HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 08/16/1988 City of Kent
City Council Meeting
- Agenda
Office of the City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 16. 1988
ISummary Agenda
�IN CT
City of Kent Council Chambers
Office of the City Clerk 7:00 p.m.
u 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. P1�8LIC COMMUNICATIONS
�{ American Legion Presentation
2 . PU C HEARINGS
Preliminary Input for 1989 Budget
3 . 5pMSENT CALENDAR
Minutes
/�. Bills
Set Hearing Date for Appeal - Triad Development
Pedestrian Right-of-Way in Parks - Ordinance a-7q
Engineering Reclassification
Condemnation Ordinance 0'2'? qS�
Surplus Property - Resolution 117q
Housing Element Work Plan Procedures - Ordinance
Surplus Vehicles
Arts Commission Appointment
4 . 03HER BUSINESS
Regulatory Review Request - Public Storage
Planned Unit Development Draft Ordinance
Amendment to Zoning Code
LeBlanc Annexation Zoning Ordinance oZ 9
L jfY 15.5 u ES
5 . BPS
gyp( West Hill Fire Station - Grade and Fill
�/(/^ 1987 Water Main Replacement
6 . /t[GPORTS
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
ADJOURNMENT
Y
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Citizens wish
ing to address the Council will, at this time,
make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly
heard.
A) American Legion Presentation /
CI I,(� rti Yu;I -tD k of +tki.- f K&Nut U_a-0
dry 1 Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 16, 1988
Category Public Hearing
- I. SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 1989 BUDGET
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Aio - comes �te..__.ti to conduct a public
hearing to receive input on community priorities and proposals
for the 1989 Operating Budget of 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 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Letter from Chamber of Commerce
4. RECOMMENDED BY•
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
,_. 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS•
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE HEARING:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
that the public hearing be closed. No further Council action is
required at this time.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 2A
August 3 1988 AUG
g G :; 1988
CITY GE KENT
CITY CLERK
-• TO: Mayor Kelleher, Kent City Council, Brent McFall
FROM: Dee Eklund, President
Suzette A. Cooke, Executive Director KENT CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE
SUBJECT: 1989 City Budget Priorities
The Kent Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors adopted the following
recommendations for your consideration during your 1989 budget discussions.
1 . The Kent Chamber of Commerce supports the City's top priority target
issue for 1988: improve transportation and traffic systems. Within the
specific projects listed under this priority, we have studied, and
supported funding for the following:
272nd corridor
196th corridor
traffic mitigation policies and fee structure
commuter rail study
We recommend the City follow through with these top priority issues by
financially supporting them in the 1989 budget.
In addition, with discussions on a city-wide bond issue to fund roads, and
the city's support for a transportation benefit district (TBD) , we recommend
a substantial reserve account for such projects to be established for the
City's match.
2. The City must maintain an adequate general fund reserve (contingency
fund) to meet unexpected downturns in the economy or to take advantage
of matching fund opportunities from federal and state levels. This
latter issue carries additional weight during the pending presidential
election year.
The City Council has established a policy to work towards funding the
reserve at 8% of operating expenditures. We applaud the Council's goal, and
recommend the 1989 budget reflect continued action towards supporting the 8%
level.
3. The Chamber did not support the utility tax increase passed last year
for the 1988 budget. We requested the City "to live within the base
budget without a tax increase" ( 11/17/87) . In principal, and in lieu of
1988 revenues exceeding projections, we request the City to roll back
the current 3.5% utility tax to 1987 rates: 2% on city-owned utilities
and 2.5% on non-city utilities. (The 6.5% tax on garbage bills is not
addressed in this recommendation. )
4. The Chamber requests a final consideration as the Council and staff work
through the next 212 months of budget discussions and public input: no
last minute supplemental budget without public review.
841 CENTRAL AVENUE NORTH, SUITE 105 • P.O. BOX 65 • KENT, WASHINGTON 98035 • 12061 A_54-1770
CONSENT CALENDAR
3 . City Council Action:Councilmember--- /1A moves, Councilmember kt u&
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through J be approved .
Discussion
Action
3A. Approval of Minutes.
\C� Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
August/2, 1988 .
Alpv
/yt, 3B. Approval of Bills.
