendation of conditional approval,
is incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan and Valley Floor Plan contain goals
and policies to guide decision makers with respect to zoning in the
Valley Floor area.
2 . In addition, certain rezone criteria are considered in determining
whether a rezone request is appropriate.
2
Findings and Recommendation
City of Kent Parks Riverbend Golf Course
#RZ-88-3
3 . The first of these criteria is that the proposed rezone is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The rezone as proposed is
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive
Plan Map designates the site for multiple family residential uses.
However, in light of the zoning on the southern portion of the
parcel which is already zoned GC, by increasing the size of the
parcel zoned GC, uses which are compatible with both the surrounding
commercial development and the golf course use can be encouraged.
4 . Further, it must be established that the proposed rezone and
subsequent development of the site is compatible with development
in the vicinity. The evidence establishes that the City intends to
have a condition in the sales agreement in order to ensure that
future commercial development on the site will be compatible with
the City's golf course use. As a result of the fact that the City
intends to exercise some control over future development of the
site, the proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site
will be compatible with development in the vicinity, specifically
the golf course development.
5. Further, it must be established that the proposed rezone will not
unduly burden the transportation system. Unfortunately the
transportation impacts cannot be anticipated at this time as a
result of the fact that no development plans for the rezone
accompany the application. Once a site-specific development
proposal is submitted through the environmental review process
traffic mitigation measures can be imposed.
6. Further, it must be established that circumstances have changed
-. substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district
to warrant the proposed rezone. This criteria is established by the
evidence in that development on Meeker Street has become
increasingly commercial and exercising a degree of control over the
future development of this parcel to ensure its compatibility with
the golf course site will be beneficial to the citizens of the City
of Kent.
7 . Finally, it must be established that the proposed rezone will not
adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the
citizens of the City of Kent. This criteria is established by the
evidence.
RECOMMENDATION
For each of the above reasons, the recommendation of the City of Kent
Hearing Examiner to the Kent City Council is CONDITIONAL APPROVAL,
subject to the following condition:
3
Findings and Recommendation
City of Kent Parks Riverbend Golf Course
#RZ-88-3
1. Deed to the City 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 foot right-of-way radius
at the intersection of Meeker Street.
Dated this 31st day of August, 1988.
t
DIANE L. VANDERBEEK
Hearing Examiner
Request for Reconsideration
Any party of- record who feels the decision of the Examiner is based on
error of procedure, fact or judgment, or the discovery of new evidence
may file a written request for reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner
no later than 14 days of the date of the decision. Reconsideration
requests should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner, 220 S. Fourth Avenue,
Kent, WA 98032 .
Notice of Right to Appeal
The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written appeal to
Council is filed by a party of record within 14 days of the decision.
The appeal must be filed with the City Clerk and state the basis of
appeal which may be errors of fact, procedural errors, omissions from the
record, errors in interpretations of the Comprehensive Plan or new
evidence. See Ordinance #2233 and Resolution #896 for specific
information.
4
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES
August 8 , 1988
The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to
order . by the presiding officer, Diane L. VanDerbeek, Hearing
Examiner, on Wednesday, August 8 , 1988 at 4 :00 p.m. in the Kent
City Hall, Council Chambers.
Ms. VanDerbeek requested all those intending to speak at the
hearing and those wishing to receive information concerning the
hearing, to sign in at the sign up sheet by the door. Staff
reports, agendas, and the description of procedure of the hearing
were available by the door. Ms. VanDerbeek briefly described the
sequence and procedure of the hearing. All those who intended to
speak were sworn in.
CITY OF KENT PARKS DEPARTMENT
RIVERBEND GOLF COURSE
Rezone
#RZ-88-3
The first item on the agenda was a public hearing to consider the
request by the City of Kent Parks Department, 220 S. Fourth
Avenue, Kent, WA 98032 , to rezone 2 . 4 acres from RA, Residential
Agricultural, to GC, General Commercial. The subject property is
located on Russell Road approximately 350 feet north of
West Meeker Street.
(1-90) Greg McCormick, Kent Planning Department presented the
-- staff report. View foils were shown depicting: 1) location of
the site and 2) the zoning of the surrounding property and site.
A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on June 23 , 1988.
A video of the site was shown.
The Comprehensive and Valley Floor Plan were addressed. Five of .
the eight criteria required were reviewed. A complementary use
to the golf course would have a positive effect on the area. The
Planning staff recommends approval of this request. The GC,
General Commercial, area is about 350 feet wide in this area.
(1-470) Kathy McClung, Planning Department, remarked that
Brent McFall, City Administrator, had stated that the sale
agreement would be tied to a site specific plan. In addition, if
the property was not constructed per the plan, the site would
revert to the City.
1
Hearing Examiner Minutes
August 8, 1988
(1-573 ) Ed White, Assistant Traffic Engineer, commented a
pedestrian signal is planned to be placed in the area of Meeker
Street and the pro shop. The Public Works Department is in the
process of obtaining the controller for the light, so the light
will be going in as part of the golf course development.
(1-642) Neil Sullivan, Parks Department, commented there should
not be a conflict between the existing uses and the golf course.
The club house will be exiting onto Meeker Street. However, it
was felt the ingress/egress for the subject property would be onto
Russell Road. Direct access will not be allowed from the subject
property to the golf course.
There was no public testimony.
The hearing closed at 4 : 40 p.m.
HAWKRIDGE
Preliminary Plat
#SU-88-2
The second item on the agenda was a public hearing to consider the
request by Thomas Drangsholt, 26221 Woodland Way S. , Kent, WA
98032, for a 20-lot preliminary plat known as Hawkridge. The
property contains ten acres and is located in a R1-7. 2 , Single
Family Residential, zoning district which requires a minimum lot
size of 7, 200 square feet. The property is located west of
Woodland Way at S. 262nd Street.
