HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 09/06/1988 w
w
CmIty
w
of K
C 'Ity Counc '11 Me
W
wAgenda
W
w
w
w
w
w
W
Office of the City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
September 6 , 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 COMMUNICATIONS
Employee of the Month
/B; Proclamation - Constitution Week
2 . PUBCyIC HEARINGS
�A/ Surplus Property l�
_Central Pre-Mix Street Vacation
rE!� Signature Pointe Appeal
3 . CONSENT CALENDAR
aMinutes
B Bills
/ Drinking Driver Task Force Donation
Appointments
Contract Renewal KCFD #37
_ F Public Safety Computer Software Contract
--6/ Supplemental Budget for Task Force
i . Personnel - Janitorial Positions
Street Vacation Hearing Date —
/J. Street Closure Permits - Ordinance ,7, -7 9
mot{! Criminal Assistance Definition - Ordinance
-' Criminal Assault - Ordinance a-799
Speed Limit Changes - Ordinance a-�soo
_AT-- Northward Business Park Bill of Sale
Pay and Pak Distribution Center Bill of Sale
Set Hearing Date Final Roll - LID 322
Set Hearing Date Final Roll - LID 323
Set Hearing Date Final Roll - LID 325
Commendation for Planning Association of Washington -
Resolution / Isa
Resolution of Support for King County Library Bond Issue / I9'3
4 . OT R BUSINESS
Hazardous Waste - Zoning Code Amendment - Ordinance o2�01
" Zoning Code Amendment - M-1 & M-2 Zones
PUD OrdinanceA5'oa
Zoning Code Amendment - Hearing Examiner
S . 272/277 Corridor Study
F. Care 'S 'iFervA - e {i�i O rt
p�u s IDS
`� P
e( Eire Dept . Apparatus
L I D 327
�6 . REPORTS
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
ADJOURNMENT
............. ..
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time,
make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly
fv heard.
A. Employee of the Month
B. Proclamation - Constitution Week
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 6, 1988
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: UPPER MILL CREEK DETENTION BASIN - SURPLUS PROPERTY
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set for a public
hearing on the sale of a house on 106th Ave. 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.
Resolution � 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 removing the house and
will reschedule the public hearing to September 20, 1988 .
3 . EXHIBITS• Resolution
•• 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE HEARING:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember &OM moves, Councilmember seconds
to adopt Resolution IM as described.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 2A
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, repealing Resolution
No. 1179, declaring a house in the vicinity of
106th Ave. S.E., Kent, to be surplus to the
City's needs and not required for public
services; and setting a public hearing pursuant
to RCW 35.94.040 for September 20, 1988.
WHEREAS, the City Council confirmed the Public Works
Committee recommendation to declare the existing dwelling
structure at 26801 106th Ave. S.E. situated in Kent in King
County, Washington, as surplus to the City's needs and not
required for providing public services; and
WHEREAS, RCW 35.94.040 requires a public hearing before
the City may cause such property to be sold and conveyed; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1179, passed by the City Council
on August 16, 1988 does not reflect certain costs of removal of
the surplus property, certain adjustments to the value of the
surplus property, nor the accurate legal descriptions; and
WHEREAS, the property is now determined by the Public
Works Department to be valued at $2,500.00; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 . Repealer . The following is hereby repealed:
Resolution No. 1179 entitled: A resolution of the City
Council of the City of Kent, Washington, declaring a house in the
vicinity of 106th Ave. S.E., located in Kent, to be surplus to the
City's needs and not required for the public services; and setting
a public hearing pursuant to RCW 35.94.040 for September 6, 1988.
,. Section 2. The existing dwelling structure at 26801
106th Ave. S.E. situate in City of Kent, King County, Washington
is not required for public service and is surplus to the City's
needs.
Section 3. A public hearing before the Kent City Council
shall be held September 20, 1988 at 7 p.m. in the Kent City Hall.
Section 4. Notices of said hearing shall be placed at
three conspicuous locations on or adjacent to the subject property
and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of
Kent.
Section 5. The successful bidder shall be required to
enter an agreement which is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this _ day of 1988.
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this
day of , 1988.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, the day of , 1988.
(SEAL.)
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
0601-22o
2
AGREEMENT
THE CITY OF KENT, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington,
" hereinafter "City", and
hereinafter "Purchaser", enter into the following Agreement for the removal of
an existing dwelling structure located at 26801 106th Ave. S.E. , Kent,
Washington 98032.
WHEREAS, the City of Kent desires to develop property for a public works
project at said location, upon which presently exists a residential structure;
and
WHEREAS, the City has solicited bids for the purchase and removal of said
structure and Purchaser being the successful -bidder thereof; and
WHEREAS, it will be necessary to remove the existing structure to
facilitate construction of the public works project;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby covenanted and agreed to as follows:
1 . That in consideration of
($ ) plus state sales tax, Purchaser shall remove the existing
residential structure at said location.
2. Purchaser is responsible for obtaining any and all permits, and
licenses, including any required demolition permits, building permits, and
street use permits and is responsible for collecting and paying any and all
Washington State sales taxes associated with the sale of the residential
structure. Purchaser shall complete removal of said structure within ninety
(90) days following the date of Mayor's signature herein. Purchaser agrees to
pay the amount of money set forth below to the City as a nonrefundable deposit
if said structure is not removed. Such amount is equivalent to the costs to
the City to raze or otherwise demolish the structure if performance is not
completed by the Purchaser within 90 days following the date of the Mayor's
signature. The provisions in the Contract for the nonrefundable deposit are
also intended to be in lieu of contract liability of the Purchaser for
special , incidental and consequential damages sustained by the City for
nonperformance. However, this requirement does not relieve or release the
Purchaser from liability for injuries or damages suffered by the City or third
person due to other actions of the Purchaser. Further, Purchaser agrees that
it is excluded from the recovery of delay damages where such delay has not
been actually caused by the City. If the delay has been caused by anyone
other than the City, the Purchaser may not seek damages from the City but
rather shall seek damages directly from the party responsible for the delay.
The City shall not be added as a party to any such proceeding, whether in
arbitration or litigation. The City shall be entitled to recover all costs
and fees including attorney fees associated with the enforcement of this
provision. The Purchaser shall provide and bear all expense of all equipment,
work, transportation and labor of any sort whatsoever that may be required for
the removal and transfer of that structure and completing the work provided
for in this contract including any specifications furnished by the CITY.
3. Purchaser agrees to accept the structure in an "as is" condition
without any warranty, including habitability of said structure. Purchaser
warrants and represents to the City that Purchaser has personally examined the
structure and found it suitable as is.
4. The Purchaser, and the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, _.
and assigns of the purchaser, does hereby agree to the full performance of all
covenants herein contained upon the part of the Contractor.
5. It is further provided that no liability shall attach to the CITY OF
KENT by reason of entering into this contract, except as expressly provided
herein.
6. Purchaser agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the CITY OF KENT, its
elected officials, officers, employees and agents (hereinafter "Owner" )
harmless from any and all claims, demands, losses, and liabilities to or by
any and all persons or entities (including without limitation, their
respective agents, licensees, or representatives) arising from, resulting
from, or connected with the removal of said structure from the City ' s
property, including transit to a new location by Purchaser or Purchaser's
2 -
agents or employees to the fullest extent permitted by law and subject to the
limitations provided below. Purchaser's duty to defend and indemnify City of
Kent shall not apply to liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to
persons or damage to property determined by a trier of fact that it was caused
by or resulted from the sole negligence of City of Kent or City of Kent's
agents or employees. Purchaser's duty to indemnify City of Kent for liability
for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damage to property
caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of (a) City of Kent or
City of Kent's agents or employees, and (b) Purchaser or Purchaser's agents or
employees, shall apply only to the extent of the negligence of Purchaser or
Purchaser's agents or employees. Further, the indemnification obligation
under this contract shall not be limited in any way by any limitation on the
amount or type of damages, compensation or benefits payable to or for any
third party under worker's compensation acts, disability benefits acts, or
other employee benefit acts. This promise of indemnity specifically applies
in the case of injuries to Purchaser's own employees. Purchaser's duty to
defend, indemnify, and hold City of Kent harmless shall include, as to all
claims, demands, losses, and liability to which it implies, City of Kent's
personnel related costs, reasonable attorneys ' fees, court costs, and all
other claim related expenses, including attorneys' fees and other costs
incurred by City of Kent to enforce and establish its rights.
7. Should the Purchaser or any of its subcontractors cause damage of
any kind, including but not limited to delay, to any separate contractor on
the project, the Purchaser shall , upon due notice, promptly attempt to settle
with such separate contractor by agreement or otherwise to resolve the
dispute. The Purchaser agrees to submit to arbitration any unresolved
dispute, in any amount, with any separate contractor. The City shall not be
made party to such an arbitration. If such separate contractor sues or
initiates suit a proceeding against the City on account of any damage alleged
to have been caused by the Purchaser, the City shall notify the Purchaser who
shall immediately defend such proceedings at the Purchaser's sole expense. If
any judgment or award of any kind results against the City, whether or not the
Purchaser, having been notified, defends the proceedings, the Purchaser shall
satisfy it and shall reimburse the City for all expenses, attorneys' fees, and
court or arbitration costs which the City incurred, including actual cost
expenditures in defense which may not be costs allowed in court or arbitration.
- 3 -
8. In the event of any conflict between the provision of this Agreement
and incorporated contract documents, including standard conditions,
supplementary conditions, and other terms and conditions, this Agreement shall
control .
9. Purchaser shall provide public and Purchaser liability and property
damage insurance with coverage levels no less than $200,000.00 for each
occurrence, including workmen' s compensation insurance for the removal and
transportation of said structure. In providing public liability and property
damage insurance, the Contractor shall provide that the City be named as a
co-insured. Such policy shall provide coverage to the City on an occurrence
basis for the duration of work.
Contractor shall also purchase and maintain All Risk Insurance for
public liability and property damage and physical loss or damage. This
insurance shall provide coverage for the City/Developer, the Contractor, and
all Subcontractors performing work on projects under City contract or
authorized by City permit, as well as provide coverage for the City of Kent
for the limits specified. The insurance shall contain "THE CITY OF KENT, ITS
ELECTED AND/OR APPOINTED OFFICIALS, ITS EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS AS ADDITIONAL
INSURED" insofar as the work and obligations performed by City permit is
concerned.
Mail to:
Attention: Don Wickstrom
Department of Public Works
City of Kent
220 Fourth Ave. S.
Kent, Washington 98032
The City will not accept any certificate of insurance or accord form
certificate as a substitute for an actual policy of coverage. Any exclusions,
exemptions, exceptions, or other policy coverage limitations of said policy,
including any identifying particular City activities or actions, must first be
reviewed by and written acceptance provided by the City before commencement of
work. A failure to provide insurance coverage and written acceptance of the
tendered policy shall be deemed to constitute non-acceptance of the contract
- 4 -
by the Contractor. The City reserves the right to then negotiate and award
the contract to another contractor. Purchaser agrees that the City assumes no
risk or loss by fire or any other casualty to any portion of the work or
equipment thereof, whether completed, in process of removal , transit, and
installation of the said structure at a new location. It is understood that
the whole of the work under this Contract is to be done solely at the
Purchaser's risk, and the Purchaser is familiar with the site and
_. transportation conditions, and other. contingencies likely to affect the work,
and has made its bid accordingly, and that it is to assume the responsibility
and risk of any loss or damage to materials or work.
10. Purchaser is responsible for locating any underground utilities
affected by the work and is deemed to be an excavator for purposes of RCW
Chapter 19.122 RCW, as amended. Purchaser shall be responsible for compliance
with Chapter 19.122 RCW, including utilization of the "one call " locator
system before commencing any excavation activities. Purchaser is also
responsible for any and all costs associated with disconnection of utilities,
including septic tank removal .
11 . The Purchaser shall observe and comply with all applicable federal
and state laws and with the county, . city and municipal resolutions, ordinances
and regulations that will in any way affect the work, and it shall indemnify
and save harmless the City of Kent against any claims arising from the
violation of any such laws, resolutions, ordinances or regulations. Purchaser
further agrees that said Contract is terminable in case the Contractor shall
violate the provisions of such laws.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be
executed the day and year first hereinabove written.
CITY OF KENT
DATE:
N KELLEHER, MAYOR
- 5 -
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 6, 1988
OCategory Public Hearings
SI JECT: STREET VACATION NO. STV-88-2 CENTRAL PREMIX CONCRETE
COMPANY
•••• 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This hearing will consider a request by
Central Premix Concrete Company to vacate a portion of South
208th St.
3 . EXHIBITS: Report and map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT: n�
CLOSE HEARING:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember wd-4 moves. Councilmember seconds
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 compensation
DISCUSSION:
-- ACTION
Council Agenda
Item No . 2B
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
September 1, 1988
MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members
FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Report and Recommendation on an Application to
Vacate a portion of S . 208th Street
I. Naive of Applicant
_. Central Pre-Mix Concrete Company
P. O. Box 3366 t
Spokane, Wa 98220
II . Reason for Requesting Vacation
The applicant states, "So as to connect adjoining lots
and vacate a street which goes nowhere now or in the
future" .
III. Staff Recommendation APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS
After reviewing comments from the following departments
and agencies:
Public Works Department
Parks Department
Fire Department
METRO
Puget Power
Pacific Northwest Bell
Washington Natural Gas
,• and conducting our own review, the Planning Department
recommends that the request to vacate a portion of S. 208th
Street as mentioned in Resolution 1178 and shown on the
accompanying map, be APPROVED with the following conditions:
1. Reserve easement rights over, under, upon
and across the area to be vacated for public
and private utility purposes.
2 . Compensate the City in cash at one-half the
full appraised value of the area to be vacated
as established by the Public Works Department.
JPH:ca
"` Attachment
}I z _ I
f-- I
O bLO
v
PRO P055D S . 2 0BT-4
N q
P
VACAT! Q � j
Z ti' STD! B(9- 2
LAto ��
00
ft
lio
�.1U00
�
V.4rgT/Av U -ZdCJ TN
IQRF� -_ So
209 .. ...
D C) `
/yG so 1 /
r°' syi v
4BL C
i
3 �
J °
_ Al
,
h 2 N � n
h t
Imo. , nl
. M
wt n42
ry
209TH ST v
S,. c\
(NpM1fy150N srl Q I°
� y a
6
50� 5 lb. o S
b.� L = S
3' OI° r 'D v C
1 r— 14 9,
a
Kent City Council Meeting
Date_ September 6 1988
Category Public Hearings
U�
1. SUBJECT: APPEAL - SIGNATURE POINTE NO. SMA-88-4
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This public hearing will consider an
appeal by Triad Development, Inc . of the Hearing Examiner ' 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
Ave. So. south of Meeker Street at SR516 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Letter of appeal, staff report, minutes, finding and
recommendation, memo from Kent Fire Department
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner, 7/29/88
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
Approval with two conditions .
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE HEARING:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, C ncilmember PA seconds
to adopt/modify the findi/Hea
f the Hearing Examiner to concur
with/disagr_� with the ng ExaRneFs—re-�mendation of
approval with two condit .
DISCUSSION:
-• ACTION:
Council Agenda
�(} /J Item No. 2C
TRIAD AUG 241
DEVELOPMENT INC c �88
�rY OF�R lVr
August 19, 1988 Q CL K
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.
Development
Rc•nov.inon&
-" Land AcyuiSillon
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 tc
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.
I
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 not
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 permit. This is 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:
.. i
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 k
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 Mtn �niliri I',ub I....
_.. Renovation X 2ur,�
Land A((ju non v.�n l� AA.A n.I.;;; P AA ,�Io-�
i
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.
C'
Frederick W. Grimm
MARIE JENSEN
FINDINGS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT
FILE NO: #SMA-88-4 SIGNATURE POINTE
APPLICANT: TRIAD DEVELOPMENT
REQUEST: 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.
I
APPLICATION FILED: 4/22/88
I
DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE: 5/20/88
HEARING EXAMINER MEETINGS: 6/15/88 3 : 00 P.M. (continued)
7/6/88 7: 00 P.M.
DECISION ISSUED: 7/29/88
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 1 nes
with related appurtenances and parking provided on one side.!Me
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.
1
10. The site plan calls for 1, 099 parking stalls to be provided. j
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.
12 . Other residents expressed concern with respect to the impact of
the subject development on the Kent School District.
I�
13 . Additional concern was expressed with respect to potential traffic j
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 r.
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 .
0—
CwuoT sT p
S xaonl SI
' :N RI YF.77 ,rt
14 I
l4 13
JAM En ST _
23 a
23 24
Iiillr•?1..^�.� W
\ >
SAM ST �
it' i'.U(IC S
��: W 1•r.11 Z z All
<
•::%'i:'' 2 i >
SMITII ST 2,
•° S f Z
'0 3 w r1AnNso
z
3 Z46111 ST
W 2
s > WILLIS <
STREET z
zo INTCNG
°Es 1� 181 n ...
fI'Z- nnI Inn I 516 z
516
Colony Park t
C°II Course '� 4
h�
r r
W Iu
516
1 e
23 - 23124
126 --- -- - - -- -- 25
-
I I �I
VI
IJ
I>1 I $
Ih _
\ S
V
z'
7` 167
APPLICATION Nama SIGNATURE POINT LEGEND
Num6ai @CM„-RA-2 b AMA-nR-4Oa1c,1un, ,s - 1988 applioaliou silo IIIInnIIn
a8 uaS1 Zoning boundary
�Ylare�;na Varian v b horeline Application CITY lllllll$
Vicinity
SCALE = 1":1000'
01, crry or K.U,NT
..., planning .
MRM
} /
GC
RAC
_
® :ate
❑q
00-ti�iu
Fj
Q
i ^
M RM
---------
CO
k�ny
i JJJ
l -
APPLICATION Name tlru nw anrNT LEGEND
NUmbef ISMV-88-2 HSMA-88-4 Dale June 15, 1988 application site
fleque$lShGralipp Variance t Shnrplinp Apnlinatinn zoning boundary .wnp- .
cily limits
Zoning/ Topography.
SCALE = 1":200' -�-
CITY OF HENT
planning .
r�`p,nim— _ —r Pmm�nrtnnn n
� \EIIH (• � ��IWIXI 0
Fri
as B f l i
ca
va ^maT > mrz I s
s �i r
i' m
D'�m n Q'
pLA I
m
,mn /
co
yN iIr1I1
r Z m
AN
mnmmmu
IlUpil➢feA
U 911UI m C z �T rr-•} FJ� .