3" Approval of payment of the bills received through August 22,
1988 after auditing 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
Council Agenda
Item No. 3 A-B
Kent, Washington
_. August 2 , 1988
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7: 00
p.m. by Mayor Kelleher. Present: Councilmembers Dowell, Houser, John-
son, Mann and White, City Administrator McFall, City Attorney Driscoll,
Planning Director Harris , and Public Works Director Wickstrom. Also
present: Police Chief Frederiksen, Information Services Director Spang
and Assistant Fire Chief Aldridge. Councilmembers Biteman and Woods,
and Finance Director M7Carthy were not in attendance. Approximately
25 people were at the meeting.
EMPLOYEE OF Mayor Kelleher announced that Bob Olson of the
THE MONTH Information Services Department has been selected
as the Employee of the Month for August. The Mayor
commended Olson for his hard work and loyalty to
the City and presented him with a plaque.
CONSENT CALENDAR WHITE MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through
0 be approved. Johnson seconded. Motion carried.
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3A)
Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of
the regular Council meeting of July 19, 1988.
HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3J)
SANITATION Parkwood Apartments. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of
sale and warranty agreement for continuous operation
and maintenance of approximately 1 , 146 feet of
water main extension and 812 feet of sanitary sewer
extension constructed in the vicinity of 104th
Avenue S.E. and S.E. 264th Street for the Parkwood
Apartment complex and release of the cash bond
after expiration of the one year maintenance period.
WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3M)
Kent Springs Transmission Main. AUTHORIZATION for
the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to pro-
ceed with condemnation of properties for which
negotiations have been unsuccessful.
SEWER 116th Avenue S.E. Sanitary Sewer. Bid opening was
held on July 21 with seven bids received. The
low bid was submitted by Rodarte Construction in
the amount of $72, 953 . 99. The Director of Public
Works recommends acceptance of the low bid. JOHNSON
SO MOVED. White seconded and the motion carried.
1987 Sanitary Sewer Extension. Bid opening was
held on July 27 with six bids received. The low
bid was submitted by Volker Stevin/Pacific, Inc.
August 2 , 1988
BUDGET (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 30)
1989 Budget. ESTABLISHING a public hearing date
of August 16 , 1988 to receive preliminary input
from the public on the 1989 City budget.
PERSONNEL (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3D)
Golf Course Complex Personnel. AUTHORIZATION to
immediately convert a temporary part-time clerical
position to a regular part-time position with bene-
fits for 30 hours per week, and AUTHORIZATION to
hire an Assistant Greenskeeper and a Maintenance
Worker II/Mechanic in September, 1988 .
POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3E)
Police Department Reorganization. AUTHORIZATION
to reorganize the Police Department, adding a
Police Captain to be in charge of the Corrections
Facility.
PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3F)
RECREATION Green River Corridor Project. ACCEPTANCE of the
Green River Corridor Project in the amount of
$264 , 754 as complete and release of retainage to _
Golf Landscaping upon receipt of State releases.
( CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3G)
Kent Commons Alterations Project. ACCEPTANCE of
the Kent Commons Alteration Project in the amount
of $29 , 092 . 10 as complete and release of retainage
to Howard Bowker, Inc . , upon receipt of State
releases.
Golf Course Bond Ordinance Amendments. City
Attorney Driscoll explained that the City ' s bond
counsel has prepared Ordinance 2793 to make techni-
cal corrections to Ordinance 2790, which provided
for the issuance of the City ' s "Golf Complex
Revenue Bonds , 1988" . JOHNSON MOVED to adopt
Ordinance 2793 , Mann seconded and the motion
carried.
SURPLUS PROPERTY Surplus Property - S. 244th. On July 19 a public
hearing was held to consider declaring as surplus
to the City ' s needs, a parcel of property approxi-
mately 231 ' x 31 ' located north of S. 244th between
Summit and 94th Avenue. Alan Stoick plans develop-
ment of the adjacent property and wants to
acquire the strip for access. Johnson noted that
the Committee members had not agreed and he MOVED
3 -
August 2, 1988
H ANNEXATION ZONINS _LeBlanc Annexation Zoning ordinance. At the July
19th Council meeting, Ordinance 2791 was adopted
establishing zoning, including 8 units per acre,
for the LeBlanc Annexation. The City Attorney has
advised that the vote of 3 to 1 was insufficient
to adopt the ordinance, that a majority of the
entire Council is required. The -ordinance,
containing the revised Condition 3 as approved at
the last meeting, has been presented again for con-
sideration.