(1-756) Lauri Anderson, Kent Planning Department, presented the
staff report. View foils were shown depicting 1) the location of
the site; 2) the zoning of the surrounding property and subject
property; and 3) a site plan of the plots. The property is fairly
level to the east and then slopes to the southwest. It drops off
sharply at the southwest point and is considered to be a ravine
wall. The Drangsholt home will be located on proposed lot 7 . A
video tape of the property was shown.
All lots meet the minimum 7, 200 square foot size for the R1-7 . 2,
zoning district. Lots 6, 7 , 12 , 13 and 14 are closest to the
slope which is classified as a severe hazardous area. There
cannot be any impervious surface or removal of vegetation on the
severe hazardous area. On lots 13 , 14 , and 12 , because of the 75
foot setback requirement from the top of a ravine, the Planning
Department is concerned about the amount of buildable space. One
2
KENT PLANNING AGENCY
STAFF REPORT
FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF AUGUST 17, 1988
FILE NO: CITY OF KENT PARKS RIVERBEND GOLF COURSE
#RZ-88-3
APPLICANT: City of Kent Parks Department
REOUEST: A request to rezone approximately 2 .4 acres of
land from RA, Residential Agricultural, to GC,
General Commercial.
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE: Greg McCormick
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Description of the Proposal
The City of Kent Parks Department is requesting a rezone of
approximately 2 .4 acres of City owned property located
adjacent to the site of the new 18-hole golf course club
house from an existing zoning of RA, Residential
Agricultural, to GC, General Commercial. The southern half
of this property is presently zoned GC.
B. Location
The property is located on Russell Road approximately
350 feet north of Meeker Street.
C. Size of Property
The subject property is approximately 2.4 acres in size and
is part of a larger parcel that is approximately five acres.
D. Zonina
The southern one-half of the subject parcel is zoned GC,
General Commercial. The northern portion of the lot is zoned
RA, Residential Agricultural. Zoning in the area includes;
north and west - RA, Residential Agricultural ; south - GC,
_. General Commercial ; and east - MHP, Mobile Home Park and MRM,
Medium Density Multifamily Residential.
1
Staff Report
City of Kent Parks Department
Riverbend Golf Course
#RZ-88-3
E. Comprehensive Plan
The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive Land
Use Plan in 1969 . The goals, objectives and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan represent an expression of community
intentions and aspirations concerning the future of Kent and
the area within the Sphere of Interest. The Comprehensive
Plan is used by the Mayor, City Council , City Administrator,
Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner and City departments to
guide growth , development, and spending decisions .
Residents, land developers, business representatives and
others may refer to the plan as a statement of the City's
intentions concerning future development.
The City of Kent has also adopted a number of subarea plans
that address specific concerns of certain areas of the City.
Like the City-wide Plan, the subarea plans serve as policy
guides for future land use in the City of Kent. This site
lies within the area covered by the Valley Floor Plan. This
Plan also includes goals, objectives, and policies which
apply to the area and complement the overall City-wide
Comprehensive Plan. The following is a review of each of the
above referenced Plans as they relate to the. proposed rezone.
CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ECONOMIC ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: PROMOTE CONTROLLED ECONOMIC GROWTH WITH
ORDERLY PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT, RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND
PRESERVATION.
GOAL 4 : Assure a stable diverse economic base for the City.
Planning Department Comment
The City is currently developing an 18 hole-golf course on
the north side of Meeker Street between the Kent-Des Moines
Road and Russell Road. This will provide a major recreation
opportunity for residents and visitors to the Kent area. The
development of a complementary use such as a motel or
restaurant will be a positive addition to the economic sector
of the City.
2
Staff Report
City of Kent Parks Department
Riverbend Golf Course
#RZ-88-3
VALLEY FLOOR PLAN
ECONOMIC ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: PROMOTE CONTROLLED ECONOMIC GROWTH WITH
ORDERLY PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT, RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND
PRESERVATION.
GOAL 2 : Assure suitable locations for commercial
developments.
Objective 1: Minimize adverse physical impacts of strip
commercial developments.
Policy 1: Encourage planned retail commercial
business developments.
Planning Department Comment
There are no specific development plans associated with the
rezone request. However, granting the requested rezone will
provide a usable parcel next to the City's new golf course
facility. This location will encourage the development of an
upscale motel, restaurant, or other complementary use that
will provide a planned commercial development that will be a
positive addition to the City of Kent.
II. HISTORY
A. Site History
The subject property was annexed into the City in June of
1958 under Ordinance 984 which was an 1, 100-acre annexation.
The parcel involved in the subject rezone action was
purchased two to three years ago by the City for the
development of the golf course. It was known as the Bond
property prior to being purchased by the City. The property
was used primarily for agriculture in the past with a
single-family residence on Meeker Street near the
Green River.
B. Area History
The Kent Valley was primarily an agricultural area until the
late 1950 ' s when a distinct effort was made to attract
industrial development. With the addition of the regional
_. transportation system improvements which included
Interstates 5 and 405 and SR-167 along with the flood control
3
Staff Report
City of Kent Parks Department
Riverbend Golf Course
#RZ-88-3
improvements to the Green River system, the improvements were
in place to attract more intense development of the Kent
Valley.