• n m A lk fPLLT{^'IJII Ik
mrx
r r If i y>Az
boy n
zgpAm w w w,
E z±
7 Ifa I IIW W z i >0
p p
R II zc n
n s m
T
r n
r
_o rrml D CWain n \\
r (a 1 iwaaml if �. \
I \
\
pl J as 1
A >y O y O N20 m0
C Z
mZN'a •��• n4z N� a�ZmAa nr ...
m u+r-,nN C>O�CA as
a t� coco' npaxm= Ar
n>Ap / rO C.0 >AAT�2 zn
Z xno n 207p n;5or?
p�rn Ya �� 0 nZnv rung;�r>-� vp ...
5ao ,n ivr�z r^
z ,7
zA nvria m ,n2vi �+
vm�m 7-Zxi r>n`far nr7,mn Y:
A szaA x �F
> z mz. rn
z 41 ..o,n
IN Z Y p
y ;O F pp
O Cm > A pm p
p [ Q m
Y
r-j a y
S x O
APPLICATION Name SIGNATURE POINT IECENO
NUIDbBr#SMA-88-2 & RSMA-88-4[)ata 11mP 15 letla applicat`i'on slilte
IICI�UCSI hnralina Variance R Shnrplinp Acolicatior ZUUil19 �CUUdarl
till 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
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 ill
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. He 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
WSMA-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. He 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
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
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
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
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
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
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.
Stougard: 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
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
WSMA-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
31 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 ;'alley.
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.
Sgt. 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 concern 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
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#SMA-88-4
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.
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.
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
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
t
f
21, 100. I was quoting you a Sunday count. The 15, 690 was on a j
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 j
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
#SMA-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 Inner: 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.
Inner: 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?
Inaer: 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.
Inaer: 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.
_. Inner: 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 i
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
Inger: 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. . .
Inner: Well, we don't know that. Some of them may. Probably
most of them don't.
VanDerbeek: All right. Any further comments?
Inger: 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
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.
.. i
Hulkman: If you'd like we could put together a total parking plan
55
{
" f
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.
I
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. . . j
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
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
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
- • 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.
i
Grimm: You've got it.
VanDerbeek: Yes. All right at this time I ' ll close the public
- hearing with respect to application SMA-88-41 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
-- 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.
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.
VanDerbeek: W:ftat's the County--what' s the name of the County
designation, if you know?
Hudson: I don't know that. It' s an agricultural zone that' s all.
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 3 , 600 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 it 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
#SMA-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 laved 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
WSMA-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,
sot 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
considered, particularly the shoreline. In this shoreline area
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.
11
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Signature Pointe
#kSMA-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
WSMA-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 are 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.
VanDerbeek: Just a minutes, I 'm sorry, there' s going to be plantings
down the center of the boulevard?
Rengstrof: 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
Hearin Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Hearing ,
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?
i
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
I
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
CONSENT CALENDAR
3 . City Council Action:
Councilmember a moves, Cuuncilmember P--
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through T be approved .
DiscussioVAr
.... Action
3A. Approval of Minutes .
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
August 16, 1988 .
3B. Approval of Bills .
• Approval of payment of the bills received through September 7,
IQ after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at
8 : 30 a.m. on September 15, 1988 .
Approval of checks issued 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
8/19/88 108153 - 108651 586,024 . 36
63989 - 64105 58 ,730. 17
644,754 . 53
Council Agenda
Item No. 3 A-B
Kent, Washington
August 16 , 1988
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7: 00
p.m. by Mayor Kelleher. Present: Councilmembers Biteman, Dowell,
Houser, Johnson, Mann and White, City Administrator McFall , City
Attorney Driscoll, Planning Manager Satterstrom, Public Works Director
Wickstrom and Finance Director McCarthy. Also present: Fire Chief
Angelo, Assistant City Administrator Hansen and Personnel Director
Webby. Councilmember Woods was not in attendance. Approximately 25
people were at the meeting.
PRESENTATION American Legion Presentation. A certificate of
appreciation was presented to Council President
White who spoke at the Memorial Day service.
CONSENT CALENDAR BITEMAN MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through
J be approved. White seconded and the motion
carried.
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3A)
Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of
the regular Council meeting of August 2, 1988.
-- WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3F)
Condemnation Ordinance - Kent Springs Transmission
Main. ADOPTION of Ordinance 2795 providing for
the acquisition through condemnation, to acquire
an easement for construction of City water main
facilities, located at the following areas : on the
east side of 132nd Avenue S.E. approximately 300
feet south of S.E. 272nd Streit; between 120th and
124th at the S. 286th block; and between 282nd
and 274th at the South 278th block, as was approved
by the Council on August 2 , 1988.
1987 Water Main Replacement. Bid opening was held
on August 12, 1988, with seven bids received. The
low bid was submitted by Paramount Pacific Cor-
poration in the amount of $594, 393.24. The Director
of Public Works recommended acceptance of the low
bid. JOHNSON SO MOVED. Houser seconded and the
motion carried.
SURPLUS PROPERTY (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3G)
Upper Mill Creek Detention Basin. ADOPTION of
Resolution 1179 to set a hearing date of September 6
for the sale of a house at Upper Mill Creek Deten-
tion Basin which is surplus to the City ' s needs.
- 1 -
August 16 , 1988
SURPLUS PROPERTY (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3I )
Surplus Vehicles. AUTHORIZATION to declare as
surplus vehicles described in the Fleet Manager ' s
memo and to offer same for sale at auction.
(Vehicles 5, 20 , 27 , 31 , 34, 48 , 63 , 68, 69 , 299,
309 , 313 , 362 and 387 . )
SHORELINE PERMIT (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3C)
- APPEAL Triad Development Appeal (SMA-88-4) . SETTING a
public hearing date for September 6,_ 1_988_ on an
appeal of the Hearing Examiner ' s conditions of
approval for the Signature Pointe Shoreline Sub-
stantial Development Permit (SMA-88-4 ) . This appeal
was filed by Fred Grimm of Triad Development, for
the proposed 584-unit multifamily complex at 64th
Avenue South, south of Meeker.
ZONING CODE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3H)
Procedures for Housing Element Work Program. ADOP-
TION of Ordinance 2796 which designates procedures
for amendments to the comprehensive plan, zoning
map and zoning text, if any should result from the
work program; grants to the Planning Commission the
authority to consider and make recommendations on
zoning map amendments , in lieu of the Hearing Exam-
iner; specifies that amendments to the Comprehen-
sive Plan may be made simultaneous with, or prior
to amendments to the Zoning Code; and provides for
public notice procedures for public hearings on
amendments proposed as a result of this program.
This work program was authorized by the Council on
July 5 , 1988 by Resolution 1172 . -
Zoning Code Amendment. On July 25, 1988 the Plan-
ning Commission recommended to the City Council
that the Kent City Code Section 15 . 09 . 030E be
amended to give the Hearing Examiner discretion
in approving, denying or conditioning exceptions
to development standards including height of unique
structures , signs and setbacks when a conditional
use permit is required.
Fred Satterstrom of the Planning Department noted
that the amendment would allow the Hearing Examiner
to address unique opportunities and to consolidate
processes in order to expedite the process . The
Mayor noted that presently conditional use permit
appeals come to the Council and that this revision
would allow the Hearing Examiner to exercise the
- 2 -
August 16, 1988
ZONING CODE type of discretion previously exercised by the
Council . Biteman noted that he would like an oppor-
tunity to discuss this change, which would appear
to put all the power in one person ' s hands. He
then MOVED that this issue be discussed at a work-
shop session. White seconded and the motion carried.
REGULATORY REVIEW Regulatory Review Request - Appeal. On July 25,
APPEAL 1988, the Planning Commission denied a regulatory
review request by the Carolina Berg Estate to
allow a public storage facility in a Community
Commercial zoning district. The applicant is
appealing the decision of the Planning Commission.
Stephen Clifton of the Planning Department reviewed
the Planning Commission action. Pete Curran,
attorney representing the Berg Estate, stated that
they had filed an appeal of the Planning Commission ' s
decision on July 29, 1988. Curran noted that Plan-
ning Director Harris has recommended that this
appeal be referred to the Planning Committee, and
that he concurs. DOWELL SO MOVED. Houser seconded
and the motion carried.
PLANNED UNIT Proposed Planned Unit Development Ordinance. On
DEVELOPMENT July 19, 1988, the Council Planning Committee
unanimously recommended that the recently formed
PUD Citizens Advisory Committee ' s recommended
changes to the PUD ordinance be adopted, as earlier
recommended to the City Council by the Planning
Commission.
Fred Satterstrom of the Planning Department thanked
the members of the Committee for their efforts. He
stated that the three major changes in the ordinance
are as follows:
1. Review time has been shortened. A PUD application can
be approved by the Hearing Examiner without moving on
to the City Council except on appeal. Also, other land
use processes, such as conditional use permits, may be
consolidated with the PUD review.
2. Housing mix. The requirement that each residential PUD
consist of all types of housing has been dropped in
favor of a density bonus incentive that encourages a
mix of housing types.
3. Density bonuses are more refined. The process for
determining residential density bonuses is better
-. defined and the design objectives of PUD's are clearer
than in previous drafts.
- 3 -
August 16, 1988
PLANNED UNIT Satterstrom urged the Council to adopt the proposed
DEVELOPMENT ordinance. Upon Biteman ' s question, Satterstrom
noted that one of the goals of the committee was
to streamline the process while still providing
for public input, and that the time factor would
be shortened considerably by allowing the Hearing
Examiner to approve the applications . He also
noted that any appeals would go to the Council.
DOWELL MOVED to accept the decision of the Planning
Committee and Citizens Advisory Committee ' s recom-
mendation and to direct the City Attorney to pre-
pare the ordinance. Biteman seconded. Motion
carried.
LITTER Litter. Jewel Melton, 23605 105th Place S.E. ,
noted that there is a litter problem in the shop-
ping center at 104th and 240th, and also indicated
that trucks park there overnight. The Mayor
directed the Public Works Director and Kathy McClung
of the Planning Department to look into the matter
and contact Ms . Melton.
FIRE DEPARTMENT West Hill Fire Station - Grade and Fill Contract.
In order to complete the West Hill Fire Station in
a timely manner, two phases will be required. Bids
for the first phase, which is the grade and fill,
were opened August 4, 1988 at 2 : 30 p.m. The Fire
Chief recommended that the bid of Santana Trucking &
Excavating in the amount of $245, 278 . 90 be accepted.
BITEMAN SO MOVED. Houser seconded and the motion
carried.
ANNEXATION ZONING LeBlanc Annexation Zoning. At the Council meeting
of August 2 , 1988, Dowell ' s motion to approve the
Hearing Examiner ' s recommendation ( 12 units per acre )
was tabled. Ordinance 2791 , revised to reflect
this action, has been distributed along with all
background minutes of the hearings held before the
Hearing Examiner and before the Council . Dowell
withdrew the tabled motion. HE THEN MOVED to
approve the ordinance changing the number of units
to 12 and eliminating Condition No. 3 :
( 3 . Prior to the issuance of a development permit for a
permitted use for any properties within the Leelanc
Annexation area, the owner shall improve 112th
Avenue, or a portion thereof, as is appropriate, in
order to fully address the impacts associated with
the development. This obligation may be met by
agreeing to participate in the formation of and to
pay its proportionate share of the final costs of a
Local Improvement District to improve 112th Avenue.)
- 4 -
August 16 , 1988
ANNEXATION ZONING Biteman seconded. Dowell noted he proposed to elim-
inate Condition No. 3, as it could be considered as
" taking of property and that it appeared that SEPA
would oversee this particular issue. Johnson
stated that he had no problem with the language in
Condition No. 3. Dowell stated that he believed
that traffic mitigation procedures will be enforced
on this property as with any other property. Mayor
Kelleher noted that SEPA is administered by local
officials and that he had authorized mitigation
agreements to be utilitized until the Council
decides if this is the process to be used for miti-
gation traffic impacts.
McFall determined for Biteman that the owners had
,., filed a letter stating that they were willing to
participate in the improvement of 112th. Driscoll
clarified that SEPA requirements included consider-
ation of all elements of development, including
traffic impact. The extent of the mitigation
requirements under SEPA might not be exactly the
same as that proposed in Condition No. 3. Upon
White ' s question, Driscoll noted that the letter
would not bind the owners to participate in the
LID. White then suggested a friendly amendment to
Dowell ' s motion; to provide for requiring the appli-
cant to participate in an LID for improvement of
112th or to sign a "no-protest" agreement. Both
Dowell and Biteman accepted this.
James Graham, attorney for LeBlanc, noted that the
subject is zoning of the property at this point
and that development of the property would require
approval of the Planning Department, as well as
the Public Works Department. He noted that the
owner was willing to participate in an LID for
improvement of the street and for sidewalks. Resi-
dents of the area had recently met at the LeBlanc ' s
to discuss the problems and several had asked that
their names be removed from a petition opposing the
multi development zoning for a portion of the
annexation. He submitted some letters to this
effect as well as letters favoring the proposed
zoning. These were filed for the record.
_ Jeff Garrett of 23512 110th Place S.E. noted that
the Hearing Examiner had expressed concern over
the high density and had stated that she had no
power to recommend a lower density. Driscoll
clarified for Mayor Kelleher that Comprehensive
Plans in this state are not rigid law and that
5 -
August 16, 1988
ANNEXATION ZONING Hearing Examiners have some general flexibility
in interpretation of such Plans .
Mrs. Ed Smith of 23508 112th Avenue S.E. stated
that the high density proposed would result in
more traffic at all times, not just peak hours.
She commented that retired people go places more
times per day than those who are working. She com-
mented that those residents without children would
not want to participate in an LID because of the
cost and also because trees along the right of way
would be lost to a street improvement project.
Ed Smith stated that the owner had stated that the
higher density would save more trees on the site
and questioned how 12 units per acre could save
more trees than 8. He noted that those protesting
the high density were concerned with the safety of
the school children. He distributed sketches show-
ing the kind and position of the trees for the
LeBlanc parcel. He noted that he had a petition
to circulate for an LID to improve the street and
for sidewalks, but that the LeBlancs had not yet
signed the petition. He stated he had been advised
that assessments for LIDs are based on the potential
for the property within the area. He suggested
that the owner be required to sign a no protest
agreement for an LID. Gene Martin of 11214 S.E.
234th Place spoke in favor of the LeBlanc proposal
stating that it would enhance the area. He stated
that he did not notice excess traffic on 112th
during peak periods . Dennis Dague had earlier
filed for the record excerpts from Hearing Examiner
and Council hearings as well as portions of staff
reports. These were included in the packet. He
stated that the Kent City Code does put a limita-
tion on the Hearing Examiner in respect to zoning
recommendations. It was clarified that the "no
protest" would apply for the single family zoned
area as well as for the multi zoned. "Peak hour
traffic" was clarified for Dague by the Mayor.
Dague stated that both the Fire Department and the
School District had noted the need for a wider
street.
Tilak Sharma, 11205 S .E. 235th, stressed the safety
of the school children and the need for improvement
to the street. He stated that the Council members
should visit the area and observe the traffic con-
gestion. Brian Predmore of 23230 112th Avenue S.E.
expressed his concern for the safety of the child-
ren, stating that the higher density would increase
the traffic.
- 6 -
August 16, 1988
ANNEXATION ZONING Leona Orr stated that it appeared to her that the
owners were seeking 12 units per acre instead of
8 in order to help pay for the improvements to the
street.
There were no further comments and Mayor Kelleher
noted that the motion before the Council is to
adopt Ordinance 2791 fixing the zoning at 12 units
and changing Condition No. 3 to the following:
"Prior to the issuance of a development permit for
a permitted use for any of the properties within
the LeBlanc Annexation area, the property owner
will be obligated to agree to participate in the
formation of, and to pay for its proportionate
share of the final cost of the Local Improvement
District to improve 112th Avenue. "
At Dowell ' s question, the Mayor noted that this
language would include the "no protest" provision.
Upon roll call vote, the motion passed with Biteman,
Dowell, Mann and White supporting it and Houser and
Johnson voting against it.
PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3D)
RECREATION Ordinance Prohibiting Skateboarding in Parks.
ADOPTION of Ordinance 2794, relating to the Depart-
ment of Parks and Recreation adding a new Section
2 . 30. 223 to the Kent City Code granting right-of-
way to ped=_strians within parks and prohibiting
bicycling and skateboarding in certain posted areas
as designated by the Parks Director.
PERSONNEL (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3E)
Public Works Reclassification - Engineering Division.
AUTHORIZATION for the reclassification of the posi
tion of Administrative Assistant II, salary range
27, to Administrative Assistant I.II, salary range
32, effective August 16, 1988. The reclassification
was reviewed and approved by the Operations Com-
mittee at its meeting on August 1 , 1988. Funds
related to this request will be provided within
the 1988 Public Works budget.
APPOINTMENT (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3J)
Arts Commission Appointment. CONFIRMATION of the
Mayor ' s appointment of Jim Land to the Arts Com-
mission. Mr. Land will replace Trisha Evert who
has moved from the area . This term will expire
10/91 .
7 -
August 16, 1988
BUDGET 1989 Budget. This date has been set to conduct a
public hearing to receive input on community prior-
ities and proposals for the 1989 Operating Budget
for the City of Kent. Public input is accepted at
this time in order to allow suggestions made to be
incorporated into the 1989 budget proposal.
The Mayor declared the public hearing open. Dee
Ecklund, President of the Chamber of Commerce,
noted that the Chamber had filed a letter for the
record supporting funding of traffic issues, main-
taining the contingency fund at 8% of the operat-
ing expenditures and decreasing the utilty taxes
to 2% on City-owned utilities and 2 . 5% on non-City
utilities. The 6 . 5% tax on garbage bills is not
addressed in the recommendation.
Rev. Eckfeldt of the Human Services Commission, stated
that he considers the allocation to the Commission to be -
a strong commitment to the community. He noted
that many hours are spent reviewing the applica-
tions for funding and Dee Moschel explained the
guidelines used i the evaluation. Eckfeldt also
stated that he appreciates Kent ' s role in the Human
Services Roundtable.
Dee Moschel of the Kent Downtown Association stated
that they appreciate the Council ' s support and
that their goal is to continue to promote downtown
for establishing businesses and shopping.
There were no further comments and DOWELL MOVED
that the public hearing be closed. Johnson seconded
and the motion carried. No further action is
required at this time.