James Graham, attorney for LeBlanc, noted that the
ordinance provides for 8 units per acre and that
the Comprehensive Plan, the Hearing Examiner and
the Planning staff had recommended 12 units per
acre. He noted that 23 units per acre are allowed
to the south of this site and that 12 units would
provide a transition area and would comply with the
City ' s plan to reduce multifamily zoning. Bill
Kreager showed slides of the proposed condominium
development, pointing out that more of the existing
trees could be saved under the 12 units per acre
plan than under 8 units per acre.
Ed Smith of 23508 112th S.E. noted that although
there were 23 units per acre on one side of the
property, the other three sides were zoned single
family residential . He noted the traffic problems
on 112th and stated that he couldn ' t believe that
more trees could be saved with the higher density
plan. Smith stated that the residents objected to
the 8 units per acre, and certainly were not in
favor of changing it to 12.
Mayor Kelleher pointed out that hearings had been
held both at the Hearing Examiner and at the Council
level and suggested that a motion be offered before
allowing discussion from the floor. DOWELL MOVED
to approve the recommendation of the Hearing Exam-
iner to direct the City Attorney to prepare the
appropriate ordinance, and to further discuss the
conditions. White seconded. Dennis Dague of 11218
S.E. 234th Place stated he had had no notification
of this meeting, noted that the Hearing Examiner
had had to comply with the Comprehensive Plan when
making her recommendation for 12 units per acre.
He suggested that the claim of saving trees was
invalid. Wickstrom noted that if the Hearing Exam-
iner ' s original recommendation is adopted, it
should be noted that Condition No. 2 on page 4
- 5 -
August 2, 1988
ANNEXATION ZONING tion 2 on page 3 of Ordinance 2791 . Upon Dowell ' s
question, it was determined that Condition No. 3
as is currently written, provides for signing a
no-protest agreement, and that if no LID is formed,
that the development permit will still be allowed.
It was clarified that a SE?A determination would
be required as to the extent of the improvement to
be required for 112th. Dowell expressed concern
about the City requiring that an entire street
be improved for a development. It was determined
that although SEPA would review the matter, the
SEPA determination may not be exactly what the
Council has approved as a condition. The City
Attorney advised that the SEPA process was an inde-
pendent process and the Council should not issue
direction in lieu of imposing a condition. She
noted that it is likely that SEPA ' s determination
will be similar to Condition No. 3 , but it is not
a known fact.
DOWELL MOVED to change Condition No. 3 to read:
"Prior to the issuance of a development permit for
a permitted use for any properties within the
LeBlanc Annexation area, the owner will sign a no-
protest agreement for the development of 112th and
will pay their proportionate share of the final
cost" . White concurred. Mayor Kelleher restated
the motion to change the density to 12 units per
acre and to change Condition No. 3 as shown above.
JOHNSON MOVED to table the motion to allow time
for the public to respond. The motion FAILED for
lack of a second. Dennis Daque stated that we
should make sure that the sidewalks will be in and
the traffic problems resolved before the development.
He requested that this be delayed to allow time
for input from the public. He stated that some
people had not been notified of the hearing.
Dowell noted that there was no response from the
audience at the last meeting when he had attempted
to table the matter. Mann asked if there was a
way to ensure that the street will be finished
before the property is fully developed. MANN MOVED
to amend Dowell ' s motion to go back to the original
version of Condition No. 3: "Prior to the issuance
of a development permit for a permitted use for any
properties within the LeBlanc 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.
7 -
August 2 , 1988
FINANCE 6/28-6/30 62060-62082
6/30-7/12 62619-62642 $ 240,981.46
7/15 62646-63124 1,054,035.57
,•,• $1,295,017.05
Approval of checks issued for payroll:
_.., Date Check Numbers Amount
7/20/88 106850-107508 $ 639,387.83
REPORTS Council President. White noted that the Association
of Suburban Cities would meet on August 10 at Wood-
land Park, with the City of Redmond hosting. Those
planning to attend should notify the Administrator ' s
office.