The City of Kent went through a period of aggressive
annexations in the late 1950 's and early 1960's which
resulted in the City growing from a little over one square
mile in land area in 1953 to 12.7 square miles in 1960. By
1970, the major land use changes which were occuring made
the direction of growth in the valley obvious. Many new
industries located operations in Kent and the agriculture
operations in the valley all but ceased. Those development
trends have continued to the present time. However, there
has been a shift from solely industrial development to a mix
of industrial , commercial, and multifamily development
occurring in the valley in recent years.
III. LAND USE
Land uses in the vicinity are a mixture of commercial,
public, and multifamily residential. Specifically, the land
uses in the vicinity are:
North: the Green River borders the site to the north,
northeast of the site is the City's Russell Road
Park complex.
South: the City of Kent's golf complex and the
Riverwood Apartment complex.
East: Mirabella's Restaurant, a small multifamily
residential development, and a mobile home park.
West: immediately west of the subject parcel will be
the club house for the new 18 hole City golf
course.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
A. Environmental Assessment
A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued for the
proposed rezone on June 23 , 1988 .
4
-- Staff Report
City of Kent Parks Department
Riverbend Golf Course
#RZ-88-3
B. Significant Physical Features
1. Topography and Hydrology
The site is relatively flat with slopes of less than two
(2) percent. There are no apparent hydrologic problems
on the site.
2 . Vegetation
The site is undeveloped and covered with native grasses
and some older fruit trees. When development occurs on
the site, it is anticipated that the existing vegetation
,._• will be removed and replaced with formal landscaping to
meet zoning code requirements.
C. Significant Social Features
1. Street System
The subject property has frontage on both West -Meeker
and on Russell Road. West Meeker Street is classified
as a minor arterial. The street has a public
right-of-way width of 60 feet while the actual width of
paving is 44 feet. West Meeker is improved with three
lanes of asphalt paving, curb and gutter, storm water
drainage, sidewalks, and street lighting. The average
daily traffic count on the street is 19, 600 vehicle
trips per day.
_• 2 . Water System
Existing 12-inch water main lines are available in both
Meeker Street and Russell Road to serve the subject
property.
3 . Sanitary Sewer System
There is an existing 24-inch sewer main adjacent to the
property in Meeker Street which is available to serve
the subject property.
4 . Storm Water System
The City of Kent Public Works Department has determined
that a drainage plan is not required for this
application. Storm water impacts will be evaluated at
such time a specific development plan is submitted for
this site.
5
Staff Report
City of Kent Parks Department
Riverbend Golf Course
#RZ-88-3
5. LID's
The subject property is covered by LID 297.
V. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
The following departments and agencies were advised of this
application:
City Administrator City Attorney
Director of Public Work Chief of Police
Parks & Recreation Director Fire Chief
Building Official City Clerk
In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies
within 200 feet of the site were notified of the application and
of the public hearing.
Staff comments have been incorporated in the staff report where
applicable.
VI. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
The Planning Department has reviewed this application in relation
to the Comprehensive Plan, present zoning, land use, street
system, flood control problems and comments from other departments
and finds that:
A. The City Wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates the subject
property MF, Multifamily Residential. The Valley Floor Plan
Map designates the property as MF, Multifamily Residential.
B. The site is currently split zoned. The southern half of the
lot is zoned GC, General Commercial, while the northern
portion is zoned RA, Residential Agricultural .
C. The site is currently vacant; surrounding land uses include
commercial, residential , and public/open space uses.
D. The site has access to Meeker Street which is classified as a
minor arterial. The average daily traffic count on Meeker
Street is 19, 600 vehicle trips per day.
E. There are no apparent flood control problems on the site.
F. The following standards and criteria shall be used by the
Hearing Examiner and City Council to evaluate a request for
6
Staff Report
City of Kent Parks Department
Riverbend Golf Course
#RZ-88-3
rezone. Such an amendment shall only be granted if the City
Council determines that the request is consistent with these
standards and criteria. The staff has reviewed the rezone
request in light of these standards and criteria and have
made the following findings:
1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Planning Department Comment
The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates the subject
property as MF, Multifamily Residential, which is also the
designation of the property on the Valley Floor Plan Map.
The requested rezone is not consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan Maps for this property, however, the zoning of the
northern portion of the parcel to commercial to unify the
zoning with the southern portion would make sense from a land
use perspective given the surrounding uses and the
development of the new golf course facility adjacent to the
west of the subject property.
2 . The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the
site would be compatible with development in the
vicinity.
Planning Department Comment
As discussed in the Land Use section earlier in this report,
there is a mixture of land uses in the area which consist of
residential, commercial, and open space/recreation. The
proposed rezone and subsequent development of this parcel is
expected to be a complementary use to the golf course and
should be a positive addition to the City.
In order to insure that the development will be built with a
project compatible with the golf course, the City will have a
condition in the sale agreement that the property be
developed with a hotel/restaurant. The design of the project
will also have to meet with the City's approval.
3 . The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the
transportation system in the vicinity of the property
with significant adverse impacts which cannot be
mitigated.
Planning Department Comment
There are no development plans for this parcel at the current
time. Therefore, the Traffic Engineering Division cannot
7
Staff Report
City of Kent Parks Department
Riverbend Golf Course
#RZ-88-3
assess the transportation impacts on the transportation
system at this time. However, the rezoning of the 2 . 4 acres
from a large lot residential/agricultural zone to a
commercial zone will allow uses that will generate a
substantially higher number of vehicle trips. The specific
impacts and mitigation measures will be determined at such
time a development proposal is submitted to the City for
environmental review. It is anticipated that the traffic
impacts from subsequent development of this parcel can be
mitigated.
4 . Circumstances have changed substantially since the
establishment of the current zoning district to warrant
the proposed rezone.