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the
bills received through August 22 , 1988 after audit-
ing by the Operations Committee at its meeting
at 8: 30 a .m. on Thursday, September 1 , 1988 .
Approval of checks issued for vouchers: -
Date Check Numbers Amount
7/13 - 7/14 62643 - 62645
7/15 - 7/26 63125 - 63152 $134,095.81
7/31/88 63171 - 63592 826,868.43
$960,964.24 .
Approval of checks issued for payroll:
Date Check Numbers Amount
8/5/88 107509 - 108152 $639,962.25
- 8 -
August 16, 1988
REPORTS Council President. White noted that he had received
a letter from Dr. John Huber regarding speed limits
on Canyon Drive and referred it to the Public Works
Committee.
Operations Committee. Houser noted that the com-
mittee will meet at 8: 30 a.m. on September 1 .
Public Safety. Biteman noted that the ground
breaking ceremony for the North Industrial Area
Fire Station will take place at noon on September 7
and all are invited.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 25 p.m.
Marie Jense IM7C
City Clerk
- 9 -
Kent City Council Meeting
f) a Date September 6, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE DONATION
- 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acknowledgment of a donation of $25 from
Nor-Pac Systems, Inc. to the Drinking Driver Task Force.
3 . EXHIBITS• None
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Task Force
(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
Kent City Council Meeting
O Date September 6, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: APPOINTMENTS
-•- 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor ' s appointments
as follows:
Library Board - Appointment of Ted Ripley as an interim board
I member until such time as Sally Hopkins can resume her duties.
Saturday Market Advisory Board - Appointment of Janette Nuss as
a the Citizen-at-Large Representative replacing Sally Ann Storey.
This appointment will expire in October 1990.
_. Planning Commission - Appointment of Gabriella Uhlar-Heffner to
�l the Planning Commission to replace Nancy Rudy. This term will
expire December 31, 1990.
3 . EXHIBITS: Letters from Mayor Kelleher
- 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor -
(Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc . )
5 . EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
- ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No . 3D
c9,08
kF�v
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR T
�FRk
TO: JIM WHITE, PRESIDENT, CI COUNCIL
FROM: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION--APPOINTMENT
DATE: AUGUST 23 , 1988
I have recently appointed Ms. Garbriella Uhlar-Heffner to
the Planning Commission, to replace Ms. Nancy Rudy who resigned
her position . Ms . Uhlar-Heffner has experience in
solid/hazardous waste management, energy and land use development
issues. The term of Ms. Uhlar-Heffner' s appointment will be
12/31/90.
I submit this for your confirmation.
DK:am
cc: City Councilmembers
Marie Jensen, City Clerk
Brent McFall, City Administrator
Jim Harris, Director of Planning
OFFICE OF OF THE MAYOR
DATE: August 23, 1988
C1T 7888
TO: Jim White, City Counci resident },oic/{FNT
IFAK
FROM: Dan Kelleher N7
SUBJECT: SATURDAY MARKET ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTMENT
For your information and confirmation, I have appointed Janette Nuss to the
advisory board of the Kent Saturday Market as a citizen at large representative,
effective August 1988. Ms. Nuss will replace Sally Ann Storey and serve out
Ms. Storey's term through October 1990.
Ms. Nuss is a West Hill resident, has taken a leadership role in civic
activities for the betterment of the community, and has expressed an interest
in participating in community events.
i
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
TO: JIM WHITE, PRESIDENT, CI COUNCIL
FROM: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
SUBJECT: LIBRARY BOARD--INTERIM APPOINTMENT
DATE: AUGUST 23 , 1988
At the request of Laurel Whitehurst, Chairperson of the Kent
Library Board, I am appointing an Interim Board member until
such time Sally Hopkins can resume her duties.
I have decided to appoint Mr. Ted Ripley to this position.
Mr. Ripley is a teacher in the Highline school district and has a
continuing commitment to youth and education. I feel he will
make a valuable contribution to the Library Board.
cc: City Councilmembers
Marie Jensen, City Clerk
Brent McFall, City Administrator
Laurel Whitehurst, Library Board Chairperson
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 6, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: CONTRACT WITH KING COUNTY
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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.
3 . EXHIBITS: Executive summary and contract
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee
(Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
•.. Item No. 3E
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT
INSPECTION AGREEMENT WITH KING COUNTY
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
In January 1985, the Kent Fire Department started providing an
annual fire inspection service to the business community located
within the boundaries of King County Fire Protection District No.
37 . This was the first year the Kent Fire Department provided
this service under the terms of an official contract. The
agreement is effective for a period of one year and must be
renegotiated each year. This Kent Fire Department will make the
original annual inspection plus one reinspection for compliance
before the case is sent to King County for any possible follow-up
action.
In the past, the contract has been reviewed and approved by the
City of Kent Legal Department and by Fire District No. 37 's
attorney. It has also been reviewed by the Public Safety
Committee. The only changes to this years contract are
editorial.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is the recommendation of the Kent Fire Department that the
Council approve the contract for the Mayor's signature so that
the Fire Department can make fire inspections in Fire District
No. 37 during 1988 .
SIGNIFICANCE
Without this contract, the Kent Fire Department will not be able
to provide inspection services to the business community in the
Fire District. By not providing this service, the Kent Fire
Department will not be able to identify fire/life safety hazards
within the business community.
BUDGET/ECONOMIC IMPACT
The City of Kent will receive approximately one-half of the
permit fees ' collected within the Fire District. The City
received $2 , 053 in 1987 . King County also agrees to pay the City
of Kent an amount equal to the amount required to pay for any
additional insurance premium attributable to the City's
performance of obligations under this contract, not to exceed
1, 150. 00 during the terms of this agreement.
ALTERNATIVES AND CONSEQUENCES
The only alternative to signing the contract is not to sign the
contract. If the inspection agreement is not signed, the Fire
Department will have no control over life safety issues that
relate to the Uniform Fire Code that would normally be addressed
during an inspection process.
µ.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
KING COUNTY
AND
THE CITY OF KENT
WHEREAS, RCW 19.27.030 provides that on and after January 1,
1975, there shall be in effect in all cities, towns, and counties
of the state a state building code; and
WHEREAS, RCW 19.27.030(3) provides that a portion of the
aforementioned code shall consist of the Uniform Fire Code and
the Uniform Fire Code Standards, 1985 edition, published by the
International Conference of Building Officials and the Western
Fire Chiefs Association; and
WHEREAS, RCW 19.27.040 authorizes counties to amend any
component of the state building code as it applies within its
jurisdiction in all such respects as shall be not less than the
minimum performance standards and objectives enumerated in RCW
19.27.020; and
WHEREAS, KCC 17.04.020 provides that the terms "fire chief"
and "fire department" as used in the Uniform Fire Code shall mean
fire marshal and fire marshal's office of King County,
respectively; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.103(a) of the King County Modifications
to the 1985 Uniform Fire Code, as adopted by K.C. Ordinance B184
provides the King County Fire Marshal's Office shall have respon-
sibility for inspections and the enforcement of the fire preven-
tion provisions of the code; and further provides that the Chief
of a fire department or fire district, acting under the
supervision of the Board of Fire Commissioners in that district,
and in coordination with the Fire Marshal's Office may perform
duties specified in the Uniform Fire Code within the geographical
boundaries of the fire protection district, to the full extent
required by the Fire Marshal's Office; and
1
WHEREAS, the City of KENT currently provides fire
protection, inspections and verifies code compliance on behalf of
King County within the boundaries of King County Fire District
No. 37 ; and
WHEREAS, King County and the City of KENT desire to
... provide by Agreement for effective inspection pursuant to the
Uniform Fire Code within the jurisdictional boundaries of King
County Fire Protection District No. 37 and effective
administration and inspection of the Hazardous Materials
Inspection/Permit Program, NOW, THEREFORE
IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. OBLIGATIONS:
1.1 In consideration of the promises of the City of Kent
King County agrees to continue to be responsible for the
enforcement of the Uniform Fire Code in District No. 37 as
provided for by King County Title 23, to be responsible for the
i
issuance of all required permits or certificates, to collect all
required permit fees, to transmit and disburse to the City of
KENT monetary sums as defined below in Paragraph 9; and to
pay for additional insurance premium charges to the City of
KENT that are incurred as a result of the City's
participation in the activities described in this contract, as
provided herein.
1.2 In consideration of the promises of the County
herein before set forth, the City of KENT agrees to
perform inspections in accordance with the terms and provisions
of the Uniform Fire Code of King county, and the guidelines
established by the King County Fire Marshal. The City of
KENT agrees to inspect occupancies, as defined in
Table 5A of the Uniform Building Code, other than single family-
dwellings and those occupancies classified as "M," on an annual
basis. The City of KENT further agrees to make one
reinspection when required. Additional reinspections or other
actions required for code compliance shall become the
2
responsibility of the King County Fire Marshal's Office.
1.3 The City of KENT further agrees to
inspect occupancies within King County Fire Protection District
No. 17 jurisdiction for conditions requiring permits or
certificates under the Uniform Fire Code. Such inspections shall
take place as part of the routine annual maintenance inspection.
When a condition requiring permit or certificate is identified
the City shall provide the occupant with a permit application,
verify code provisions for the permitted use or material are
being met, initiate corrective action when needed, and notify the
Fire Marshal's office of any expired or missing permits or
certificates.
1.4 If for any reason, the City of KENT
cannot meet the objective set forth in Section 1.3, above, the
City will seek additional assistance from the King County Fire
Marshal's Office. The promise of the City to inspect occupancies
is not intended for the benefit of any third party but solely to
provide assistance to the King County Fire Marshal's Office.
2. TIME OF PERFORMANCE:
This Agreement shall be effective on the 1 day of
January , 19_.B.g, and terminate on the 31st day of
December, 19_ag.
i
3. AUDITS AND INSPECTION:
All records and documents with respect to this
Agreement shall be subject to mutual inspection and review by
both parties during the performance of this Agreement and seven
(7) years after termination.
4. NONDISCRIMINATION:
No contractors, subcontractors, or union doing business
with the County or the City of KENT , or furnishing
workers or services in connection therewith, shall discriminate
against any person on the basis of race, color, creed, ser, age,
nationality, marital status or the presence of any sensory,
3
mental or physical handicap (provided that such handicap does not
hinder the performance of the job) , in employment, and no such
contractor, subcontractor, or union shall violate any of the
,.. terms of Chapter 49.60 of the Revised Code of Washington, Title
VIZ of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or any other applicable
federal, state or local law or regulation regarding
nondiscrimination in employment.
S. MODIFICATION:
This Agreement is the complete expression of terms
agreed upon and any oral representation or understandings not
incorporated herein are excluded. Further, any modification of
this Agreement shall be in writing, signed by both parties, and
made a part of this Agreement.
6. TERMINATION:
_. This Agreement shall be terminated only upon thirty
(30) days written notice received by one signatory, given by the
other. Failure to comply with any of the provisions stated
herein shall constitute material breach of contract and be cause
for immediate termination. Any termination of this Agreement
shall not terminate those obligations of either party matured
prior to such termination.
7. EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION AND CONTROL:
7.1 King County shall be responsible for the payment
of all salaries, wages, other benefits and compensation to all
County employees performing services under this Agreement.
Further, King County shall be solely responsible for control of
personnel, standards of performance, discipline and all other
aspects of performance of all County employees performing
services under this Agreement.
7.2 The City of KENT shall be responsible
for the payment of all salaries, wages, other benefits and
compensation to all City employees performing services under this
-• 4
Agreement. Further, the City of KENT
shall be solely
responsible for control of personnel, standards of performance,
discipline and all other aspects of performance of all City of
KENT employees performing services under this
Agreement.
8. LIABILITY:
8.1 The City of KENT agrees to assume
responsibility for all liabilities that occur or arise in any way
out of the performance of this contact by its employees only and
to save and hold King County and County employees and officials
harmless from all costs, expenses, losses, and damages, including
the cost of defense, incurred as a result of any acts or
omissions of City employees relating to the performance of this
Contract. The City of KENT also agrees to carry at
all times during the effective period of this contract liability
insurance coverage in the amount of $2,000,000.00 covering the
County for all activities of the City of KENT
employees related to the performance of this contract.
8.2 King County agrees to assume responsibility for
all liabilities that occur or arise in any way out of the
performance of this contract by its employees only and shall save
and hold the City of KENT and City employees and
officials and the District and the District employees and
officials harmless from all costs, expenses, losses and damages,
including the cost of defense, incurred as a result of any acts
or omissions of King County employees relating to the performance
of this contract.
9. PAYMENT:
9.1 King County agrees to pay the City of KENT
an amount equal to the amount required to pay for any additional
insurance premium attributable to the City's performance of
obligations under this contract, not to exceed $ 1 i50 00
during the terms of this Agreement. The payment shall coincide
5
with the City of KENT normal insurance billing date
(July 1) .
9.2 King County further agrees to pay the City of
KENT a sum for all permits issued to occupants within
King County Fire District No. 37 jurisdictional boundaries as
calculated under the following formula:
X = .5 (Y .75)
X = Fire district share of revenue
Y = Fee charged permit applicant
This formula is meant to represent fifty percent (50%) of all
permit fee revenues, together with fifty percent (50%) of the
portion of the Hazardous Materials/Public Assembly Inspection
Program funds being paid from the King County general fund for
the individual permits issued.
9.3 In the event of early termination of the contract
the City of KENT shall pay to King County an amount
equal to any funds returned to the City by the insurance company
as a result of such termination of contract.
10. ORDINANCES:
King County agrees that it shall notify the City
of KENT prior to the adoption of any ordinance that
affects or requires inspections to be made under the Uniform Fire
Code or in any way affects the duties of the City of
KENT under the terms of this contract.
11. FORMS:
In the event the County shall specify or require
any forms or written report which are required to be used under
the terms of this Agreement, the County agrees to provide such
forms to the City of KENT at the expense of the
County.
6
12. RECORDS:
All records compiled by the City of KENT
under the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute records
of the City of KENT but shall be available for
inspection by appropriate County officials.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused
this Agreement to be executed.
COUNTY COUNCIL CITY OF KENT
Signature Signature (Mayor)
Name Name
County Executive Commissioner
Dated Dated
Approved as to form
Commissioner ..
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Dated
Commissioner
fdagree.sp Dated
1/26/88
7
J
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 6, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1
1. SUBJECT: PUBLIC SAFETY COMPUTER SOFTWARE CONTRACT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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,
including software, installation, training and related costs .
3 . EXHIBITS: Executive summary
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Fire Chief Director of Information Services,
_•, City Administrator project team and the Operations Committee at
the 9/l/88 meeting
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $80,000
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Already dedicated - Public Safety Bond Issue
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves , Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3F
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 6, 1988
TO: MAYOR KELLEHER, COUNCIL PRESIDENT WHITE,
COUNCILMEMBERS BITEMAN, JOHNSON, WOODS,
HOUSER, DOWELL, MANN
FROM: NORM ANGELO, FIRE CHIEF �,C(
RON SPANG, INFORMATION SERVICES DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR FIRE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
SYSTEM SOFTWARE
-----------------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
The Information Services Department and the Fire Department have
conducted considerable analysis to determine the appropriate
systems solutions for the Public Safety component of the
Automation Plan. Command Data Systems ' (CDS) Records Management
System is presently in use by the Police Department. CDS 's Fire
Management Information System (FMIS) has been evaluated as an
appropriate solution for several of the needs of the Fire
Department. Other software needs for other Fire Department
functions such as Permits and Vehicle Maintenance are still being
evaluated.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is our recommendation that the City contract with CDS for the
implementation of their FMIS product, including installation,
training and related costs, for a total not to exceed $80, 000.
_., We further request authorization for the Mayor to sign such a
contractual agreement upon final negotiation of terms and
approval by the City Attorney.
SIGNIFICANCE
The implementation of this software is consistent with ' the
Automation Plan as an integral part of the automation of the
records processes of the Fire Department.
BUDGET/ECONOMIC IMPACT
This expenditure has been budgeted through the Public Safety Bond
Issue. Ongoing support and maintenance of this software will
have impact on the operating budgets in future years. The 1989
operating budget will be impacted by no more than $5, 000. Actual
impact will depend on actual software delivery and acceptance
dates.
...........
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 6, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR PURCHASE OF
OFFICE FURNISHINGS FOR DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approve 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.
3 . EXHIBITS•
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee, 9/1/88
(Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc. )
Note: This summary was prepared prior to the Operations
Committee meeting of September 1. Should the Committee
recommendation differ this item will be removed from the Consent
Calendar .
5 . EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $2,750
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Supplemental budget appropriation: General
Fund
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
~ ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3G
Kent City Council Meeting
n Date September 6, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: CONVERSION OF TWO PART-TIME JANITORIAL POSITIONS TO
ONE FULL TIME
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As approved by the Operations Committee at
their September 1 meeting, 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 . Additional duties as described in the attached memo relate
to supervision at the shops, City Hall recycling, new carpeted
areas in the Police Department and outside trash pickup
previously done by Parks .
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Customer Service Manager
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee, 9/1/88
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $4,000
SOURCE OF FUNDS: General Fund
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No . 3H
• MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 24, 1988
TO: Operations Committee
FROM: Charlie Lindsey, Customer Services Manager
SUBJECT: CUSTODIAL STAFFING
We are requesting to combine a regular part-time 21 hour per week position and
a temporary part-time 20 hour per week position into one (1 ) regular full time
position and add 5 hours part-time per week to another temporary position
providing a net increase of 4 hours. We are requesting this because the
person filling the temporary part-time position resigned in April and we have
been working the regular part-time person full time.
The following is a list of things that have impacted custodial maintenance of
the buildings:
1 . We have added supervision of the custodian at the City Shops s to the
custodial supervisor's responsibility. He must travel to and from the
Shops which leaves less time to help with cleaning in City Hall .
2. The recycling program was added and this increases the trash collection
routine by approximately 20 percent.
3. The general office congestion of adding more people closer together and
the added carpeted areas in the Police Department second floor and other
areas increases the time it takes to do general cleaning and has also
increased the amount of trash that needs to be emptied.
4. The structural changes in the Police Department on the first floor
require them to go out of the building several times an evening to do
their cleaning in the Police Department waiting area.
5. They are also now required to collect trash outside of the building that
was previously collected by Parks Maintenance.
d
To minimize the impacts of these things, we have rearranged our schedule in
the Police Department on weekends and are now emptying the trash only on
Saturday and clean on Sunday. This saves us 3 hours staff time, and with the
additional 4 hours part-time will allow us to partially address the additional
aforementioned workload.