White noted that a workshop would be held on Tues-
day, August 9 at 7 : 00 p.m. to review the 2nd quarter
financial report and to set budget priorities .
Public Works Committee. Johnson noted that the
Public Works Committee would meet at 4 : 00 p.m, on
Tuesday, August 9.
THIRD ANNUAL Mayor Kelleher noted that the Valley Newspapers
SOFTBALL CHALLENGE had not issued the annual softball challenge to
City officials and staff. He pointed out that the
City had won the two previous games handily, and
that the City would issue the challenge this year.
ADJOURMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8: 50 p.m.
Marie Jensen CMC
City Clerk
-- - 9 -
Kent City Council Meeting
n ✓ � Date August 16, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: APPEAL - TRIAD DEVELOPMENT (SMA-88-4)
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Setting a public hearing date for
September 6, 1988 on an appeal of the Hearing Examiner ' s
,_. conditions of approval for the Signature Pointe Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit (SMA-88-4) . This appeal was filed
by Fred Grimm of Triad Development, for the proposed 584
multifamily complex at 64th Ave . S . . south of Meeker .
3 . EXHIBITS: Letter of appeal
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
_. (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 . 3C
TRIAD
DEVELOPMEN T INC
August 2 , 1988
Office of the City Clerk
Attn: Marie Jensen
220 South 4th
Kent, WA 98032
RE: Notice of Appeal of Signature Pointe
Hearing Examiner' s File No. : SMA-88-4
Dear Ms. Jensen:
Triad Development, Inc. respectfully gives notice of appeal of
the decision of the Hearing Examiner to condition her approval
of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application (No.
SMA-88-4 Signature Pointe) upon a revision of the site plan to
provide more than one point of ingress and egress. The basis
for the appeal of this condition is as follows:
1. The satisfaction of the condition is beyond the sole
control of the developer and requires the
cooperation of private and/or public parties, whose
cooperation may or may not be forthcoming;
2 . The need for such a condition is unsupported by
material and substantial evidence in view of the
entire record as submitted;
3 . The condition is a result of an error in the
interpretation and application of the Kent Shoreline
Master Program and the City of Kent Comprehensive
Plan;
4. In making the condition, the Hearing Examiner
improperly ventured beyond the Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit process and into the
SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) process, which
process had already been completed and satisfied.
Accordingly, Triad Development respectfully requests the City
Council to modify the Hearing Examiner's approval by deleting
the condition requiring more than one point of ingress and
egress.
Development i!n Amh,n of I'm 1, I.n1
Renovation& lui k• 14u -
Land Acquisition it le, W A 'vl 1118-i,!1 I:Ai ,:t821,1
August 2 , 1988
Page 2
We strongly urge you to schedule this appeal on the agenda of
the City Council as soon as is possible, and to otherwise
expedite this appeal process. We would hope that we could be on
the agenda for the meeting presently scheduled for August 16,
1988 .
Sincerely,
TRIAD DEVELOPMENT, INC.
Frederick W. Grimm
�( Kent City Council Meeting
\ Date August 16, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT SKATEBOARDING IN PARKS
t4
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of an Ordinance relating
to the Department of Parks and Recreation adding a new section
2 . 30.223 to the Kent City Code granting right-of-way to
pedestrians within parks and prohibiting bicycling and
skateboarding in certain posted areas as designated by Parks
Director .
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance and memo
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Committee, August 9 meeting and
Department 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. 3D
MEMORANDUM
DATE : August 10 , 1988
TO : Mayor , Council , Administrators
" FROM : Barney Wilson
PREPARED BY : Helen Wickstrom ��tp
SUBJECT : Ordinance to Prohibit Skateboarding at Parks
The Police Department currently has no authority to respond
to our call to stop skateboarders at Mill Creek and the
Senior Activity Center .
In addition to being a hazard to seniors walking the grounds ,
the skateboarders have damaged benches , flowerbeds and down-
spouts .
Adoption of an ordinance adding Section 2 . 30 . 223 to the Kent
City Code will authorize the Police Department to stop this
activity where posted .