Planning Department Comment
The situation on Meeker Street and the surrounding area has
changed significantly in the past few years. Residential
development has increased in the area, commercial development
is occurring along Meeker and the development of the City's
golf course facility have all contributed to the change in
land use patterns in this part of the city.
5. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the
health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of
the City of Kent.
Planning Department Comment
The rezoning of this 2 . 4 acre parcel is not anticipated to
adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of
the citizens of Kent and should be a positive addition to our
city. In addition, environmental review of the subsequent
development of this site will ensure the public's welfare and
safety are maintained.
VII. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
After reviewing the merits of the requested rezone in light of
applicable plans, goals, policies, objectives, comments from other
departments, and current land use patterns in the area, the Kent
Planning staff recommends that the requested rezone be APPROVED
with the following condition:
1. Deed to the City 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 foot
right-of-way radius at the intersection of Meeker Street.
8
CITY OF KENT
planning .
ro
-o
PY
_ n
-41
. n
N
M••
j r -
4:-
NIX
r.....�.. .. - r. v .__
''
ilo I
IIV /
i s
i
o siil " 1 `G,''
„��
ILA
MGM
d ,� \ -
I ,
APPLICATION Name city of Kent GolfGourse Rezone LEGEND
Number Rz aR_i Dale Aij9w t17 1988 application site
Request_Rp7nno 7 4 arre, from RA to GC zoning boundary
city limits
Zoning/Topography 1•1ap
SCALE = 111 a 400'
CITY OF KENT
planning .
a.
KENT c
1 " 1978 POPULATIOi! 15,400 s`
1 ` 1983 POPULATION 24,500Av
a
je y r
e a
a �1,1
'z3 lnMts ST 14 11
23 2
a W' .I II
[CITY LIMITS
W SMI
0
" sr
n[aT :+rn
ranP s s xurH Sr
bll xuTNr ,,
cr >o
ao
ST No1HLa
OSL
N �
ar
SI6 l^\ SU
!� sr ° Colony Park -
0 o e Goo Cour se / �I M1°sa3aA�
« 252ho Ix
sT .`;off
ST y
ts3 oa ar4 •t i � � �..' a ~1 1
Vnl�, •i xl ln• y1 }
a�r•rrr�l ^ M -J 1` 4 �1
e° f aanl sr
22
• b I ------ -- --'--- - ------ J 7 231 2425
..
x
� r • I E
M f ta°TH
• i � I i o s xarL�� 1� /r l;• Y � �
xeraw sr r t ., V
r w b 2u.3 It • �~ fy Mir•. .;' !
�1 41 •r,,,rlau.Tn .
t
' w rR•rr M
4
'rron WA'
APPLICATION Name City of Kent Golf course Rp7nnp LEGEND :
Number RZ-ii8-3 Dale August 17 1c)AA17 19AR application site
Request Rezone 2.4 acres from RA to GC zoning boundary
city limits
Vicinity Map -
SCALE iH = i,000l
�y
Kent City Council Meeting
N Date September 20, 1988
Category err P, �
1. SUBJECT: WUTC - WASTE COLLECTION
Authorization is requested to
--. 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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 temporary 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.
3 . EXHIBITS: Draft of letter to WUTC.
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee September 13, 1988.
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS: N/A
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4c
r�
l 1
DRAFT LETTER TO WUTC
September 15, 1988
Mr. Paul Curl
Acting Secretary
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
Chandler Plaza Building
1300 Evergreen Park Drive South
Olympia, Washington 98504
RE: Applications GA-845 and GA-851
Dear Mr. Curl :
At the direction of the Kent City Council , I am writing to advise you that
since the City of Kent discontinued its own garbage and refuse utility service
at the end of 1986 and reverted to reliance upon WUTC certificated haulers,
the City of Kent has had the benefit of garbage and refuse service from both
Rabanco's Kent Disposal and RST Disposal d/b/a Tri-Star. The garbage and
refuse services provided by both companies to commercial and residential
customers in the City of Kent has been outstanding in every respect. The
customers, both commercial and residential , have come to rely on the excellent
services of both companies.
It is the position of the City of Kent that both commercial and residential
customers within the City would suffer if they lost the services of either
company. The overlap of service and the competition created thereby has been
extremely beneficial to the City of Kent and all of its residents. The loss
of either service, therefore, would be detrimental .
To conclude, therefore, I am writing at the direction of the Kent City Council
to express the position of the City of Kent and to urge the Washington
Utilities and Transportation Commission to preserve the status quo by
permitting both companies to operate throughout our city limits on a permanent
basis.
Sincerely,
J. Brent McFall
City Administrator
2800A-2A
Recycling Issue
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 - that would resolve the
question.
Approval by Biteman and Johnson to place on Council agenda.
{ klr. f,
`Kent City�'ouncil Meeting
Date September 20 1986
Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: UPPER MILL CREEK DETENTION BASIN
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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. It is recommended that the bids be rejected and that
the project be readvertised.
3 . EXHIBITS: Executive summary, bid proposal evaluations and
recommendation
4. RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF_FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember "1 moves, Councilmember !dam =— seconds
that bids rece' ed for the expansion of the Upper Mill Creek
Detention Basin be rejected and the project be readvertised.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 5A
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
September 15, 1988
TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom �ImJ
SUBJ: Upper Mill Creek Detention Basin
The bids were opened on September 14th with two bids received, as
summarized below. The low bid was submitted by Volker
Stevin/Pacific in the amount of $713,460 which was 26% over the
Engineer's Estimate.
Because there were only two bids, it is difficult to ascertain if
the bids are reflective of the true price. As such since the low
bid significantly exceeds the Engineer's Estimate, it is the
recommendation of the Public Works Director that the bids for the
expansion of the Upper Mill Creek Detention Basin be rejected and
the project be re-advertised.