The cost of this request for the remainder of 1988 is approximately $4,000.00.
646S-3S
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 6, 1988
V' O Category Consent Calendar
1
1. SUBJECT: UNION PACIFIC STREET VACATION - RESOLUTION
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution No. ' I91 setting
the date of October 4, 1988 for the hearing on the Union Pacific
Railroad, Inc. application for a street vacation.
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
. Item No. 3I
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, regarding vacation of
certain property generally located at 63rd
Avenue South adjacent to the south side of
South 212th Street, more particularly described
in Exhibit A, attached hereto, setting a public
hearing for Cctober 4, 1988 on the application
of Union Pacific Realty Company.
WHEREAS, the proper petition has been filed requesting
vacation of certain property at 63rd Avenue South adjacent to the
south side of S. 212th St. , in the City of Kent, as described in
Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A public hearing on the aforesaid vacation
petition shall be held at a regular meeting of the Kent City
Council at 7 o'clock p.m., October 4, 1988, in the Council
Chambers of the City Hall, Kent, Washington.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall give proper notice of
the hearing and cause the notice to be posted as provided by law.
Section 3. The Planning Director shall obtain the
necessary approval or rejection of or other information from the
Water, Street, Sewer or other appropriate departments, and shall
transmit information to the City Council so that the matter can be
considered by the City Council at a regular meeting on October 4,
_. 1988.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this day of 1988. -
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this
day of 1988.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
Exhibit "A"
f
A parcel of land being all that certain parcel of lard as
conveyed by Norman W. Clein, Jr. and Marlene Clein to the City of
I:ent by Statutory Warranty Deed, recorded December 7, 1966, Rec:n:ds
of King County, Washington, and described in said Deed as follows:
That portion of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter (SW)4NEh) of Section 11, Township 22 North, Range 4 East of
the Willamette Meridian, in King County, Washington, lying within a
strip of land 60.00 feet in width, the centerline of which being
described as ftillows:
Beginning at the intersection of the easterly margin of
Russell Road with the centerline of South 212th Street;
thence South 88 degrees 01 minutes 56 seconds East along
the centerline of South 212th Street, 1100.29 feet;
thence continuing along said centerline, South 85 degrees
26 minutes 51 seconds East, 879.64 feet to the TRUE POINT' OF
BEGINNING;
thence South 0 degrees 00 minutes 24 seconds East, 250.00
feet;
thence Southeasterly along a 10 degree curve to the left
having a radius of 572.96 feet to an intersection with the North
line of the South 995.28 feet of said Subdivision and the terminum
of said centerline;
EXCEPT that portion thereof lying North of a line
parallel with and 60.00 feet South, measured at right angles, of
the centerline of right-of-way of said South 212th Street.
t
I
Kent City Council Meeting
L — .Date- September 6, 1988
�I\ Category Consent Calendar
1." SUBJECT: ORPIN ESTABLISHING STREET CLOSURE PERMITS
" 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Ordinance No. 2 giving the City
the discretion to grant temporary street closure permits subject
to certain restrictions as specifically required by the Chief of
Police.
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Y Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3J
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, referring to street closure
permits, adding Section 10.02.035 to Kent City
Code establishing a permit process and penalty
for violation.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A new section is added to Kent City Code
10.02 as follows:
10.02.035. STREET CLOSURE.
1. The City of Kent may permit the closure of a portion
of a street or road within the boundaries of the City of Kent. No
closure of any street or road of any duration in time or length I
shall occur except in accordance with a permit issued by the Chief'
of Police, and such other laws or regulations which may be
applicable. This section shall not apply to a City of Kent
initiated closure of any highway, street, or road.
2. The Chief of Police may issue a permit for closure
of such street or road if such closure is consistent with the
general health, safety and welfare of Kent citizens. The Chief of
Police is authorized to require that issuance of the permit is
dependent upon fulfillment of such conditions as are necessary to
ensure the closure is carried out in a safe, uniform, and
reasonable manner, including but not limited to:
a. The execution of a written agreement regulating
access to the street by emergency vehicles and local residents
during the closure.
b. Procurement and posting of a bond, cash or
proof of insurance in an amount sufficient to ensure payment for
damages and/or all cleanup costs associated with the closure.
i
C. Use of City-approved signs and barricades for
the closure.
d. written verification from each affected
property owner that such owner agrees to the closure.
3. Violation of this section shall be punishable as set
out in KCC 10.02.050.
4 . A $25 nonrefundable fee shall be paid to the City
with the application for the permit as partial defrayal of the
costs to process the permit.
Section 2. Those portions of previously enacted
ordinances number 1963 and 2680, that adopted by reference RCW
46.61.50 (4) , and which conflict with this ordinance are repealed
to the extent of the conflict.
i
Section 3. If any provision or portion of this
iordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance is
held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance or the application
of the provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be
affected.
Section 4. Any act consistent with the authority and
prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified
and confirmed.
Section 5. 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
2 _
I�
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 6,41988
Calendar
Category Consent Calendar
1
1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE DEFINING RENDERING CRIMINAL ASSISTANCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Ordinance No. amending the
Kent City Code that currently makes it a crime to render criminal
assistance to provide a specific definition of that crime.
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION,
Council Agenda
Item No. 3K
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, relating to crimes; amending King
County Code 9.02.120.L, adopting a definition
of rendering criminal assistance.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 9.02.120.L of the Kent City Code is
amended as follows:
The definition of rendering criminal assistance as set
forth in RCW 9A.76.050 is hereby adopted.
Section 2. Any act consistent with the authority and
prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified
and confirmed.
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
Kent City Council Meeting
(� ��� Date September 6, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: TITLE AMENDMENT TO SIMPLE ASSAULT ORDINANCE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Ordinance No. changing the
title of the crime simple assault to assault in the fourth degree.
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
- ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3L
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, referring to assault, changing the
title of "simple assault", amending 9.02.28 of
the Kent City Code.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Kent City Code 9.02.28 is amended as follows:
DEGREE. 9.02.28. ((SIMPLE-ASSAULT:) ) ASSAULT IN THE FOURTH
Every person who shall, within the corporate limits of the City of
Kent, commit an assault or an assault and battery, upon another
person, not amounting to an assault in the first, second, or third
degree, as defined by the laws of the State of Washington, shall
be deemed guilty of ( (simple-assault) ) assault in the fourth
degree, a misdemeanor.
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage,
approval and publication as provided by law.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 6, 1988
/JECT:
Category Consent Calendar
1. SCANYON DRIVE SPEED LIMITS - ORDINANCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As approved by the Public Works Committee,
adoption of Ordinance No. reducing the speed limit on
Smith/Canyon Drive from Central Ave. East to 100th Ave. S .E. to
35 mph amending Section 10. 08 .058 of the Kent City Code.
3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from the Public Works Committee minutes
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3M
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 j
was discussion about vehicles cutting across the pylons. Johnson
asked that a response be prepared for his signature to Dr. Huber's
letter.
i
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 I
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
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, relating to speed limits, amending
Kent City Code 10.08.058.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Kent City Code 10.08.058 is amended as
follows:
10.08.058. Canyon Drive (SR 516)
from the intersection of ( (44a-eel) )
Central Avenue to the inter-
section of 100th Avenue SE ( (-48-) ) 35 mph At all times
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
Kent City Council Meeting
C Date September 6, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: NORTHWARD BUSINESS PARK BILL OF SALE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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 Ave. So. and So. 192nd for the Northward Business Park$
and release of the cash bond after expiration of the one year
maintenance_fe < <:J
3 . EXHIBITS: vicinity map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS•
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3N
..ny:�.,. 5 'T,ri•�•. T•;, '+'SI�1��M1i�'w.�.C^CF A �. .%A'.O! •!�. :�.. ..
.. .................................. ..
f�ln Si > W, ■ Lf 1 .
7
IAlIN 5t r D TRECK [W y IN(,1� �I
i 3 1 -rp
- 26 25,
_ . . . . T- > 1 !S I cNAI(r' I .�sw I 1 31. .
tNSIn
i < COA I(fR•1 I OACCNIlLT 7 31
uR
M w
�r X CORrDRA It
DR S
...........�... I ..
. . . . i WINKLER El rDi (n }I I
Cyy
,SH'SHfO OQ .. ___ _ _ i ____ �? i�.'. S.V MI. S1
C[N I(R
"CIL-A NMI P t ` �^ V 4 i t
t SAXON' 'OR N IZ i 7
>q ¢a> p l
..�. S1` .r TPgAN I O Q
\\�. .. ...,:,1........... S le TN Sr sw a' ao
V. ,. 11 i �D 5 I T ST z {
• �TOOD
• / `♦ 31 YJJ T it
.............. .... ......
I 1 {
. ST 1 120" ST
1taTN S IhTry !t
IMTN Si Isto N ST
.
"TH it
�^c)j I
'.. .............. .....2 .
t
-,l S Mt N ST > a
- co 1 ,
- 1 sD[,Nc AtRD sr.[[ uNItR LD �, g
.. .. ....... ..
VICINITY MAP
NORTHWARD BUSINESS PARK
Kent City Council Meeting
Y \ Date September 6, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: PAY AND PAK DISTRIBUTION CENTER BILL OF SALE
2. SUMNARY STATEMENT: 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 Ave. So . for the Pay and Pak Distribution Center and release
of the cash bond.
3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY•
(Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS•
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 30
IV s. t 0 Cutd.�P e M O�-h
{J 1 cMo .o o� pa.� �c=.a
J�!. M a c
An to
cc IMP,
4i .�p s O 'fL
to; CD
t. M.
N 40 m ro.rn c* .
a 4n .r. Ln a
� � motin.
r+ a
CT
?. yang 'b' "(D m o
Y
6 �d(
6♦f.�w�Vt lyyM«�1 v'r r. •rrr} �
!4 ♦� .?H ram,+-.. f�
y
CD
It
.M
'��y[•/\/ « fr, �{. �t t/ l iy'MI! ..
11 3 P{:ZQfK AVtI1 f. ..E. l 4< YR. : +11jPtxri ��f/ .AV1
I t♦ :� r�"w� i t v.i t f �-f A Ta 1 � .I �( v P f v
/��w7 ./'- M1 7 iE' t�'s ''l t _ ( ..'I ,I r Y '�, J�• ' }c L j 3< x.
1•• +�'f��� r an � r-1j1 0 f e i _-r Ff L S '��V rl (r t vt x �''I
'.r.r *'.`Y��lt,lv I r... j t Yf ♦ I R�+lr /' i � +era /I', ('i tT .:V aw ar
IV
4 Q1
_(�'``. twr '-•,.wr I I:i .,.;�7yr,,. a• I ��t11G AYLI:•rf Y,�, ,}Iv,�.�P,,,`�,.: Y if �,� Y+
w . x¢M qYt I , • -a'.i 4 ^S;C,f't Yy�r"P1Cy�a fl l yg7Jryvr�r \C
n'`'+"r.., �� r► `><•,,L .r � Y I'P,� 7Y��p},9ir _ tiyJ274re�,r� ,>< , � !`C1LTbD, ti
k. � �17 TY Y..[ + ` f Y♦ :YSNr 1+v�V a (T( ["'�'vgfl �jry fi Pv��l Y Jrrt'�SI��i 1 P .���:, _
S1► �1DN o
..mot he �.. y 4 .♦ a (�'7S I. - �',t f i - r�,-�
> ""�• HY..'+i lh t, ",fl (C11 f�Fy"J YV , ��t.��F�/ It t7J;+�°� rt Cl:.(1i
Ilk Kn _ ,,•� '�•���'f ' 4 Ohs �A I 1"', :,trL�"�'•+.^tSh�,,I'rlr+ (vc �'S..1f R Q :'r� t'
Y pI 0 .,,� y� V' _ �i,� rR.4�y•.'a 1 r��y,"•�• 1 i I.+{ -.
` s,
�.,f f;fA v f :11 J .il v 4�r • n + t- t�.f., r f,{a ' L.
... .�"'t ;.r« :S -, t .�i. I 4. + �r•.1 V 't { I ay 1:44 t
fIIf" nGk'T}ItNAr '. AYcllGAO '
to• I '."',.+,�IYh+" '��r Y "eq M I, ,I�' I }} s Yr 1 y 1 y r I '
J•�� • '� 1 .p,ra-v1,,,W„- SJ t Ph� +x f l �� f :�" r .L 1M1 - 1 � I S ♦r t<•V�r k P fr- (((�yy..�,.,,, #YAr P� 'M \ I N.•/r rk ,++'.:,I, 1 rt,f ) i � T / str 2 Y'fT fr�d.� ifs J.
lIrlfT'k
yI� et�`j ,...2,�I*I 5' x. , •,ry t? S lv .5 f N>.
� '!♦ I v- t ^ ' 171♦"t'EI� Rx'.. ?5 Y�RJi'4 ♦'iur.. ,��,( �'1.{+ •' ly p-.. ::v�Fr1� y..0 eP!ti Pf�'.; r �"'''
',;" q 'L, f..l/]' + hf`' w•.'•wl, r rY„•. 1 a f ^ l rrt`t x (t��"R ALL
a ii�� " . bA 'ki,.�t ,I,!°J I P�'y �+ 1�{ h }l'? r} r S,r.�.P.sV fir. Y,IM1 n }r •r r,
A f. d t 1 +• � .� ;IIOiSAML'v�•i��" �a r.•'
514wM'� f.�ar' S vyy1t�� .° , y�.'�• Y H �7a'+2}�-y= .{•��.v':''r•S'�;'s
'�Sv( 4x�r'tr M Mrvk 4 ♦ ^"4� " '� t. ' r .i. Y r t rr'
1 vt♦ y ♦ : , t '(' I Nyy I L` J f +wl xti I, l v4
.../�' 4 5, 'Frf•s'Y41 I } ,{R Y»G7 M1 IwfA'} •'� r ! }r , IY.P }r 4 P h,l�'..n4 ,. rji! •7 vL R ; 4 It'
f ( 1 , ♦1 n`, yJ,�}} M i l� ! 1.l,' ~ , xM14 l r .� Ya F' ♦7L { y�+ ff YJrl,�tt - ti •
t��� � �a(�Ni�b�sH r`h. ♦^!1 �• y+ Y f�j4�.�r,i,M1 4( � rl <` rv♦tj iiiX , lyy,-+ t I�:Plt'T11 KJ s !/' ,4 W wv I,..
If t � t. �'�! ! �r1� � �}ec�� ��'��"d'!,`�'�•�� �;,5�,4.L,"�..1.Y 1.1 •'�SLw•..w•�:..,3t...+�.�"o1�rr'v2. '�a�iw.�ily+:ir�t.a6`t:¢.i.:�wri•...91d._.r... _
fQ i,,1tR fir.: j Y ri. r w4 l
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 6, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: LID 322 - WEST VIEW TERRACE SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set October 18, as date
for public hearing on the confirmation of the final assessment
roll for the sanitary sewer improvements constructed in the West
View Terrace area .
3 . EXHIBITS•
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. 3P
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 6, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: LID 323 - OLYMPIC VIEW HEIGHTS SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set October 18, as date
for public hearing on the confirmation of the final assessment
roll for the sanitary sewer improvements constructed in the
Olympic View Heights area.
3 . EXHIBITS•
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 . 3Q
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 6, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: LID 325 - 76TH AVENUE SOUTH (S . 212TH TO SO. 220TH
STREET IMPROVEMENTS)
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set October 18, as date
for public hearing on the confirmation of the final assessment
roll for the street improvements constructed on 76th Ave. So.
from So . 212th to So . 220th Street .
3 . EXHIBITS•
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. 3R
Kent City Council Meeting
v�A Date September 6, 1988
(� � \ Category Consent Calendar
y\ 1. SUBJECT: RESOLUTION - PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Resolution No. , commending and
congratulating the Planning Association of Washington for 25
years of service to planning in the state and pledging City of
Kent ongoing support for the success of the organization.
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
-. ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3S
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, commending the
Planning Association of Washington for its 25
years of service to Planning.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Kent was
a founding member of the Planning Association of Washington when
it was formed in 1963; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Association of Washington has
served the Citizens of the State through its sponsorship of the
Planning Short Course; conferences and an annual awards program;
and
WHEREAS, these efforts have increased the knowledge of
planning and the effectiveness of the Kent Planning Commission and
elected officials in the planning process; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Association of Washington will
celebrate its 25th Anniversary in Yakima, October 20 and 21, 1988;
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City commends the Planning Association of
Washington for its 25 years of Service tc Planning in Washington
State.
Section 2. The City pledges its ongoing support for the
continued success of the Planning Association.
Section 3. The City extends its congratulations and best
wishes at the 25th celebration in Yakima.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this day of 1988.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 6, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: KING COUNTY LIBRARY BOARD ISSUE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution supporting
the King County Library Bond Issue .
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Council at 8/30 workshop
(Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc . )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3T
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, supporting the 1988
King County Library System bond issue.
WHEREAS, the King County Library System provides library
services to the citizens of the City of Kent, as well as those
throughout the County; and
WHEREAS, to meet increasing demands upon the system it is
essential to construct new buildings, expand current buildings and
purchase new materials; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to issue bonds to pay for such
needed improvements; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
- Section 1 . The Kent City Council hereby supports
Proposition 1 , for King County Library Improvements Bonds.
-. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this day of 1988.
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this
day of 1988.
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SANDRAATTORNEY
Kent City Council Meeting
r Date—September 6, 1988
Category Other Business
ei ��UBJECT: HAZARDOUS WASTE TR ATMENT AND STORAGE FACILITIES -
ZONING CODE AMENDME TS Ordinance
i
0
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: / -6ity._3__Att-o-rFtey- has _@reps.€-ed
Ordinance ,�i8oi , which amends the City of Kent zoning code as
required by recent State legislation to designate land use zones
in which hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities will be
allowed as permitted uses . The pr osed amendments will add new
definitions, siting criteria, perfo ance standards and permitted
uses to the commercial, industrial, nd agricultural zones. The
Planning Commission has recommended he zoning
changes after holding a public hearin on May 23, 1988 . Council
adopted the recommendation by Plannin Commission and directed
•.• preparation of this ordinance at the\ June 7, 1988 Council
meeting. By letter, dated August 17, 1`@88, Department of Ecology
conditionally approved the proposed zoing code amendments,
subject to adoption by the Kent City Cou cil and submittal of the
adopted ordinance to the Department for f nal approval .