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, relating to the Department of Parks
and Recreation, adding a new Section 2.30.223
to the Kent City Code, granting to pedestrians
right of way within parks , and prohibiting
bicycling and skateboarding in certain posted
areas , as designated by Parks Director.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 . Chapter 2.30.200 Kent City Code is amended to
add 2.30.223 as follows:
2.30.200. REGULATIONS AND PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.
2.30.201 . No person shall use, place, or erect any sign-
board, billboard, bulletin board , post, pole or device of any kind
for advertising on any park properties, or to attach any notice,
bill , poster, sign, wire, rod or cord to any tree, shrub, railing,
post or structure within any park properties, or without the writ-
ten consent of the Direct of Parks and Recreation to place or
erect on any park property a structure of any kind.
2.30.202. No person shall remove, destroy, mutilate or
deface any structure, monument, statue, vase, fountain, wall fence
railing, vehicle bench, shrub, tree, fern, plant, flower, lighting
system, or sprinkling system or other property lawfully on any
park property.
2.30.203. No person shall allow or permit any animal
under that person' s exclusive control to run at large on any park
properties, or enter any lake, pond, fountain or stream therein.
2. 30.204. No person shall shoot, fire or explode any
fireworks, firecrackers , torpedo or explosive of any kind or carry
any firearm or shoot or file any firearm, air gun, bows and
arrows, B.B. guns or use any slingshot on any park properties.
2.30.205. No person shall , in any manner, tease, annoy,
disturb, molest, catch, injure or kill or throw any stone or mis-
sile of any kind at or strike with any stick or weapon any animal ,
bird, fowl or fish ; or feed any fowl on the park properties except
at areas designated by the Director.
2. 30.206. No person shall take up collections, or act as
. or play the vocation of solicitor, agency, peddler, fakir, mendi-
cant, beggar, strolling musician , organ grinder, exhorter, barker,
showman or bootlack; or operate or use any loudspeaker or other
mechanical means of amplifying sound on any park properties with-
out a written permit from the Director of Parks and Recreation,
except for public address systems at sporting events.
2.30.207. No person shall hold, operate or conduct a
circus, carnival , or traveling exhibition on any park property
except such activities as may be a regular part of the parks and
recreation program conducted by the Department of Parks and
Recreation.
2.30.208. No person shall sell refreshments or
merchandise without the written permission of, or a concession
contract with, the Department of Parks and Recreation.
2.30.209. No person shall hold any religious or
political meeting or other assembly, or to distribute literature
on any park properties without first obtaining the written
permission of the Director of Parks and Recreation.
2.30.210. No person shall have, keep or operate any
boat, float, raft or other water craft in or upon any bay, lake,
slough, river, or creek, within the limits of any park property,
or launch the same at any point upon the shores thereof bordering
upon any park property, except at places set apart for such
purposes by the Department and so designated by signs.
2.30.211 . No person shall ride or drive any bicycle,
tricycle, motorcycle, motor vehicle , horse or pony over or through
any park except along and upon the park drives, parkways, park
boulevards ; or at a speed in excess of fifteen miles per hour; or
2 -
stand or park any vehicle, except in designated areas or in accor-
dance with signs, striping, or other methods which make clear the
appropriate method or manner of parking. Improperly parked
vehicles are subject to tow away.
2.30.212. No person shall camp on any park property
except at places set aside for such purposes by the Department and
so designated by signs.
2.30.213. Permits and schedules, officially issued or
distributed by the Department of Parks and Recreation, shall have
priority over other activities. Participants shall yield to the
holder of such permits or schedules. Participants with/without a
permit or schedule shall abide by rules and regulations when
posted at a facility.
2 .30.214 . No person shall throw any refuse, litter,
broken glass, crockery, nails, shrubbery, trimmings, junk or
advertising matter in or on any park properties or deposit any
such material therein, except in designated receptacles.
2.30.215 . No person shall deposit any refuse, not gener-
ated in parks, in any receptacle within any park or upon any park
properties.
2.30.216 . No person shall engage in conduct or hold any
trials or competitions for speed, endurance of hill climbing
involving any vehicle, boat, aircraft or animal in any park.
2.30.217. No person shall build any fires in any park
except in areas designated by the Department of Parks and
Recreation.