Bid Amount
Volker Stevin/Pacific $713, 460
Tri State Construction $747, 528
Engineer's Estimate $566 000
n
Kent City Council Meeting
. l Date September 20, 1988
X v� Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: NEIGHBORHOOD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Five bids were received 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.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Don Wickstrom.
4. RECOMMENDED BY:Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
1
Councilmember Y , moves, Councilmember seconds
to reject all i s and to readvertise for the pWject.
DISCUSSION: - �
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 5B
DEPART= OF PUBLIC WORKS
SEPIEMBER 15, 1988
TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom C�
SUBJECT: Neighborhood Pedestrian Improvement (South of Willis Street)
The bid opening for this project was held 9-15-88 with 7 bids
received(summary attached) . The two lowest bids were determined non-
responsive since several required signatures were omitted from the
proposals. Because the third low bid exceeds the Budget for the project it
is recommended by the Director of Public Works that council reject all of
the bids and readvertise the project. To save a two week delay it is also
requested that Council take action at this meeting.
i
NEIGHBORHOOD PEDFSTIRAN ImPROVIIMENT (SOUTH OF WILT-1S)
BID OPENING HELD 9-15-88
1. JUAREZ CONSTRUCTION $46,199.50
2. DESIGN MMMPRISES, INC $52,221.10
3. FODO CONSTRUCTION $58,952.00
4. GARY M MLINO $64,088.00
5. RODAR'TE CONSTRUCTION INC. $69,646.00
6. J.C. ENTERPRISES $69,730.50
7. R. W. SOOTT CONSTRUCTION $79,632.00
R E P 0 R T S
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT
B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
----------
PLANNING COMMITTEE
D. 71
Yl v
E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
F. PARKS COMMITTEE_ /,Ltu---
G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES
September 1 , 1988
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Christi Houser
Paul Mann
Steve Dowell
Jim White
STAFF PRESENT: Brent McFall
Tony McCarthy
Rex Tippery
Norm Angelo
Bill Williamson
Kevin Kearns
Marty Mulholland
Bob Olsen
Alana McIalwain
Jim Hanson
OTHERS PRESENT: Leona Orr, Citizen
Doug Clackinbaum, Developer
Bob Fadden, Architect
APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS
All claims for the period ending August 31 , 1988, in the amount of $809,564.86
were approved for payment.
OFFICE BUILDING PROJECT
City Administrator, Brent McFall , brought the Committee up to date on the
proposed public-private partnership project. He noted in his presentation
that the City population has doubled since the initial City Hall was built
twenty years ago, resulting in increased staffing needs. He also noted that
in an attempt to address the City's space needs, the City is also trying to
stimulate downtown revitalization. In an effort to do this, we've asked for a
Statement of Qualifications to build a building on City-owned land, to meet
both staffing needs and downtown revitalization efforts.
Operations Committee Minutes
September 1 , 1988
Page 2
Brent, the Mayor, Council Member Woods and department representatives from
Public Works, Fire and Planning reduced the eight responses to the Statement
of Qualifications to three, and selected Sound Ventures as the firm to develop
the project. Brent introduced Doug Clackinbaum, the developer who provided
preliminary plans to the Council on the layout of the building. He noted that
this would be a Class A office building, and that he had heard there are many
tenants in the area who would be desiring to move out Class B office space
into Class A office space. The facility would be a five-story building, with
the first floor being retail , the second floor containing the City Permit
Center (which would have direct access from the parking lot) , and third floor
for use by other City staff (with a pedestrian bridge connecting it to
existing City Hall ). The fourth and fifth floors would be rented out to
private individuals, with leases structured so that the City would have the
option to move into that space at future times. This would encompass Phase I
of the project, which would be approximately $7-8 million project. Phase II
would be to demolish the Engineering Building and construct a $4-6 million
compatible building on that site. The two-phase construction allows the City
to remain in the Engineering Building until completion of the project. With
questions from the Council Members it was noted that building would be owned
by Public-Private Partnership, which would purchase the land from both the
City and the Catholic Church and that the parking garage associated with the
facility would add 156 new parking spaces above that taken away by the new
building.
Based on this input, City Administrator McFall asked the Council for
permission to continue working on negotiations related to land sale, street
closure, and lease terms and to provide updated information to the Committee
and to the Council prior to obtaining authorization to sign those agreements.
After much discussion, the Committee felt comfortable with the process. They
were hesitant at first, concerned that maybe the staff was moving ahead; to /
fast, but were assured that no final negotiations would be contemplated until
future reviews with the Committee were undertaken. The timeline for the
project, assuming Council approval at second Council Meeting in September,
would be for construction to be complete in November 1989.
i
Operations Committee Minutes
September 1 , 1988
Page 3
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM PROCESS
City Administrator McFall introduced the subject by saying it was a policy
issue, and although there will be cost and some administrative process, the
Council should decide the issue based on policy. City Attorney Williamson
noted that his studies revealed that the City of Yakima is the only city in
the State who has had a recent initiative effort; it cost approximately
$25,000, which amounted to a 25¢ per signature for validation. This study was
verified by a similar process in California. Before instituting a process,
Bill noted that there are other factors to consider:
Whether there are other ways to get the public information to the Council
and the Mayor, based on an open-door policy;
Whether the process could be abused by having many issues that don't
really qualify;
The drafting of ballot issues is a controversial subject and is
time-consuming;
-- Possibly considering an opinion poll , as opposed to this process; and
That our City Ordinances would have to wait an additional 30 days prior to
implementation, with this kind of a process.