,1
3 . EXHIBITS: Planning Commission minutes, M'y 23 , 1988, staff
report, letter from Department of Ecology, p oposed ordinance
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission May 23 988
(Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc . )
•._ 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to adopt Ordinance
DISCUSSION:
- ACTION.
---
Council Agenda
Item No. 4A
o��NWuy'i
Christine 0. Gregoire jjI xl'
Director
STATE OF W. gIINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
AUilStop PV-11 . 01lmpu, tVdgwngmn W604-1;-II • (!(N,) 459-0(kX)
August 11, 1988
; 1 ' ; : :
Mr. James P. Harris, Planning Director
City of Kent AR
d>
., c c
220 - 4th Avenue South i • ,.
Kent, WA 98032-5895 Plannir.
Re: Hazardous Waste Zoning Conditional Approval GOY of
Dear Mr. Harris:
Thank you for your draft hazardous waste zoning ordinance amendments
submitted in compliance with the June 30, 1988 deadline, pursuant to the
requirements of RCW 70. 105.225. Following this submittal, the
Department of Ecology must either approve or deny ordinances within 90
days. In turn, local government has 90 days in which to respond back to
the Department in the event of denial or other Department comments or
recommendations.
Accordingly, we have reviewed your draft amendments and find that they
comply with the requirements of Chapter 70.105 RCW, the Department's
hazardous waste zoning guidelines and state siting criteria. Your
amendments dated June 15, 1988 are hereby conditionally approved,
subject to adoption by the Kent City Council and submittal of the
adopted ordinance or certification of adoption to the Department for
final approval within 90 days of the date of this letter.
If you have questions or need clarification on this matter, please call
Phil Clark at (206) 459-6308.
Sincerely,
Terry Husseman
_. Program Manager
TH:pb
This 80 page ordinance is available for review
in the City Clerk ' s office
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, amending the Kent Zoning Code to
meet requirements of State Legislation to land
use zones in which hazardous waste treatment
and storage facilities will be allowed as
permitted use, for the addition of new
definitions, siting criteria, performance
standard and permitted uses to the commercial,
industrial and agricultural zones, recodifying
Sections 15.02.175 and 15.02 .180, adding
sections 15.02 .097, 15 .02 .98, 15.02 .133,
15.02 .175 through 15.02 .182, amending
15.04 .005, 15.04.010, 15.04.015, 15.04 .090,
15. 04 .100, 15.04 .110, 15.04 .120, 15.04.130,
15.04 .140, 15.04.150, 15.04 .160, 15.04.160,
15.04 .170, 15.04 .180, 15.04 .190, 15.04.200,
15.08.020, 15.08.050 and 15.09.100
WHEREAS, the City of Kent has enacted a zoning code
recognizing that there is a continuing need to regulate the use of
land to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, and
recognizing the opportunities to obtain an urban environment of
high quality without unduly high public or private expenditures
for development and without unreasonably restricting private
enterprise or initiative; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State legislature has recently
directed local governments to address zoning concerns relating to
hazardous waste treatment and storage; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Kent City Zoning Code Chapter 15.02 is
amended by recodifying Section 15. 02 .175, and Section 15.02.180;,
and by adding Sections 15 .02.097, 15 .02 .098, 15.02.133, 15.02.175,
15.02.176, 15.02.177, 15.02 .178, 15.02 .179, 15.02.180, 15.02.181 ,
and 15.02 .182, as follows:
I
Kent City Council Meeting
V \ Date September 6, 1988
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. ZCA-88-7
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: On August 22, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of a zoning code amendment to allow as an
outright permitted use gymnastic schools or similar uses in both
the M1 (industrial park district) and M2 (limited industrial
district) . Also recommended was the inclusion of health and
fitness clubs and facilities in the M2 district as an outright
permitted use.
3 . EXHIBITS: Minutes of Planning Commission meeting
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission 8/22/88 \
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to approve zoning code amendment No . ZCA-88-7 as recommended by
the Planning Committee on August 22, 1988 and to direct the City
Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance.
DISCUSSION: Yw
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4B
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
September 1, 1988
Memo to: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members
From: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Subject: Gymnastics Schools in M-1 and M-2 Zoning Districts
On August 22, 1988 the Planning Commission recommended to the City
Council that gymnastics schools be a permitted use in the M-1,
Industrial Park zoning district and M-2 , Limited Industrial zoning
district.
Gymnastics schools need large, open, bay-type buildings with high
ceilings. Such uses should not interfere with the normal
industrial operations since the gymnastics schools generally
operate in the late afternoon and in the evenings. Thus off-
street parking can be jointly used by both the gymnastics schools
and the regular industrial uses.
JPH:ca
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 22 , 1988
Commissioner Rudy MOVED to continue the public hearing.
- Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. The public hearing was
continued to September 26, 1988, the next regularly scheduled
Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO KCC 15. 04. 170 RELATING TO INTRODUCING
GYMNASTIC SCHOOLS AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE M-1 AND M-2 DISTRICTS
AND KCC 15. 04 . 180 , INTRODUCING HEALTH AND FITNESS CLUBS AS A
PERMITTED USE (ZCA 88-7) .
Mr. Harris suggested that gymnastic schools and similar uses be
-.- permitted outright in the M-1 and M-2 zones because activities of
this type require buildings with pillars or vaulted ceilings in
order to accommodate the apparatus that is used. These uses are
difficult to locate in other zones. He also suggested that health
and fitness clubs and facilities be added to the principally
permitted uses in the M-2 zone. He pointed out that in the M-2
zone principally permitted uses would be limited to 25 percent of
the gross floor area of any single or multibuilding development.
In response to a question about karate schools, he felt these would
be included.
Commissioner Rudy MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Greenstreet SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
Commissioner Rudy MOVED to accept this proposal and permit
gymnastic schools and similar uses in M-1 and health and fitness
clubs and facilities and gymnastic schools in M-2 as permitted
outright. Commissioner Greenstreet SECONDED the motion. Motion
carried.
EAST HILL PLAN
Mr. Harris stated that the East HIll Plan was adopted on September
71 1982 . On December 3 , 1984 Resolution #1040 was adopted which
revised zoning in the area of South 240th/104th Avenue (Fred Meyer)
and authorized study of South 256th/104th Avenue. In December 1985
the Planning Department published the East Hill Commercial Study
which recommended there be no expansion of commercial zoning at the
256th/104th area. On February 25, 1986 the Planning Commission
recommended 13 sites (70+ acres) for commercial zoning. On April
21, 1986 Resolution #1100 was adopted which referred these
amendments to commercial zoning back to the Planning Commission for
reconsideration. The Commission was given six months to report
back to Council. On September 15, 1986 Kent City Council granted
a three-month extension for the Commission to report findings. On
3
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 22 , . 1988
December 1, 1986 Resolution #1123 was adopted which directed the
Planning Commission to defer action on East Hill commercial
amendments until the overall subarea plan was updated and declared
an intent to achieve an average density reduction of 20 percent on
all undeveloped multifamily zoned lands throughout the city. On
July 5, 1988 Ordinance #2788 reduced density in multifamily zones.
Resolution #1172 directed an update of the Housing Element of the
City's Comprehensive Plan including an area-by-area analysis of
residential density. Staff will address the East Hill Plan issue
at the Planning Committee meeting on September 6 in order to obtain
guidance from them. Mr. Harris stated that staff will recommend
that any work on the East Hill Plan be done in the context of
Resolution #1123 and Ordinance #2788 . The Planning Department has
been authorized to hire an extra person for the study of this area
over a one-year period. There will be hearings on the housing
element aspects of the various plans.
CERTIFICATE OF APPOINTMENT
Acting Chairman Martinez presented to Commissioner Haylor the
Certificate of Appointment to the Planning Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Rudy MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Greenstreet SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
Acting Chairman Martinez adjourned the meeting at 8 : 30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja es P. Har is, ecretary
4
I�
(!�I Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 6, 1988
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) ORDINANCE
+\
2 . SUMMARY STATEMED�T: In mid-1987 Planning Commission
recommended to;'Council tha a new PUD ordinance be adopted. The
Council referred this recom endation to the Planning Committee.
In April 1988, the Planning ommittee formed a citizen committee
to review the Planning Commi ion' s draft ordinance. On July 19,
1988, the Council ' s Planning ommittee unanimously recommended to
the full Council that the PU Citizens Advisory Committee ' s
proposed draft of the PUD ordi ance be adopted. The Council
accepted the decision of the P anning Committee and Citizens
Advisory Committee ' s recommendati n on August 16, 1988 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to adopt Ordinance
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4C
i
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, relating to zoning and Hearing
Examiner decisions; repealing Kent City Code
Section 15.04.080; establishing Section
15.04.080 Planned Unit Development; and
amending Kent City Code Chapter 2.54 relating
to Hearing Examiner decisions regarding Planned
Unit Developments.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Repealer. Section 15.04.080, Kent City Code,
is here by repealed.
Section 2. A new Section, Section 15.04.080, Kent City
Code, is added as follows:
15.04.080 Planned Unit Development (PUD) .
General Purpose. The intent of the PUD is to create a
,... process to promote diversity and creativity in site design, and
protect and enhance natural and community features. The process
is provided to encourage unique developments which may combine a
mixture of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. By using
flexibility in the application of development standards, this
process will promote developments that will benefit citizens that
live and work within the City of Kent.
A. ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE PERMITTED. PUD's are permitted in all
zoning districts with the exception of the A-1 Agricultural zone.
B. PERMITTED USES
1. Principally Permitted Uses. The principally
permitted uses in PUD'S shall be the same as those permitted in
the underlying zoning classifications.
2. Conditional Uses. The conditional uses in PUD's
shall be the same as those permitted in the underlying zoning
classification. The conditional use permit review process may be
consolidated with that of the PUD pursuant to procedures specified
in section F below.
3. Accessory Uses. Accessory uses and buildings which
are customarily incidental and subordinate to a principally
permitted use are also permitted.
4. Exceptions.
a. In single family residential zoning districts
(RA and R1) attached side by side (not vertically stacked)
residential units may be permitted in a PUD.
b. In residential PUD's of ten (10) acres or more,
commercial uses may be permitted. Commercial uses shall be limited
to those uses permitted in the Neighborhood Convenience District.
C. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following development standards
are minimum requirements for a Planned Unit Development:
1. Minimum Lot Size - Exclusion. The minimum lot size
requirements of the districts outlined in the zoning code shall
not apply to PUD's.
2. Minimum Site Acreage. Minimum site acreage for a PUD
is established according to the zoning in which the PUD is
located, as follows:
Zones Minimum Site Acreage
RA - Rl(7.2-20) 5 acres
Multifamily
(MRD, MRG, MRM, MRH) None
Commercial, Office and
Manufacturing Zones None .,
3. Minimum Perimeter Building Setback. The minimum
perimeter building setback of the underlying zone shall apply.
Multifamily Transition Area requirements shall apply to any
multifamily developments (15.08.215 Kent City Code) , except where -
specifically exempted by Administrative Design Review (15.09.045
Kent City Code) . The Hearing Examiner may reduce building
separation requirements to the minimum required by Building and
Fire Departments according to criteria set forth in Section F. (1)
of this chapter. If an adjacent property is undevelopable under
the Kent City Zoning Code, the perimeter building setback
requirement may be waived by the Hearing Examiner.
4. Maximum Height Of Structures. The maximum height of
structures of the underlying zone shall apply. Multifamily
Transition Area requirements shall apply to any multifamily
developments (15.08.215 Kent City Code) , except where specifically
exempted by Administrative Design Review (15.09.045 Kent City
Code). The Hearing Examiner may authorize additional height in
CC, GC, DC, CM, M1, M2, and M3 zones where proposed development in
the PUD is compatible with the scale and character of adjacent
existing developments.
5. Open Space. The standard set forth herein shall
apply to PUD residential developments only. Each PUD shall
provide a minimum of 35 percent of the total site area for common
open space. In mixed-use PUD's containing residential uses,
thirty-five (35) percent of the area used for residential use
shall be reserved as open space.
2 -
For the purpose of this section, open space shall be
defined as land which is not used for buildings, dedicated public
right-of-ways, traffic circulation and roads, parking areas, or
any kind of storage. Open space includes but is not limited to:
privately owned woodlands, open fields, streams, wetlands, severe
development areas, sidewalks, walkways, landscaped areas, gardens,
court yards, or lawns. Common open space may provide for either
.... active or passive recreation.
Open space within a PUD shall be available for common use
by the residents, tenants and/or the general public, depending on
the type of project.
6. Streets. If streets within the development are
required to be dedicated to the City for public use, such streets
shall be designed in accordance with the standards outlined in the
Kent Subdivision Code and other appropriate City standards. If
streets within the development are to remain in private ownership
and remain as private streets, the following standards shall apply
a. Minimum Private Street Pavement Widths For
Parallel Parking In Residential Planned Unit Development's
No Parking Parking
Parking One Side Both Sides
(Feet) (Feet) (Feet)
One-Way
Streets 20 29 38
Two-Way
Streets 22 31 90
The above minimum widths may be modified upon review
and approval by the Kent Fire Chief and the Kent Traffic Engineer
providing they are sufficient to maintain emergency access and
traffic safety. A maintenance agreement for private streets
within a PUD shall be required by the Hearing Examiner as a
condition of PUD approval.
b. Vehicle Parking Areas. Adequate vehicular
parking areas shall be provided. The required number of parking
spaces may vary from the requirements of Kent City Code 15.05 and
shall be approved by the Hearing Examiner based upon a parking
need assessment study submitted by the applicant and approved by
the Planning Director. Vehicular parking areas may be provided by
on-street parking and/or off-street parking lots. The design of
such parking areas shall be in accordance with the standards
outlined in Chapter 15.05, Kent City Code
C. One-Way Streets. One-Way loop streets shall be
no more than 1,500 feet long.
d. On-Street Parking. On-street parking shall be
permitted. Privately owned and maintained "no parking"' and/or
"fire lane" signs may be required as determined by the Kent
Traffic Engineer and Kent Fire Department Chief.
3 -
7. Pedestrian Walkways. Pedestrian walkways shall be
constructed of material deemed to be an "all weather surface" by
the Public Works Director and Planning Director.
8. Landscapina.
a. Minimum perimeter landscaping of the underlying
zone shall apply. Additional landscaping shall be required as
provided in Chapter 15.07 and 15.08.215 of the Kent City Code.
b. All PUD developments shall ensure that parking
areas are integrated with the landscaping system and provide
screening of vehicles from view from public streets. Parking
areas shall be conveniently located to buildings and streets while
providing for landscaping adjacent to buildings and pedestrian
access.
C. Solid waste collection areas and waste
reduction/recycling collection areas shall be conveniently and
safely located for on-site use and collection, and attractively
site screened.
9. Signs. The sign regulations of Chapter 15.06, Kent
City Code shall apply.
10. Platting. If portions of the PUD are to be
subdivided for sale or lease, the procedures of the Kent
Subdivision Code as amended shall apply. Specific development
standards (lot size, street design, etc. ) shall be provided as
outlined in Kent City Code Section 15.04.080 E.
11. Green River Corridor. Any development located
within the Green River Corridor Special Interest District shall
adhere to the Green River Corridor Special Interest District
Regulations.
12. View Regulation. View regulations as specified in
Kent City Code 15.08.060 shall apply to all PUD's.
13. Shoreline Master Program. Any development located
within 200 feet of the Green River shall adhere to Kent Shoreline
Management regulations.
D. DENSITY BONUS STANDARDS. The density of residential
development for PUD's shall be based on the gross density of the
underlying zoning district.
The Hearing Examiner may recommend a dwelling unit
density not more than twenty (20) percent greater than permitted
by the underlying zone upon findings and conclusions that the
amenities or design features which promote the purposes of this
section, as listed below, are provided:
1. Open Space. A four (4) percent density bonus may be
authorized if at least ten (10) percent of the open space is in
concentrated areas for passive use. Open space shall include
significant natural features of the site, including but not
limited to fields, woodlands, watercourses, permanent and
seasonally wetlands. Excluded from the open space definition are
the areas within the building footprints, land used for parking,
4 -
vehicular circulation, right-of-ways and areas used for any kind
of storage.
2. Active Recreation Areas. A four (4) percent density
bonus may be authorized if at least ten (10) percent of the site
is utilized for active recreational purposes, including but not
limited to jogging/walking trails, pools, children's play areas,
_. etc.
Only that percentage of space contained within accessory
structures that is directly used for active recreation purposes
can be included in the ten (10) percent active recreation
requirement.
3. Storm Water Drainage. A two (2) percent density
bonus may be authorized if storm water drainage control is
accomplished using natural on-site drainage features. Natural
drainage feature many include streams, creeks, ponds, etc.
4. Native Vegetation. A four (4) percent density bonus
may be authorized if at least fifteen (15) percent of the native
vegetation on the site is left undisturbed in large open areas.
5. Parking Lot Size. A two (2) percent density bonus
may be authorized if off-street parking is grouped in areas of
sixteen (16) stalls or less. Parking areas must be separated from
other parking areas or buildings by significant landscaping in
excess of Type V standards as provided in Section 15.05.070, Kent
City Code At least fifty (50) percent of these parking areas must
be designed as outlined above to receive the density bonus.
6. Mixed Housing Types. A two (2) percent density
bonus may be authorized if a development features a mix of
residential housing types. Single family residences, attached
single units, condominiums, apartments, and townhomes are examples
of housing types. The mix need not include some of every type.
7. Project Planning/Management. A two (2) percent
- density bonus may be granted if a design/development team is
used. Such a team would include a mixture of architects,
engineers, landscape architects, and designers. A
design/development team is likely to produce a professional
development concept that would be consistent with the purpose of
the regulations.
These standards are thresholds, and partial credit is not
given for partial attainment. The site plan must at least meet
the threshold level of each bonus standard in order for density
bonuses to be given for that standard.
I
E. APPLICATION PROCESS. The application process includes the
following steps: informal review process, State Environmental
Policy Act, community information meeting, development plan
review, and public hearing before the hearing examiner.
1. Informal Review Process. An applicant shall meet
informally with the Planning Department at the earliest possible
date to discuss the proposed PUD. The purpose of this meeting is
to develop a project that will meet the needs of the applicant and
the objectives of the city as defined in this ordinance.
- 5 -
i
2. SEPA. The State Environmental Policy Act,
regulations, and City SEPA requirements shall be completed prior
to development plan review.
3. Development Plan Review. After informal review and
completion of the SEPA process, a proposal shall next be reviewed
by City staff through the development plan review process.
Comments received by the project developer under the development
review process shall be used to formalize the proposed developmentii
prior to being presented at a public hearing before the Hearing
Examiner.