Following the presentation, the concept of an advisory ballot was discussed as
an alternative. The Attorney felt this process could be allowed within the
City, and wouldn't be as costly as the other process, as there would be no
validation, of signatures, etc. The results of such a ballot would only be
advisory But it would be there for the Council to consider. Based on this,
the Attorney's office will provide additional information about advisory
ballots.
CONTRACTS FOR COMMAND DATA FOR FIRE
Firefighter Kevin Kearns told the Committee that the Fire Department had been
-- I
looking long and hard at computerization. He noted that Command Data had been
an early choice of both the Fire and the Police Departments. Police had
Operations Committee Minutes
September 1 , 1988
Page 4
already implemented the Command Data System. The City has acquired portions
of fire systems from a former vendor, but that vendor was no longer
operational . Command Data has recently produced a fire product that runs on
Hewlitt Packard. The Fire Department would like to negotiate the contract
with Command Data, with the capital costs of such effort coming out of the
Public Safety Bond Issue Project, with minor amounts for annual maintenance
coming out of the City's General Fund. The Council Committee unanimously
approved this request.
DRI14KING DRIVER TASK FORCE FURNITURE
City Administrator McFall noted that the Drinking Driver Task Force recently
moved to the Commons on a temporary move until the Police Department is 1
relocated in the Library. Prior to their move, they had been working with III
old, used furniture and had shared a very crowded work environment. Based on
this, he is asking for an additional supplemental appropriation of $2,750 for
new furniture. The Committee unanimously approved this request.
JULY SUMMARY FINANCIAL REPORT
Finance Director McCarthy noted that the July Financial Report continued to
show a strong economic gain for the City. Building permits were up
substantially, running 61% ahead of budget estimates. He noted that this
activity provides future property, sales and utility taxes for the City.
Thus, the City continues to have a strong economic outlook. Based upon this
information, 1989 Budget has been forecasted and provides approximately
$1 ,000,000 for program improvement items , including: all new people, any new
capital outlay items, tools, and furniture. More information on the 1989
. i
budget will be brought back to the Council at future meetings. I
i
CUSTODIAL STAFFING
Finance Director McCarthy introduced Custodial Supervisor Rex Tippery, and
noted that the Council knew Rex better than most City staff, because he ' s
i
always around when they have their Council Meetings. The request before the
Operations Committee Minutes
September 1 , 1988
Page 5
Committee is to convert a regular part-time person and a temporary part-time
person to one full -time position, with an additional appropriation for
four part-time hours per week. The request is based on the fact that Rex has
assumed the custodial duties not only at the City Hall , Library and
Engineering Building, but also the City Shops. That takes him away from some
direct work within City Hall . In addition, the City has added a recycling
i
program, had additional carpeting areas and remodeling of the Police
Department, and now picks up trash outside the City ' s facilities. These
additional tasks have added approximately four hours per week, and can be
absorbed by converting 2 part-time positions to full time, with a net cost of
approximately $4,000 per year. The Committee had no problem with this
request, approving on a 3-0 vote, and noted that Rex and his staff have done
an excellent job in keeping the building clean.
CONTRIBUTIONS FOR HARRY HANSON TO ATTEND INTERNATIONAL POLICE OLYMPICS
Lieutenant Bill Mitchell of the Police Department noted that Officer Harry
Hanson had been with the City for approximately one year, but has been in law
enforcement for 20 years. Harry recently competed in the regional and
national Olympics, winning a combination of 9 gold medals. He had
participated in these events through use of his own funds, and contributions
from the Police Guild. His efforts have qualified him to compete in the
International Police Olympics in Australia in October. To do this , he must
raise approximately $3,000 to make the trip. Part of this money will be
raised by individuals , and local businesses. Officer Mitchell asked the City
i
for a contribution of about $500, noting that he has provided the medals to
the City, and is representing both the City and the Kent Police Department.
Based on this, the motion was made to authorize the payment for transportation i
-- and accommodations, up to $500, from. the City ' s General Fund.
I
I
-- i
Operations Committee Minutes _.
September 1 , 1988
Page 6
COUNCIL CHAMBERS REMODELING
City Administrator McFall noted that the call for bid will be done in late
September, with authorization planned for the October 18 Council Meeting.
Construction is to begin in November, to be completed by February 1989.
Council Members thanked Brent for that input, noting that sometimes these
small projects take longer to get going than large private-public project
discussed earlier in the meeting.
66F-OlF
` I
KENT CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE
September 6, 1988 3 : 30 PM
Committee Members Present Others Present
Judy Woods, Chair Sharon Atkin
Steve Dowell Kenny Britson
Jon Johnson Bill Carleton
Pete Curran
Staff Present Mary Eckfeldt
Chris Leady
Charlene Anderson Dee Moschel
Lin Ball Ned Nelson
Stephen Clifton Francine Russell
Jim Hansen Mr. & Mrs. Stewart
Jim Harris Carol Stoner
Carolyn Lake
Greg McCormick
Fred Satterstrom
Dan Stroh
Don Wickstrom
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - 1989 PROGRAM
Lin Ball stated $208, 167 is the latest estimate of Kent's portion of Block
Grant funding for 1989 . The Public (Human) Services ceiling is $25,500 and
Planning & Administration is $10, 200. Lin recapped the project descriptions
for Planning & Administration, Housing Repair Services, North Park Tot Lot
Rehabilitation, Special Populations Resource Center Handicap Accessibility,
South King County Multi-Service Center Transitional Housing, Kent/Renton
Joint Rental Housing Rehabilitation, Kaibara Park Phase III, and Kent Para-
Transit (Van-Go) . Mary Eckfeldt, Chairman of the Human Services Commission,
briefly described the programs for Kent Single-Parent Employment & Education,
Kent Community Health Services and DAWN. Rev. Eckfeldt stated that two
applications were not being recommended for funding: Children's Therapy
Center which is recommended to be funded via General Fund, and Adult Day Care
which is recommended to be funded through Kent Parks & Recreation' s budget.