4. Community Information Meeting.
a. A community information meeting shall be
required for any proposed PUD located in a residential zone or
within 200 feet of a residential zone. At this meeting the
applicant shall present the development proposed to interested
residents. Issues raised at the meeting may be used to refine the
PUD plan. .,
I
i
Notice shall be given in at least one (1)
publication in the local newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to
the public hearing. Written notice shall be mailed first class to
all property owners within a radius of not less than two hundred
(200) feet of the exterior boundaries of the property being
subject to the application. Any alleged failure of any property
owner to actually receive said notice of hearing shall not
invalidate the proceedings.
b. Non-residential PUD's not located within 200
feet of a residential zone shall not require a community
information meeting.
5. Public Notice And Hearin Examiner Public Hearin
The Hearing Examiner shall hold at least one 1 public hearing on
the proposed PUD and shall give notice thereof in at least one (1) 1
publication in the local newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to
the public hearing. Written notice shall be mailed first class tol
all property owners within a radius of not less than two hundred
(200) feet of the exterior boundaries of the property being
subject to the application. Any alleged failure of any property
owner to actually receive said notice of hearing shall not
invalidate the proceedings.
i
6. Consolidation Of Land Use Permit Processes. The PUD
approval process may be used to consolidate other land use permit
( processes which are required by other sections of this code. The j
public hearing required for the PUD may serve as the public
hearing for conditional use permit, subdivision, shoreline
substantial development, and/or rezoning if such land use permits
are a part of the overall PUD application. When another land use
permit is involved which requires City Council approval, the PUD
shall not he deemed to be approved until the City Council has
approved the related land use permit. In the event that at a
public hearing is required for any of the above categories of
actions, the Hearing Examiner shall employ the public hearing
notice requirements for all actions considered which ensures the
maximum notice to the public.
i
i
- 6 -
7. Hearing Examiner Decision. The Hearing Examiner
shall issue a written decision within fourteen (14) days from the
date of the hearing. Parties of record will be notified in
writing of the decision. The decision is final unless notice of
appeal is filed with the City Clerk within fourteen (14) days of
receipt by the developer of the decision.
B. Effective Date. In approving a PUD, the Hearing
Examiner shall specify that the approved PUD shall not take effect
unless or until the developer files a completed development permit
application within the time periods required by the Kent City Code
as set forth in Section 6 below. No official map or zoning text
' designations shall be amended to reflect the approved PUD
designation until such time as the PUD becomes effective.
F. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. Upon receipt of
- a complete application, as determined by the Planning Director,
for a residential PUD, the Planning Department shall review the
application and make its recommendation to the Hearing Examiner.
The Hearing Examiner shall determine whether to grant, deny or
condition an application based upon the following review criteria:
1. Residential Planned Unit Development Criteria
a. The proposed PUD project shall have a beneficial
effect upon the community and users of the development which would
not normally be achieved by traditional lot-by-lot development and
shall not be detrimental to existing or potential surrounding land
uses as defined by the Comprehensive Plan.
b. Unusual environmental features of the site shalli
be preserved, maintained and incorporated into the design to
benefit the development and the community.
C. The proposed PUD project shall provide areas of
openness by using techniques such as clustering, separation of
building groups, and use of well-designed open space and/or
landscaping.
d. The proposed PUD project shall promote variety
and innovation in site and building design. Buildings in groups
shall he related by common materials and roof styles, but contrast
shall be provided throughout the site by the use of varied
materials, architectural detailing, building scale and orientation,
e. Building design shall be based on a unified
design concept, particularly when construction will be in phases.
2. Non-Residential Planned Unit Development Criteria
a. The proposed project shall have a beneficial
-. effect which would not normally be achieved by traditional
lot-by-lot development and not be detrimental to present or
potential surrounding land uses as defined by the Comprehensive
plan.
b. Unusual environmental features of the site shall
be preserved, maintained and incorporated into the design to
benefit the development and the community.
_ II
7 -
I
i
C. The proposed project shall provide areas of
openness by the clustering of buildings, and by the use of
well-designed landscaping and open spaces. Landscaping shall
promote a coordinated appearance and break up continuous expanses
of building and pavement.
d. The proposed project shall promote variety and
innovation in site and building design. It shall encourage the
incorporation of special design features such as visitor
entrances, plazas, outdoor employee lunch and/or recreation areas,
architectural focal points and accent lighting.
e. Building design shall be based on a unified
design concept, particularly when construction will be in phases.
G. TIME LIMITS.
1. Application For Develocment Permit. The applicant
shall apply for a development permit no later than one (1) year
following final approval of the PUD. The application for
development permit shall contain all conditions of the PUD
approval.
2. Extensions. An extension of time for development
permit application may be requested in writing by the applicant.
Such an extension may be granted by the Planning Director for a
period not to exceed one (1) year. If a development permit is not
issued within one year (or eighteen months, including extension)
the PUD approval shall become null and void and the PUD shall not
take effect.
H. Modifications Of The Plan. Requests for
modifications of final approved plans shall be made in writing and
shall be submitted to the Planning Department in the manner and
form prescribed by the Planning Director. The criteria for
approval of a request for a major modification shall be those
criteria covering original approval of the permit which is the
subject of the proposed modification.
1. Minor Modifications. Modifications are deemed minor
if the following criteria are satisfied:
(a) No new land use is proposed; and
(b) No increase in density, number of dwelling units or
lots id proposed; and
(c) No changes in the general location or number of
access points is proposed; and
(d) No reduction in the amount of open space is
proposed; and
(e) No reduction in the amount of parking is proposed;
and i
(f) No increase in the total square footage of
structures to be developed is proposed; and
I
- 8 -
(g) No increase in general height of structures is
proposed.
Examples of minor modifications include but are not
limited to lot line adjustments, minor relocations of buildings or
landscaped areas, minor changes in phasing and timing, and minor
changes is elevations of buildings.
2. Major Modifications. Major adjustments are those
which, as determined by the Planning Director, substantially
change the basic design, density, open space or other similar
requirements or provisions. Major adjustments to the development
plans shall be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing
Examiner may review such adjustments at a regular public hearing.
If a public hearing is held, the process outlined in Kent City
Code 15.04.080.F. shall apply. The Hearing Examiner shall issue a
written decision to approve, deny, or modify the request. Such a
decision shall be final. The decision may be appealed to the City
Council by the filing of written notice of appeal with the City
Clerk within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Developer's
receipt of the Hearing Examiners decision.
Section 3. Kent City Code Chapter 2.54 is amended as
-. follows:
CHAPTER 2.54
LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
2.54.010. TITLE. This Chapter shall be hereinafter
known as the "Land Use Hearing Examiner Ordinance" or "Hearing
Examiner," may be cited as such, will be hereinafter referred to
as "this Chapter" and the same shall be and constitute a new
section of Chapter 2 of the Kent City Code. (0.2233, 51)
2.54.020. GENERAL OBJECTIVES. It is the general
objective of this Chapter to:
A. Provide a single, efficient, integrated land use
regulatory hearing system;
B. Render land use regulatory decisions and recommenda-
tions to the City Council; j
_- C. Provide a greater degree of due process in land use
regulatory hearings;
D. Separate the land use policy formulation and the
land use policy administration processes. (0.2233, 52)
2.54.030. CREATION OF LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER. The
office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, hereinafter referred to
as Examiner, is created. The Examiner shall interpret, review,
and implement land use regulations as provided in this Chapter and
other ordinances. The term Examiner shall likewise include the
Examiner Pro Tem. (0.2233, 53)
- 9 -
I
2.54.040. APPOINTMENT AND TERMS. The Hearing Examiner
and Examiner Pro Tem shall be appointed by the City Administrator
and shall serve at the pleasure of the City Administrator.
(0.2233, S4)
I
2.54.050. COMPENSATION. The Examiner and Examiner Pro
Tem may, at the discretion of the City Council, be classified as
permanent part-time employees, or the City may contract with the
Examiner and Examiner Pro Tem for the performance of duties
described in this Chapter. The compensation to be paid the
Examiner and Examiner Pro Tem shall be that established in the
annual City budget. (0.2233, S5)
2.54.060. QUALIFICATIONS. The Examiner and Examiner Prol
Tem shall be appointed solely with regard to their qualifications
for the duties of the office which shall include, but not be
limited to, persons with appropriate educational experience, such
as an urban planner, or public administrator, with at least five
years' experience, persons who have extensive experience in plan-
ning work in a responsible capacity, and persons with legal expe-
rience, particularly where the experience is in the area of land
use management of administrative law. (0.2233, S6)
2.54.070. EXAMINER PRO TEM--QUALIFICATIONS AND DUTIES.
The Examiner Pro Tem shall, in the event of the absence or the
inability of the Examiner to act, have all the duties and powers
of the Examiner. (0.2233, S7)
2.54.080. HEARING EXAMINER--CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND
FREEDOM FROM IMPROPER INFLUENCE. The Examiner shall not conduct
or participate in any hearing or decision in which the Examiner
has a direct or indirect personal interest which might exert such
influence upon the Examiner that might interfere with his or her
decision-making process.. Any actual or potential conflict of
interest shall be disclosed to the parties immediately upon
discovery of such conflict.
Participants in the land use regulatory process have the
right, insofar as possible, to have the Examiner free from
personal interest or prehearing contacts on land use regulatory
matters considered by him or her. It is recognized that there is
a countervailing public right to free access to public officials
on any matter. If such personal or prehearing interest contact
impairs the Examiner's ability to act on the matter, such person
shall so state and shall abstain therefrom to the end that the
proceeding is fair and has the appearance of fairness, unless all
parties agree in writing to have the matter heard by said
Examiner. (0.2233, S8)
2.54.090. FREEDOM FROM IMPROPFR INFLUENCE. No Council
member, City official, or any other person shall attempt to inter-
fere with, or improperly influence the Examiner in the performance
of his or her designated duties. (0.2233, S9)
2.54.100. DUTIES OF THE EXAMINER.
I
A. Applications. The Examiner shall receive and
examine available information, conduct public hearings, prepare a
( record thereof, and enter findings of fact and conclusions based
10 -
upon those facts, which conclusions shall represent the final
action on the application, unless appealed, as hereinbelow
specified, for the following types of applications:
1. Conditional use permits;
2. Shoreline permits;
3. Sign variances_;
4. Planned unit developments.
The Examiner shall receive and examine
available information, conduct public hearings, prepare a record
thereof and enter findings of fact and conclusions based upon
those facts, together with a recommendation to the City Council,
for the following applications:
a. Rezones;
b. Preliminary plats;
e. Planned-unit-develepments;
d. Special use combining districts, including
mobile home park combining districts.
e. Initial zoning designations for annexed
areas or zoning designations for proposed annexations to become
-•• effective upon annexation.
The Examiner shall also conduct public hearings when
required under the provisions of the State Environmental Policy
Act; conduct public hearings relative to possible revocation of
any conditional use permit; conduct such other hearings as the
Council may from time to time deem appropriate.
B. Recommendation or Decision.
1. The Examiner's recommendation or decision may
be to grant or deny the application, or the Examiner may recommend
or require of the applicant such conditions, modifications and
restrictions as the Examiner finds necessary to make the applica-
tion compatible with its environment and carry out the objectives
and goals of the comprehensive plan, the zoning code, the sub-
division code, and other codes and ordinances of the City. Condi-
tions, modifications and restrictions which may be imposed are,
but are not limited to, additional setbacks, screenings in the
form of landscaping and fencing, covenants, easements and dedica-
tions of additional roads rights-of-way. Performance bonds may bel
re-required to insure compliance with conditions, modifications
and restrictions.
2. In regard to applications for rezones,
preliminary and final plat approval, PUB's and special use
combining districts the Examiner's findings and conclusions shall
be submitted to the City Council, which shall have the final
authority to act on such applications. The hearing by the
Examiner shall constitute the hearing by the City Council.
(0.2469, S2)
- 11 -
i
2.54.110. APPLICATIONS. Applications for all matters to
be heard by the Examiner shall be presented to the Planning
Department. When it is found an application meets the filing
requirements of the Planning Department, it shall be accepted.
The department shall be responsible for assigning a date of public
hearing for each application which date shall not be more than one
hundred days after the applicant has complied with all require-
ments and furnished all necessary data for the Planning -
Department. (0.2233, Sll)
2.54.120. REPORT BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. Department
shall coordinate and assemble the comments and recommendations of
other City departments and governmental agencies having an
interest in the subject application and shall prepare a report
summarizing the factors involved and the Planning Department
findings and supportive recommendations. At least seven calendar
days prior to the scheduled hearing, the report shall be filed
with the Examiner and copies thereof shall be mailed to the
applicant and shall be made available for use by any interested
party for the cost of reproduction. (0.2233, S12)
2.54.130. PUBLIC HEARING. Before rendering a decision
or recommendation on any application, the Examiner shall hold at
least one public hearing thereon.
Notice of the time and place of the public hearing shall
be given as provided in the ordinance governing the application.
If none is specifically set forth, such notice shall be given at
least ten days prior to such hearing.
I
The Examiner shall have the power to prescribe rules and
regulations for the conduct of hearings under this Chapter and
also to administer oaths, and preserve order. (0.2233, S13)
2 .54.140. EXAMINER'S DECISION AND
RECOMMENDATION--FINDINGS REQUIRED. When the Examiner renders a
decision or recommendation, the Examiner shall make and enter
written findings from the record and conclusions therefrom which
support such decision, which decision shall be rendered within
fourteen calendar days of the conclusion of the hearing. The copy !
of such decision including findings and conclusions, shall be
transmitted by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the
applicant and other parties of record in the case requesting the
same.
In the case of applications requiring Council approval,
the Examiner shall file a decision with the City Council at the
expiration of the period' provided for a rehearing or within
fourteen days of the conclusion of a rehearing, if one is
conducted. (0.2233, S14)
2.54.150. RECONSIDERATION. Any aggrieved person feelingi
that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous proce-
dures, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery
of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the
prior hearing, may make a written request for reconsideration by
the Examiner within fourteen days of the date the decision is
rendered. This request shall set forth the specific errors or new
information relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, I
12 -
after review of the record, take further action as he or she deems
proper. (0.2233, 515)
2.54.160. APPEAL OF EXAMINER'S DECISION. Any party who
feels aggrieved by the Examiner's decision may submit an appeal in
writing to the Council within fourteen calendar days from the date
the final decision of the Examiner is rendered, requesting a
review of such decision.
Such appeal shall be upon the record, established and
made at the hearing held by the Examiner, provided that new
evidence which was not available at the time of the hearing held
by the Examiner may be included in such appeal. The term "new
evidence" shall mean only evidence discovered after the hearing
held by the Examiner and shall not include evidence which was
available or which could reasonably have been available and was
- simply not presented at the hearing for whatever reason. i
Such written appeal shall allege specific errors of fact,
specific procedural errors, omissions from the record, errors in
the interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan or new evidence which
was not available at the time of the hearing held by the Examiner.
Upon such written appeal being filed within the time
period allotted and upon payment of fees as required, a hearing
shall be held by the City Council. Such hearing shall be held in i
accordance with appeal procedures adopted by the City Council by
resolution. If the Examiner has recommended approval of the
proposal, such recommendation shall be considered by the City
Council at the same time as the consideration of the appeal.
(0.2233, 516)
2.54.170. COUNCIL ACTION. Any application requiring
action by the City Council shall be taken by the adoption of a
resolution or ordinance by the Council. When taking any such
final action, the Council shall make and enter findings of fact
from the record and conclusions therefrom which support its
action. The City Council may adopt all or portions of the
• Examiner's findings and conclusions.
In the case of an ordinance for rezone of property, the
ordinance shall not be placed on the Council's agenda until all
,• conditions, restrictions, or modifications which may have been
stipulated by the Council have been accomplished or provisions for
compliance made to the satisfaction of the Legal Department.
The action of the Council, approving, modifying, or
rejecting a decision of the Examiner, shall be final and conclu-
sive, unless within twenty calendar days from the date of the
Council action an aggrieved party or person applies for a writ of
certiorari to the Superior Court of Washington for King County,
for the purpose of review of the action taken. (0.2233, 517)
2.54.180. CITY ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF TO BE CONSIDERED A
"PERSON" OR "PARTY." For the purpose of Sections 2.54.60 and
2.54.64, the City's administrative staff shall be considered a
"person" and/or "party" and shall have the same rights as any
other person or party to make requests for reconsideration by the
Hearing Examiner or to appeal decisions of the Hearing Examiner to
the City Council. (0.2302, 51)
I
13 - '
I
Section 4. Any act consistent with the authority and
prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified
and confirmed.
Section 5. 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. i
APPROVED the day of , 1988.
PUBLISHED the day of , 1988.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance
No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent,
Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon
indicated.
(SEAL)
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
6040-220
14 -
V
�\ Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 6, 1988
�V 1 Category Other Business
SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO KENT ZONING CODE 15 . 09 .030 E
NO. ZCA-88-5
2. SL74KARY STATEMENT: On July 25 , 1988 the Planning Commission
recommended to the City Council that Kent City Code Section
15 .09 .030 E 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 Planning Committee.
3 . EXHIBITS: Planning Commission minutes, staff report, memo from
City Attorney
4. RECOMMENDED BY: _Planning Commission 7/25/88
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
,... SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember W L moves, Councilmember seconds
to refer zoning code amendment No. ZCA-88-5 to he Planning
Committee for consideration
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4D
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
DATE: August 26, 1988
TO- The Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
#UBOECT:
Sandra Driscoll , City Attorney
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND HEARING EXAMINER - STATUTORY AND CODE
PROVISIONS
Set forth below is a summary of the state laws and Kent City Code relating to
the Board of Adjustment and Hearing Examiner.
I . BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A. Statutory Provisions (RCW 35A.63.110)
1 . A code city that creates a planning agency, such as the City of Kent,
must create, by ordinance, a board of adjustment and make provisions
for its membership, terms of office, organization, and jurisdiction.
2. Unlike the hearing examiner, the action of the Board is final and
conclusive. The only right ' afforded a developer or applicant is a
right to appeal , with ten days from the date of the action, to the
superior court seeking a writ of certiorari , prohibition, or mandamus.
3. No member of the board of adjustment can be a member of the planning
commission or the City Council .
4. The Board of Adjustment may be empowered by the Council to hear and
decide:
a. Administrative Determination Appeals - Appeals from orders,
recommendations, permits, decisions, or determinations made by
the planning official in the administration or enforcement of
the laws related to planning and zoning.
b. Variances - Applications for variances from the terms of the
zoning ordinance, the official map ordinance, or other land use
regulatory ordinances pursuant to procedures and conditions
prescribed by the City Council through ordinance, which, among
other things, must provide that no application for a variance
can be granted unless the Board of Adjustment finds:
1 . the variance shall not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of
other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the
property on behalf of which the application was filed is
located; and
2. that variance is necessary, because of special
circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography,
location, or surroundings of the subject property, to
provide it with use rights and privileges permitted to
other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which
the subject property is located; and
3. that the granting of such variance will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which
the subject property is situated.
C. Conditional Use Permits - Applications for conditional -use
permits, unless such applications are to be heard and decided by
the planning commission. A conditional use means a use listed
among those classified in any given zone but permitted to locate
only after review as provided within the state laws with
standards and cr.iterias as set forth in the city zoning
ordinance.
d. Other items - Such other quasi-judicial and administrative
determinations as may be delegated by city ordinance.
- 2 -
5. The board of adjustment must issue a written report giving the
reasons for its decision.
6. If the city provides for a hearing examiner and gives the hearing
_ examiner the authority to decide items related to administrative
decisions, variances, or conditional uses, then the city is not
required to create a board of adjustment.
, I
B. Kent City Code (Chapter 12.12 )
1 . Chapter 12.12 creates the Board of Adjustment. It must consist of
citizens having an understanding of the benefits of planning and
i
zoning to the City. No member may be a member of the Planning
_. Commission or the City Council .
2. The Council has determined that the Board of Adjustment shall hear
and decide:
a. Administrative Determination Appeals - appeals from orders,
recommendations, permits, decisions or determinations made by a
- city official in the administration or enforcement of the
provisions of the Kent Zoning Code or any ordinance adopted
pursuant to it.
b. Variances - applications for variances from the terms of the
Zoning Code, provided that no applications for a variance can be
granted unless it meets those criteria set forth in
Section I .A.5.b. above.
C. Other - other quasi-judicial and administrative determinations
that may be delegated by the Council through ordinance.
3. The Board must have rules and regulations for its operation and must
have at least one regular meeting each month unless no issues are
pending before the Board. All actions of the Board are final and
conclusive unless appealed directly to Superior Court. No Board of
Adjustment action can be reviewed by the City Council .
- 3 -
II. HEARING EXAMINER
A. Statutory Provisions (RCW 35A.63.170)
1 . A city council is authorized to adopt a hearing examiner system in
which such examiner may hear and decide applications for amending the
zoning ordinance when the amendment that is applied for is not of
general applicability. It is the planning commission that, by
statute, hears those matters that are of general application. The
council may also give the hearing examiner the power to hear and
decide applications for conditional uses, variances or any other
class of applications for or pertaining to land uses that the council
believes should be reviewed and decided by the hearing examiner.
2. If the city gives the authority to the hearing examiner to hear and
decide variances, then the city is not required to provide for a
board of adjustment.
3. The Council must set out by ordinance the legal effect of the
different decisions made for the different classes of applications
heard by the hearing examiner. This shall include one of the
following:
a. the decision may be given the effect of a recommendation to the
council ; or
b. the decision may be given the effect of an administrative
decision appealable within a specific time to the council .
B. Kent City Code (Chapter 2.54)
1 . The Kent City Council has set forth a land use hearing examiner
system in Chapter 2.54 Kent City Code. The rationale is stated as
being:
a. provide a single, efficient, integrated land use regulatory
hearing system;
- 4 -
b. render land use regulatory decisions and recommendations to the
City Council ;
C. provide a greater degree of due process in land use regulatory
hearings;
d. separate the land use policy formulation and the land use policy
administration processes.
2. The Hearing Examiner hears the following types of applications:
a. Administrative decisions.
1 . The hearing examiner makes administrative decisions on the
following:
a. conditional use permits;
b. shoreline permits; and
C. sign variances .
2. The above constitutes a final action. An appeal to the
City Council of such determinations must be made within 14
,. calendar days from the date of the final decision.
3. The City Council must hold a hearing through procedures
adopted by resolution. The action of the Council must
result in making and entering findings of fact, which could
include adoption of all or a portion of the Examiner's
findings and conclusions. That action of the Council is
final unless appealed to Superior Court within 20 calendar
days from the date of the Council action.
- 5 -
b. Recommendations.
1 . The Examiner also hears matters of a legislative nature
that constitute recommendations to the Council . These are:
a. rezones;
b. preliminary plats;
C. planned unit development;
d. special use combining districts, including mobile home
park combining districts.
e. initial zoning designation for annexed areas or zoning
designations for proposed annexations to become
effective upon annexation;
f. public hearings required under the provisions of the
State Environmental Policy Act;
g. public hearings relative to possible revocation of a
conditional use permit;
h. other hearings as the Council may from time to time
deem appropriate.
2. The Hearing Examiner recommendation or decision may be to:
a. grant or deny the application;
b. recommend or require the applicant to fulfill certain
conditions, modifications or restrictions as the
Examiner finds necessary to make the application
compatible with its environment and carry out the
objectives and goals of the Comprehensive Plan, the
Zoning Code, the Subdivision Code, and other codes and
ordinances in the City. Examples of such conditions
or restrictions are additional setbacks, screenings in
the form of landscaping and fencing, covenants,
easements, dedications of additional roads
rights-of-way and performance bonds.
- 6 -
3. The hearing by the Examiner is considered to be the hearing
by the Council . A hearing before the Hearing Examiner must
take place not more than 100 days after the applicant has
compiled with all requirements and furnished all necessary
data for the Planning Department.
4. The City Council is the final decision maker on these
recommended matters.
cc: Brent McFall
4225L-19L
- 7 -
j- KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
August 11, 1988
IW.., MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members
FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Hearing Examiner approval of exceptions to
development standards under the conditional use
permit section of the zoning code
On July 25, 1988 the Planning Commission recommended to the City
. Council that Kent City Code Section 15. 09 . 030 be amended to give
w 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.
The recommendation made by the Planning Commission will introduce
more flexibility into the conditional use permit process by
allowing the Hearing Examiner to consider all parts of a
conditional use permit application. Under the current
_.. procedures, the Hearing Examiner cannot consider a different
setback or sign size since a strict application of the zoning
code requirements must be followed by the Examiner when
considering a conditional use permit.
A list of items the Hearing Examiner might consider under the
Planning Commission recommendation follows:
1. Signs - where proposed signs might not fit the strict
size for height of the underlying zoning district, but
when viewed within the context of the conditional use
permit may actually enhance the attractiveness of the
proposal.
2 . Height of unique structures - again taken within the
context of the overall proposal for a conditional
use permit. Height greater than that permitted by
the underlying zoning district may make the project
- workable while not detracting from the surrounding
properties.
3 . Setbacks - varied setbacks may permit a better
development, again in the context of an overall
conditional use permit, than strict adherence to the
underlying zoning requirements.
4 . Density - in the Community Commercial zone a
conditional use permit is required for multifamily
projects. The Hearing Examiner could more readily
deal with all aspects of such a conditional use
permit application, including height of buildings,
setbacks and density if the proposed amendment is
approved.
JPH:ca
1
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
I
July 25, 1988
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert Badger, Chairman
Linda Martinez, Vice Chairwoman
Elmira Forner
Nancy Rudy
Carol Stoner
Raymond Ward
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:
Anne Biteman, excused
Greg Greenstreet, absent
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Senior Planner
Kathy McClung, Senior Planner
Greg McCormick, Planner
Stephen Clifton, Planner
Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 27 , 1988
I
Commissioner Martinez MOVED that the minutes of June 27, 1988 be
approved as presented. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion.
Motion carried. Chairman Badger opened the public hearing.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO KCC 15. 09 . 030E--ZCA 88-6
Mr. Harris presented the proposal to amend the zoning code to
allow the Hearing Examiner to deal with exceptions to development
standards under the conditional use section of the zoning code.
At the present time if there are exceptions to development
standards, the person must first apply for a variance which is
heard by the Board of Adjustment. The state has set strict
criteria that must be met in order to grant a variance. An
appeal to this decision would be presented to Superior Court. It
is proposed that the Hearing Examiner be given discretion in
approving or denying conditional exceptions to development
standards, including height, unique structures, signage,
setbacks, etc. , when a conditional use permit is required. The
Hearing Examiner would be able to look at the project in its
entirety. He used as an example a large development in which
the Hearing Examiner could look at all aspects of the development
1
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
July 25, 1988
at one time and with one staff presentation. This would speed up
the process for certain requests and would be helpful to the
applicant, the City of Kent and the Hearing Examiner. An appeal
to a Hearing Examiner decision would be presented to the City
Council.
Commissioner Stoner MOVED to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Martinez SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the Kent Zoning Code Section
15.09 . 030E be amended to give the Hearing Examiner discretion in
approving or denying conditional exceptions to development
standards including height of unique structures, signage,
setbacks, etc. when a conditional use permit is required.
Commissioner Rudy SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
Commissioner Stoner felt that it would be more efficient to allow
the arguments to take place in one meeting so that there would
be a complete picture of the issue involved rather than have
two quasi-judicial bodies to review portions of the same
,,. request. Motion carried unanimously.
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PLAN AMENDMENTS CONTINUED
Mr. Harris presented into the record exhibits which were
submitted into the record for the Planning Commission Workshop of
July 18, 1988: Exhibit 1, Pat Curran; Exhibit 2 , Joan Peterson;
Exhibit 3 , Dee Moschel; Exhibit 4 , Bill Stewart; Exhibit 5, staff
memorandum to the Planning Commission dated July 11, 1988 .
commissioner Martinez MOVED and Commissioner Ward SECONDED a
motion to admit to the record the letters regarding the Central
Business District. Motion carried. An additional workshop has
been scheduled for August 15 at which time the Central Business
District discussion will be continued. A letter dated July 19 ,
-- 1988 from Richard McCann, attorney for Howard Manufacturing,
Northwest Metal Products and Borden Chemical , requested time for
a presentation at this meeting.
Bill Stewart, representing the Local Government Committee of the
Chamber of Commerce and the Mayor' s Task Force, requested a
continuation of this hearing.
Chuck Howard agreed with Mr. Stewart and asked to speak at a
later time.
Lloyd D. Holman, 30877 West Lake Morton Drive SE, Kent, President
of the Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers, Local #22 ,
spoke regarding the employees' concern about their jobs. He
2
l
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING OF JUNE 27 , 1988
Commissioner Ward MOVED that the hearing be continued to a
workshop on July 18 , 1988 to formulate a plan and presentation
for the continued public hearing at a later date. Commissioner
Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner
Forner suggested that the Commission expand on the concept of
revitalization and the connection between expanding or reducing
the CBD.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO KCC 15. 09 . 030E
Mr. Harris suggested this issue be continued as the first item at
the next hearing. Commission Rudy MOVED that this item be
continued to the next meeting as the first item. Commissioner
Stoner SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Badger adjourned the meeting at 9 : 55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam P. Harris, Planning Director
9
V
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 6, 1988
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: 272ND/277TH STREET CORRIDOR llc:
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Public Works Committee recommends that
the Mayor be authorized to sign a memorandum of understanding
naming Kent as lead agency to do study on the alignment of the
272nd/277th corridor from the Green River to Kent-Kangley Rd.
" 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from the Public Works Committee minutes
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember _ moves, Councilmember __seconds
L.G -ft a the tUommendation � •
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
/ Council Agenda
// , Item No. 4E
Public Works Committee
August 23, 1988
Page 2
CANYON DRIVE LEFT TURN LANES
_. Morris indicated he had spoken with WSDOT iwho 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
SE 272ND/277TH GREEN RIVER VALLEY AREA ACCESS STUDY AGREEMENT
The Agreement is entered into this day of 1988,
between the City of Kent, Washington, hereafter referred to as "Kent", and
King County, hereafter referred to as "County."
WHEREAS, Kent and the County desire to enter into an agreement to fund a
study to analyze existing congestion problems in the SE 272nd/277th corridor
in Kent in King County and to recommend transportation solutions to the
problems, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to that contract, Kent has agreed to undertake the lead
role in contracting for and preparing the study, and
WHEREAS, the County shares the concerns of Kent over future planning for
transportation solutions to the SE 272nd/277th corridor congestion in Kent in
King County and desires to contribute to the costs of the study, now,
therefore,
In consideration of mutual benefits the parties agree as follows:
1 . Kent shall undertake the transportation planning study as set forth
in the scope of work activities attached hereto as Exhibit A. Kent
shall act as lead agent and contracting authority for the study,
including preparation of a programmatic environmental impact
statement.
2. Total costs associated with the study are expected to be $100,000.00
which shall constitute Kent's total and required contribution for a
comprehensive study of the 272nd/277th corridor to be undertaken by
Kent, Auburn, Washington State Dept. of Transportation and King
County.
3. Kent shall consult regularly with the County on the progress of the
preparation of the study. A final report acceptable to the County
shall be submitted to the County within 45 days of completion of the
study.
4. No liability shall attach to Kent or the County by reason of entering
into this Agreement except as expressly provided herein.
5. Kent shall be deeme an i dependent contractor for all purposes and
the employees of , or any of its contractors, subcontractors
and the employees shall not in any manner be deemed to be employees
or agents of the County.
6. Kent and King County shall provide in-kind staff to carry out the
work activities described in the attached scope of work.
7. Each party hereto agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the other
party, its officers, agents and employees for all claims (including
demands, suits, penalties, losses, damages or costs of any kind
whatsoever) to the extent such claim arises or is caused by the
indemnifying party's negligence or that of its officers, agents or
employees in performance of this agreement.
8. This Agreement shall be effective upon respective Council approval
and execution, and shall terminate when the obligations hereunder
have been completed.
9. This Agreement may be amended or terminated by written agreement of
both parties.
- Approved:
Ong County Approved as to form:
Title: KING COUNTY EXECUTIVE
Norm Maleng, Prosecuting Attorney
Date:
Approved:
City of Kent
Title:
Mayor
Date:
WITNESSETH:
Marie Jensen, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
by:
4237L-17L
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
272nd/277th CORRIDOR STUDY
I . Collect and review of available data on existing conditions and
elements of the environment including the following subjects:
A. Physical Conditions
Geology and soils
Topography
Waterways and hydrologic systems
Water quality
Flood plains
' Wetlands
Vegetation
Wildlife and wildlife habitat
Air quality
Noise
Prime and unique farmlands
B. Environmental Hazards
Hazardous waste
Asbestos
C. Regional and Community Conditions
Transportation/traffic
Visual quality
Land use
Services
Recreation
Employment
D. Historic and Archaeological Inventory
Cultural , historic, and archaeological resources
E. Forecast Population and Employment
For the years 2000 and 2010
II. Utilizing aerial mapping showing existing topographical features and
ground contours, develop alternative alignments for a proposed corridor
route
A. Alignments for the valley portion and slope climb of 277th.
B. Alignments for the plateau portion across to SR-18.
C. Alternatives for SR-516 designation.
III. Develop criteria to analyze the alternatives.
IV. Conduct a preliminary geotechnical survey including a literature search
of available existing information and a visual geologic
reconnaissance. Test pits or borings will be performed along alternate
alignments to evaluate the subsurface soil structure. Design options
will be considered and major geotechnical issues influencing the design
or construction of the project will be addressed.
V. Perform "P - Line" survey for alternative alignments.
VI. Perform necessary investigation and data collection to determine bridge
crossing location, and bridge and road type and configuration.
VII. Prepare alternatives analysis and design report required under State
Environmental Policy Act. This report will contain a discussion of
each alignment alternative and the associated impacts of each in the
areas listed below as well as design options for the roadway .
(particularly where options are limited such as 277th between the West
Valley Highway and 86th Avenue S) . Also to be included are design
options which include HOV facilities.
D. Historic and Archaeological Preservation Effects
Cultural , historic and archaeological resources
E. Identify mitigation measures to identified impacts of any
development proposal and alternatives.
F. Prepare preliminary project cost estimates for all proposals
and alternatives using King County cost model available.
VIII. Provide technical material as needed for verbal-visual presentations at
public meetings. Attend and participate in the meetings. Kent staff
will retain overall responsibility for the meetings. A total of 4
meetings are anticipated.
IX. Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement under current SEPA
guidelines. The EIS will consist of the following items:
A. Review and collection of background data.
B. Field work.
C. Impact analysis of alternative alignments and mitigating
measures.
D. Draft EIS and scoping.
E. Attend public meetings as detailed in VIII. above.
F. Final EIS and response to comments on DEIS. Included will be a
recommendation of a final specific alignment for the entire
corridor.
X. Recommend phasing schemes based on various financial scenarios.
XI . Prepare establishment plans for chosen route in accordance with the
procedures provided by the County.
4237L-17L
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 6, 1988
Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: BIDS FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT TWO AID VEHICLES, TWO ENGINE
AID APPARATUS AND ONE LADDER TRUCK
_ 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bids on this equipment were opened on
July 15, 1988 .
-••• 3 . EXHIBITS: Executive summary, bid proposal evaluations and
recommendation
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee Fire Administration
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Already dedicated - Public Safety Bonds
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember 66 moves, Councilmember seconds
to award bids as follows :
C. L. Kirk Co. in the amount of $158 , 110.00 for the two aid
vehicles.
••• Mays Equipment Co. in the amount of $440, 615 . 60 for the two
engine aid apparatus,
and Gw-K- +(,,� Cu•2.,
OV reiect all bids for the aerial ladder truck and authorize a
recall for bids for this item.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 5A
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AUGUST 31, 1988
TO: MAYOR KELLEHER, COUNCIL PRESIDENT WHITE,
COUNCILMEMBERS BITEMAN, JOHNSON, WOODS,
HOUSER, DOWELL, MANN
FROM: NORM ANGELO, FIRE CHIEFS-��
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF APPARATUS
----------------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
As you are aware, we recently advertised for bid proposals on the
aid vehicles, engine/aid apparatus and aerial ladder truck as
approved in the Public Safety Bond project. On July 15, 1988 we
opened the bids.
We received three (3) bids on the aid vehicles ranging from
$69, 383 . 00 to $73 , 335. 00 each plus sales tax.
We received one (1) bid on the engine/aid apparatus at $203 , 800
plus sales tax. This bid price was offered due to our going to
bid with King County Fire Protection District W37 for multiple
units. With our purchase of two (2) units and their purchase of
four (4) units, the City is able to save $10, 377 . 60 .