Chairwoman Woods added that it is important to note the Adult Day Care
program is being claimed as a Parks & Recreation project by the Parks
Department in their new slide presentation.
i
Lin stated that King County had just informed her there could be an
additional approximately $6, 000 for the Kent Block Grant program. Staff
recommends approximately $1800 to $2000 of the additional funding for Public
-- (Human) Services and the remainder of the $6, 000 for the BN Depot project,
which is a current H&CDBG project. Site planning and construction documents
need to be prepared to specifications and bidding for the BN Depot project.
Staff recommends that any funds beyond the $6, 000 be allocated to the Housing
Repair Services program. At the City Council meeting of September 20, the
Human Services Commission will make a recommendation on which particular
programs will be allocated these additional Public (Human) Services funds.
i
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 61 1988
Councilman Johnson MOVED and Chairwoman Woods SECONDED the motion to adopt
staff's recommendation on the 1989 Housing & Community Development Block
Grant Program including staffs recommendation on additional funding. Motion
carried.
KENT CITY LAGOON - RESOLUTION 922
Jim Harris recapped the history of the Committee's work to effect a wildlife
habitat in the lagoon area as well as provide a storm detention system. At
the last hearing on the Upland's rezone application, City Council asked about
the sewage lagoon. Mr. Harris suggested the Planning Committee resurrect the
Citizen's Advisory Board and have staff bring them up to date on events
occurring since their last meeting.
Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director, stated his department worked with a
marine biologist and the Soil Conservation Service to resolve some of the
issues on this project. The department is currently doing computer modeling
on hydraulics and stream flow measures on Mill Creek. It takes two years to
gather the data necessary to do the modeling. Mr. Wickstrom added that the
City must work with abutting property owners because a ULID is involved.
The City is waiting for other owners, including Uplands, to decide what they
plan to do with their properties. Then the Citizen's Advisory Board can
begin to work again and some technical issues can be resolved. Mr. Wickstrom
stated it is part of the Storm Drainage Plan to develop the lagoon as a storm
detention system as well as a wildlife habitat.
Carol Stoner, a member of the Citizen's Advisory Board, stated she and Lauri
Johnson had contacted Ted Knapp to request the Board be notified of any
action in this area in time to bring the Board up to speed and able to
respond. She added that it appears something will be happening within the
next year.
Councilman Johnson MOVED and Chairwoman Woods SECONDED the motion to
resurrect the Citizen's Advisory Board, to be notified and begin to meet to
review the events that have occurred since their last meeting. Motion
carried.
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. j
Curran stated there is only one commercial district on East Hill. He i
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 Harris stated that Section 2 of Resolution #1123 directed the Planning
Commission to defer action on the East Hill commercial zoning amendments
until the East Hill Sub-area Plan is completed. The Planning Department read
that to mean stop work on the East Hill Plan. Staff looked at Resolution
#1123 as directing the department to look at the Comprehensive Plan
neighborhood by neighborhood. Staff will consider the commercial areas as
well as the housing element when looking at the East Hill Plan as part of the
_.. implementation of Resolution #1123 . Mr. Harris stated Council will be
considering some rezones prior to the time the East Hill Plan is completed.
Jim Hansen asked if the Council can render a decision on the Ruth rezone
without a decision having been made on the East Hill Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Harris answered yes and added that the applicant was advised that they didn't
have to try for a Comprehensive Plan change since there was already some
commercial zoning on their parcel of land.
NEXT MEETING DATE
i
The next meeting of the City Council Planning Committee will be September 20,
1988 .
5
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
August 23 , 1988
PRESENT: Jon Johnson Jim Hansen
Berne Biteman Jerry McCaughan
Don Wickstrom Alana McIalwain
Brent McFall Mimi Castillo
Gary Gill Jewel Melton
Bill Williamson Tim Canfield
Ken Morris
MARI-PARR PLAT STREET VACATION
Wickstrom explained that in order to develop the plat there is a -
need to vacate portions of the street. Mr. Canfield stated he had
originally applied for vacation of all of S. 234th Street. This
was denied because of the protest of an abutting property owner.
He asked if the half of the street that abutted his property could
be vacated. Bill Williamson explained that the term abutting
property owners excludes the City' s interest as a dedicated right
holder of the street itself. If the City does not own the property
on either side of the street then we are not an abutting property
owner. Williamson continued it was his opinion that the City could
not vacate one half of the street. Case study revealed no cases
dealing with this specific situation; however, if at the time the
street was dedicated no portion came off the property to the north
then the current property owner may not be considered an abutting
owner. Williamson said he would research the history of the
property. It was clarified for Biteman that if it was all one
parcel at the time the street was dedicated then the property to
the north would be considered an abutting owner. It was suggested
that Mr. Canfield obtain a title report. Mr. Canfield asked if the
City could provide the date that the City was dedicated.
UPDATE ON SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION ON S.E. 236TH PLACE
Wickstrom stated that both property owners had been contacted.
Benchmark Investment Company, the real estate branch of the bank,
will be receiving bids for the sidewalk construction within the
next two-three weeks. They will then turn the information over to
the bank for further consideration. The property owner to the east
has indicated he is not interested in pursuing the construction of
the sidewalks. McFall asked if we would be able to force the
construction of the sidewalks. Wickstrom indicated he felt the
City had the authority to either force the construction or
construct them ourselves and put a lien against the property. That
would be a decision for the Council.
Public Works Committee
August 23, 1988
Page 2
CANYON DRIVE LEFT TURN LANES
Morris indicated he had spoken with WSDOT ,who indicated if the City
passed an ordinance reducing the speed to 35 they would take it to
the Highway Commission and proceed with reducing it to 35 and then
the City could post it. The speed limit is currently 40 MPH from
Jason to the top of the hill. WSDOT indicated they would like to
have the speed limit consistent from Central. It currently is 30
MPH from Central to Jason. Biteman stated that sounded reasonable.
Morris cited that from March of 1987 to August of 1987 there were
11 accidents. For the same time period this year there have been
only 3 . Biteman moved the speed limit be changed to 35 from
Central to the top of the hill. The Committee concurred. There
was discussion about vehicles cutting across the pylons. Johnson
asked that a response be prepared for his signature to Dr. Huber's
letter.
PROPERTY ACQUISITION 72ND AVENUE VICINITY OF S. 196TH
Wickstrom outlined the property and indicated it had recently be
placed on the market for $390, 000 which he is evaluating. The
property lies in the proposed alignment of the extension of 72nd
to connect it between 228th and 196th. Wickstrom indicated he felt
it would be better to acquire the property now rather than letting
it develop and have to condemn later. Biteman asked if we had any
liability from Western Processing. Williamson indicated that the
extension of 72nd is being addressed in the cleanup plans.
Wickstrom requested authorization to proceed with the acquisition.
Biteman moved to approve the request. The Committee concurred.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 272ND/277TH CORRIDOR
Wickstrom indicated the Attorney's office is preparing a memorandum
of understanding with the County allowing Kent to act as lead
agency for an alignment study from Central Avenue up to SR 516.
Wickstrom requested the Committee ' s approval for the Mayor to sign
the memorandum of understanding once it has been prepared. The"
Committee concurred.
UPDATE ON CITY'S RECYCLING PROGRAM
McFall stated he wanted to bring the Committee up to date on this
project and also relay a request by one of the collection
companies. McFall reviewed that the City has negotiated a contract
with Rabanco/Kent Disposal for a curbside residential recycling
Public Works Committee
August 23, 1988
Page 3
program. This was to provide recycling city-wide for single family
residences and multifamily dwellings up to 4-plexes for which Kent
would pay a fee to the collection company based upon the level of
participation. Just before the contract was signed, a ruling
issued by the Administrative Law Judges for the WUTC altered the
territories of the two companies, allowing Kent Disposal to serve
the original town site and areas annexed prior to 1957 and Tri-Star
would service those areas annexed after 1957 . one of the
difficulties presented by this ruling is that part of our recycling
agreement included a provision that Kent Disposal would petition
with WUTC to include the recycling program into their rate
structure. Secondly the term of the agreement was 18 months which
would not be a reasonable length of time in light of the WUTC
ruling for Kent Disposal to amortize their costs of the containers.
If Council determines to continue the recycling program they would
be committing to a continuation of subsidizing the program. McFall
stressed the ruling is at this time merely a proposed ruling. The
Commission itself has to make a decision so it is possible it will
be a while before we know what the franchised territories for the
two companies will be. McFall continued that Nels Johnson has
requested the City submit to the WUTC an indication that the City
would prefer a WUTC ruling allowing both companies to provide
service to the entire city. WUTC has already taken steps to
equalize their rates. McFall asked what the Committee would like
to recommend to the Council as to the city's position on the
ultimate WUTC ruling. Should the City submit a brief to the WUTC
asking that both companies be allowed to serve the entire city or
should we not do anything.
Biteman asked if WUTC viewed recyclables as garbage. McFall
replied he didn't think they had addressed that. McFall stated he
did not think there would be a legal problem if we contracted for
recycling services regardless of what happens with the franchise
territory decision by WUTC. Kent would have to decide if they want
to continue the subsidy of a recycling program over a long period
of time. Biteman commented he would like to see one collector take
care of the recycling program. McFall clarified that Biteman was
suggesting we let "nature take its course" on the WUTC ruling but
to renegotiate certain provisions of the Kent Disposal contract to
make it feasible for them to provide the service over a specified
period of time. Biteman stated an alternative would be for Kent
to go back into the garbage business. Johnson stated another
alternative might be to have the haulers petition the WUTC to have
their rates increased to incorporate the cost of the recycling.
McFall stated a potential problem with that is that Tri-Star has
a rate for residential recycling that they can charge to those they
Public Works Committee
August 23 , 1988
Page 4
sign up as recycling customers. Johnson stated he would prefer
having both companies allowed to serve the entire city. He stated
he felt the customers would be better off by having the competition
between the companies. Biteman stated he has no problems with
separate territories for each hauler but he does want the City to
have the opportunity to chose our own hauler for the recycling
program. Johnson suggested the question be put before the Council
for them to decide which way they wished to proceed on the WUTC
ruling and to renegotiate the recycling contract. Biteman
concurred.
APPEAL OF KING COUNTY SEPA DETERMINATIONS
Wickstrom informed the Committee that we have been asking the
County to require traffic mitigation of the impacts that major
developments in the County would have on Kent's streets through
-• their SEPA reviews. The County has been denying our appeals based
on the fact that there has to be an interlocal agreement for them
to require any mitigation for impacts to the City. On one recent
appeal the County upheld their decision but did confirm that SEPA
statutes require them to look at all impacts independent whether
they are in the County or City. The County now indicates they will
consider any impacts to City streets on review of future County
developments. Wickstrom explained he originally placed this item
on the agenda to inform them that we thought we might have to
approach the County Council on these appeals. However, in light
of this recent information, it appears the County will be more
cooperative in addressing our concerns.