We received three (3) bids on the aerial ladder truck ranging
from $356, 631. 00 to $452 , 000. 00 plus sales tax.
Please see Bid Summary Sheet for more detail .
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Based on detailed bid proposal analysis (see attached analysis
for details) , the fire department recommends awarding the bid for
the two (2) aid vehicles to the high bidder, C. L. Kirk Co. , Inc.
Memo to Mayor Kelleher and the Council
August 31, 1988
Page 2
for Road Rescue ambulances. This bidder was the only bidder that
totally met our specifications.
The fire department recommends awarding the bid for the two (2)
engine/aid apparatus to the only bidder, Mays Equipment Company
for Pierce Fire Apparatus. The Pierce proposal met our
specifications with very few minor exceptions.
Pierce is the manufacturer that built our two (2) present
engine/aid apparatus.
It is the recommendation of the fire department to reject all bid
proposals for the aerial ladder truck and advertise for bid
again. None of the bid proposals met our specifications.
Attached is a detailed analysis of the bid proposals submitted
from which we made our recommendations.
SIGNIFICANCE
This will allow for the proposed apparatus to be delivered in a
timely manner in keeping with the Bond Levy timelines.
BUDGET/ECONOMIC IMPACT
This has been budgeted through the Bond Levy with no impact on
the general operating budget of the department.
ALTERNATIVES/CONSEQUENCES
None
tcn
H � I yt=] I y IC
G n I po �A 1 {1 �'•
� w I a r• I fi
-
~
["+ I G �' 1 F'•
w I N r- 1 n
fY 1 I fD _
N 1 I N
H I I
I I
I I
1 1 -
x H u) En I I C) t7j C
a tj r• (0 1 a I x o (D
N O 1 1 EnI r (D Cr a
G z I I H (D O
ty: t� (D I txj I x H H H
4 w En rrt i `G i n � o
r a (D I r• 1 a G
ro a H I a7 1 (D
(D :3 1 ;9 1 n _ In
ID H - I (D 1 o G
G I G I H TJ
rt H H I rt I
n £ O 1 H C
O (D I O 1 G
• H I I O n
N I I O
_ I I
I I
I 1
I I tb
I I H
to <n •an I iR I to in to O G
A W W I N I J J at F'• H _..
In to cn I O 1 w N ko (t r• to
n� rn I w 1I �r 4
O to al I co I W UI 00 G :j
O .01 w I O I In 10• W rt a
o In Fj I o I H -
• I I o 0 o H FC
o O O I O 1 O O O a w
0 o O I o I X r• N
1 I a
I I H
to <) I 1 H
w w 1 I rt
_1 In I I (D W
N N I I 5 F'•
W H I I
0% P I I z h7
o O I O 1 O O O O H
I 1 ft N•
O Oi I I Q
O O I I (n (D
(D t-I
I I 0 (D
1 1 r• N
I I I-h In
I I F-••
1 I
I 1 Sy
I I
I I
I I
in in •N ( to Ifn •tR {n W
4P w I N I -1 J -4 F••
O O 03 I N W
00 N 0 I O I
rn ui m t w I In o io H
F' N rn 1 o I to (n 4� w n
N to w 1 J I >C H
o fo I m I 0 -4 -4 sy
0 00 w 1 0 I I--
I I G
I 1 �
EVALUATION OF AID CAR PROPOSALS
In evaluating the three (3) bid proposals, we looked at all. three
(3) with an open mind. Only one (1) bidder met our
specifications totally and that was the high bid. The following
delineates the significant differences between the three (3 )
units.
1. Low bidder at $69, 383 . 00 each plus tax, ($74 , 794 . 87
with tax) was Collins Ambulance (McPherson Supply Co) .
a. Electrical warranty is two (2) years versus three
(3) years of other bidders.
b. Cab roof extension is fiberglass with bellows
between cab and module versus our specified
aluminum with neoprene seal between the cab and
the module. We feel that the aluminum design is
stronger.
C. Subfloor is 5/8 inch plywood over flat aluminum
sheet versus the specified 3/4 inch plywood over
corrugated aluminum material. We feel our spec to
be a stronger system.
d. Module side access is smaller than our
specifications.
e. Module rear access is smaller than our
specifications.
f. Rear door windows are smaller than our
specifications by 90 square inches .
g. Module insulation is R19 fiberglass batts versus
2" solid foam which is called for in our
specifications. We feel that solid foam will stay
in place better.
h. Interior cabinets are 3/4 inch plywood versus
aluminum as specified. Plywood cabinets are not
as durable in our use and are also heavier.
i. Cab to module walkthru is narrower than our
specifications by 3 1/4 inches. The wider opening
makes it easier to go between cab and module.
j . Walkthru door window is smaller than our
specifications by 90 square inches .
k. Module headliner is molded fiberglass with no
padding versus vinyl upholstery over 1/2" foam as
specified. Padding allows for some head
protection and also is more sound absorbing.
Evaluation of Aid Car Proposals
Page 2
1. Squad bench - only half opens making access to
long items more difficult.
M. Module heating is 60, 000 BTU versus 65, 000 BTU as
specified. Module cooling is 22 , 000 BTU versus
23 , 000 BTU as specified.
n. Exterior compartments are not to our
specifications, which in some cases would make us
relocate equipment which we planned in certain
areas.
o. Interior compartments are not to our
specifications.
p. Quality of this unit is questionable. We arranged
to have a demonstrator unit here for several days,
the firefighters were not impressed with the
overall quality.
2 . Middle priced bidder at $72 , 254 . 00 each plus tax
($78 , 106. 57 with tax) , was Excellance Ambulance
(Excellance, Inc. ) .
a. Cab roof extension is welded to the module versus
a neoprene seal between the cab and module . This
welding ties the cab and module together and does
not allow for necessary flexing. In our opinion,
this could result in failure in the cab to module
connection.
b. Subfloor has a flat aluminum piece versus a
corrugated aluminum system. We feel the
corrugated floor system to be stronger.
C. Exterior compartment door handles are "D" ring
type versus paddle type as specified .
d. The alternator will have an internal regulator
versus a external regulator. In the past, we have
had many failures of alternators with internal
regulators due to heat build-up, so we specified
external regulators which can be located in a more
controlled environment.
e. Cab to module walkthru is narrower than
specifications by 2 inches. The wider walkthru
" makes it easier to go from the cab to the module.
i
E
Evaluation of Aid Car Proposals
Page 3
f. Walkthru door window is smaller than
specifications by 27 square inches.
g•
Module headliner is color coordinated aluminum
versus vinyl upholstery over 1/2 inch foam padding
as specified. The foam padding gives more head
protection and is more sound absorbing.
h. Module heating is 40, 000 BTU versus 65, 000 BTU as
specified. Module cooling is 20, 000 BTU versus
23 , 000 BTU as specified. The heating and cooling
capabilities are significantly lower with this
unit.
I
i. The interior surface of the module is formica `
which does not have the sound absorbing
capabilities of vinyl .
i
j . The quality of this unit is unknown as there are
none in the northwest to look at.
3 . High bidder at $73 , 335. 00 each plus tax ($79 , 055. 00
with tax) was Road Rescue (C.L. Kirk Co. , Inc. )
a. This is the only bidder that took no exceptions to
our specifications. They did propose to increase
the size of the alternator to 200 amps to give us
more electrical capacity.
b. We have seen examples of this apparatus and the
quality has always been good.
Based on the above, I recommend that we award the aid car to Road
Rescue, Inc. , as bid by C.L. Kirk Co. , Inc.
Kent City Council Meeting
G Date September 6, 1988
0 Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: LID 327 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY EMBANKMENT AND FILL
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening is scheduled for September 6 .
The Director of Public Works will review the bids received and
make a recommendation as to award.
3 . EXHIBITS•
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, C ncilmember seconds
to approve the recommendatio of the Director of Public Works
and to award the contrac f r the LID 327 West Valley Highway
embankment and fill to at $
DISCUSSION: _
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 5B
R E P O R T S
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT
l�
-. B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
D. PLANNING COMMITTEE
E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
F. PARKS COMMITTEE ��
G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
J
KENT CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE
July 19, 1988 4 : 00 PM
Committee Members Present Others Present
Judy Woods, Chair Laurie Dowling
Steve Dowell Gary Gill, Engineering
Jon Johnson Nancy Mann, Moss Construction
Tom Sharp, PUD Committee
City Administrator Carol Stoner, PUD Committee
J. Brent McFall
Staff Present
Charlene Anderson
Jim Hansen
Jim Harris
Fred Satterstrom
Dan Stroh
MOSS CONSTRUCTION - WATER AVAILABILITY RE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION
As a first step when applying to King County for a zoning action in an area
serviced by City of Kent utilities, a party must obtain an availability
certificate from the Engineering Department. The property in question is in
the Horseshoe Acres portion "of South Kent on the east side of 79th Avenue
(Rose Avenue) , north of 266th. Nancy Mann proposes to use an existing
residence for an office and a storage yard for construction equipment and
materials. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan designates the area for
multifamily; this is not consistent with the intended use. Gary Gill
distributed copies of Ordinance #2767 , the third page of which conditions the
provision of utility service upon consistency with the Comprehensive or Sub-
area Plan. The applicant is requesting approval for deviation from that
ordinance.
Jim Hansen added that normally requests for deviation from the ordinance
relate to differences in density rather than differences in land use as is
the case now. A storage yard is classified "Industrial" whereas
"Multifamily" is residential. In response to Mr. Harris, Ms. Mann stated the
county has slated the area for "Light Manufacturing. "
Nancy Mann of Moss Construction distributed pictures of the property in
question and nearby land uses. She estimates that 60% of the land use in the
area is light manufacturing and not residential. Ms. Mann added that none
of the properties have requested a rezone from King County and they were
hoping to be grandfathered upon any future annexation to Kent. Ms. Mann
described the proposed use and stated it should not place an extra burden
upon City facilities or roadways. She requested authorization to sign the
sewer and water availability certificate. Ms. Mann asked if the land use
would be grandfathered and what restrictions there would be related to that
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING OF JULY 19 , 1988
should annexation to Kent occur and no authorization for sewer and water were
obtained. Mr. Harris responded that the use would be grandfathered. He
suggested the Planning Department take a look at the land use in that area
because it appears many changes have occurred since the Valley Floor Plan was
adopted in 1979 . In the meantime, the Council could agree to sewer and water
availability. Discussion occurred on implications of that authorization for
sewer and water availability. In response to Councilman Dowell, Ms. Mann
stated the property is served now by City of Kent water. Gary Gill added
that because of the impending rezone application, the applicant must obtain
a City of Kent sewer and water availability certificate.
Mr. Hansen stated the reason for bringing this issue to the Planning
Committee was the need for the City to administer the ordinance versus the
apparent conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and existing land uses.
City Administrator McFall stated he believed it would be appropriate for the
Committee to permit sewer and water availability, if they were of a mind to
do so, and simultaneously to request that this section of the Valley Floor
be reviewed for future land use. All the Committee would be doing,
essentially, is to permit what already exists. In response to Councilman
Dowell, Mr. Harris stated that granting this permit might provide an „
opportunity for conflict in the future but he stated that this was an unusual
circumstance and it appears the whole neighborhood has drifted toward
industrial land use.
Councilman Johnson moved to grant the application for water and sewer service
and at the same time to conduct a study of the Comprehensive Plan for that
particular area. Councilman Dowell seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously. This issue will be forwarded to the next City Council meeting
under the Consent Calendar.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT WORK PROGRAM - 20% MULTIFAMILY DENSITY REDUCTION
Jim Harris stated there are two scenarios for addressing implementation of
changes to the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. He added that City -
Attorney Driscoll has indicated that the Planning Commission can be allowed
to hear changes to the Comprehensive Plan as well as the zoning
implementation. Therefore, staff will be presenting only the best case
scenario. Dan Stroh added that there has not been a determination on whether
an Environmental Impact Statement will be required; if an EIS is required,
it would require an additional six months.
Mr. Harris outlined the time frame and projected hours for the work program
and stated that staff is requesting one additional planner on a temporary
basis for a one-year period. Jim Hansen stated that City Administrator -
McFall had agreed to support a supplemental appropriation of approximately
$30, 000 for the additional planner. He added that this request should not
be confused with the one-half time person requested by staff for the 1989
budget year.
2
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING OF JULY 19, 1988
Dan Stroh pointed out the note at the bottom of the schedule, which note
states that this twelve-month work program schedule is an optimistic view of
the time required for the review and hearing process (one month each for
environmental review, Planning Commission and City Council) . Chairwoman
Woods stated that it was agreed at the onset of this work program development
that the time frame for staff would be distinct from the timeline for the
commission/council hearings, i.e. , staff would provide the required
information but could not dictate the direction of the Planning Commission
or City Council . Carol Stoner added it was conceivable the Planning
Commission could meet more often on this issue. Jim Hansen added that staff
has considered the time frame very carefully; the nature of the work and the
types of hearing dictate what might seem to be a long period of time for this
project. Chairwoman Woods agreed that a statement regarding the nature of
the democratic process related to time would be appropriate when staff gives
the presentation for this issue. Fred Satterstrom added that initially staff
had considered a very simple work program. However, the City Council
expanded the program considerably by requesting an in-depth study of three
areas of the City. Because this program deals with zoning of people's
property, it will be important to cover all bases and coordinate with the
City Attorney' s office and the public.
In response to Tom Sharp, Mr. Satterstrom indicated that in the interim the
20% reduction in density is in effect. New development will be subject to
lower density.
Discussion occurred on presenting both scenarios to the full Council.
Councilman Dowell moved to recommend to the Council the work program as
presented. Councilman Johnson seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously.
ADDED ITEMS
PUD
Fred Satterstrom stated the PUD Committee had completed its review of the
PUD ordinance and the committee and staff have proposed a consensus
ordinance. He asked that a meeting be scheduled to review the proposed
ordinance. Chairwoman Woods stated she would not be available to meet in
August and suggested that the proposed ordinance could be considered in her
absence.
In response to Councilman Dowell, Jim Harris stated the Planning Commission
had recommended to the City Council a revised PUD ordinance. The Council had
forwarded the issue to the Planning Committee; in turn, the Committee is now
able to return a recommendation to the Council without requiring further
hearings by the Planning Commission.
Carol Stoner and Tom Sharp stated that the PUD Committee had reached a
3
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING OF JULY 19, 1988
consensus after having considered a lot of issues and concerns. Tom Sharp
stated the PUD Committee attempted to limit the time and lower the cost for
the PUD process. He added that if a developer could not work under the
proposed PUD, the City should eliminate the process altogether.
Councilman Johnson moved to accept the PUD ordinance as presented and forward
it to the City Council. Councilman Dowell seconded the motion. Motion
carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 5: 00 PM. -
4
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES
August 1 , 1988
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Christi Houser
Paul Mann
Steve Dowell
STAFF PRESENT: Brent McFall
Tony McCarthy
Mike Webby
Tom Vetsch
Neil Sullivan
Alana McIalwain
OTHERS PRESENT: Leona Orr, Citizen
APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS
All claims for the period ending July 31 , 1988, in the amount of $960,964.24
were approved for payment. The Committee though did ask for some additional
information on the amount paid to the King County Health Department for health
services at the Kent Correction Facility. That additional information will be
provided to the Committee.
SUMMARY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR JUNE 30, 1988
Finance Director McCarthy reviewed with the Committee the Summary Financial
Report for June 30, 1988. The details of that report will be reviewed with
the Council as a whole at their August 9 workshop. The information reviewed
with the Committee showed that Kent's financial picture continues to maintain
its healthy outlook with additional good signs for the future (building permit
activity). In addition, it was noted that the Golf Course revenue is
predicted to be about $76,000 more than budgeted. This amount is available
for funding staff at the new Golf Course.
STAFFING AT THE NEW GOLF COURSE
Golf Course Manager Neil Sullivan reviewed with the Committee the current
staffing level at the existing course. He noted that because of the 10-month
work schedule, the complete staffing level will not be able to be maintained
from September through January, during the time the turf at the new Golf
Course must be continually maintained so that it grows properly for opening
Operations Committee Minutes
August 1 , 1988
Page 2
next June. To meet the staffing needs, the proposal is to hire an assistant
grounds keeper and mechanic beginning in September for irrigation and mowing
duties, and to provide for a secretary/bookkeeper to become permanent
part-time in 1988 and full -time in 1989 to manage the cost of the course
construction and eventually the course itself. The combined salaries of the
these personnel for the remainder of 1988 will be $22,955 and will be financed
from the additional revenues generated on the existing Par-3, Driving Range
and Mini-Putt. Based on this information, these items were approved. It was
noted that, though the amounts had not been included in the budget, they had
been anticipated since the inception of the Golf Course project. As noted by
Mr. Sullivan, the people are needed to ensure that the course will become
operational in June of 1989.
UPDATE ON THE PUBLIC PRIVATE BUILDING PROJECT
City Administrator McFall noted that he had received eight (8) responses to
his request for proposal to construct a building to which the City would be a
major tenant. Following receipt of the responses, Brent, the Mayor, Norm
Angelo, Barney Wilson, and Fred Satterstrom reviewed the responses to produce
a short list of three firms. The firms: Sabey Corporation, Sound Ventures,
and Canterbury Center will be interviewed later today in effort to select one
firm for which negotiations can begin on the construction of a facility for
City staffing uses plus other purposes.
INITIATIVE REFERENDUM UPDATE
City Administrator McFall noted that he and Assistant City Attorney Williamson
had been continuing to develop additional information on the Initiative
Referendum Process. He noted, to clarify a previous discussion, that a
majority of the council could provide this power to the citizenry. With
respect to determining what the process might cost, he noted that the only
cost that can be definitely defined would be the cost of the election which,
if combined with other elections, might be $10,000. Other costs associated
Operations Committee Minutes
August 1 , 1988
Page 3
with the process are not very well definable based on discussions with other
cities. Additional information can be brought back to the Committee at their
next meeting.
RECIASSIFICAITON REQUEST
Assistant City Administrator Webby distributed to the Committee a request to
reclassify in the Public Works Department an Administrative Assistant II to
Administrative Assistant III . This request has been reviewed with the Public
Works Director and the City Administrator, and the classification appears to
be consistent with that proposed in the Ewing classification study. The
position will be parallel to a similar position in the Police Department. The
total salary impact of the reclassification will be approximately $810 for the
remainder of 1988, with the position moving from a 27D Range to a 32C Range.
The Committee approved the request unanimously for inclusion on the consent
calendar for August 16.
0066F-01F