2.30.218. No person shall bring into or consume in or on
any park property or facility any alcoholic beverages unless
application has first been made to and approved by the Director.
2. 30.219. No person shall play golf except in areas
designated by the Department of Parks and Recreation.
3 -
2.30.220. Park facilities shall be used for their
designed or intended purposes, and it shall be a violation of this
Chapter for any person to interfere with or prevent any person
from using a park facility for its designed purposes.
a. It is a violation of this subsection for a
person, not playing tennis, to interfere with or prevent tennis
players from using tennis courts.
2 .30.221 . It is unlawful to remain in any park after the
posted closing time.
2.30. 222. BAN OF MOTORBOATS ON LAKE FENWICK. It is
unlawful to use or operate any boat with an internal combustion
engine on Lake Fenwick, except as necessary for public employees
and their agents or construction company employees to perform
their authorized duties. (0.2661 )
2.30.223.
a ). At all times and at all locations within any
park pedestrians shall enjoy the right of way over any motorized
or unmotorized vehicle, bicycle, tricycle, animal , skates, or
skateboard.
b). No person shall ride, drive, or operate any
bicycle skates or skateboard in any area within any park where
such activity is prohibited by means of posted notice. The Park
Director is authorized to place the appropriate notice or notices
at such times , and/or with such areas , of any park which shall
make it unlawful to ride, drive or operate any bicycle, skates , or
skateboard within such designated areas, according to the posted
notice.
Section 2. The provisions of this ordinance are declared
to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause,
sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this
ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any
person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the
remainder of the ordinance, or the validity of its application to
other persons or circumstances.
4 _
1 , ,
Section 3. Any act consistent with the authority and
prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified
and confirmed.
Section 4 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take _.
effect and be in force five (5 ) days from and after its passage,
approval and publication as provided by law.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIL JENSEN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PASSED the day of 1988.
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)
5960-210
5 -
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 16, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORKS RECLASSIFICATION - ENGINEERING DIVISION
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the reclassification of
the position of Administrative Assistant II , salary range 27, to
. Administrative Assistant III , salary range 32, effective
August 16, 1988 . The reclassification was reviewed and approved
by the Operations Committee at its meeting on August 1, 1988 .
Funds related to this request will be provided within the 1988
Public Works budget.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Mike Webby
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee August 1 meeting
(Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc . )
-- 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Approximately $800
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Public Works Operating Budget 1988
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
w Council Agenda
Item No. 3E
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 1, 1988
TO: May r Kelleher and Council Members
FROM: Miles Webby, Assistant City Administrator
SUBJECT: Reclassification Request - Public Works Department
The purpose of this memorandum is to request approval of the
reclassification of the position of Administrative Assistant II
to Administrative Assistant III . Approval of the
reclassification of this position to Administrative Assistant III
is consistent with the Ewing Classification study which
recommended level III for positions of Administrative Assistant
which report directly to Department Heads.
The position in question is currently occupied by Karen Siegel.
She performs Administrative Assistant duties and reports directly
to Don Wickstrom, Director of Public Works. Therefore due to the
nature of her job duties and responsibilities as well as direct
responsibility to the director of Public Works, it is recommended
the position be assigned to Administrative Assistant III.
The request has been reviewed and approved by the personnel
department. Following that review the request was presented to
the Council Operations Committee at its meeting on August 1,
1988 . Following review, the Committee recommends approval of the
request effective August 16, 1988 .
If approved, Ms. Siegel ' s position will move from salary range
_._ 27-D. $2344/mo to 32-C, $2 , 524/mo. The total salary impart of
this request will be approximately $810 During the remainder of
1988 . Funds to support this request will be provided within the
existing Public Works budget.
If you have any questions concerning this item please contact
Brent or me prior to Tuesday' s Council meeting.
REC IVED
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS M-0 2, 7 1988
May 26, 1988 PERSQNNU DEPT.
TO: Mike Webby
FROM: Don Wickstrom, 1 R,
RE: Administrative Assistant III Position
In our recent meeting with Brent we discussed the inequity existing
between the current classification of Karen Siegel and Dianne
Sullivan. As I explained the responsibilities and reporting level
of Karen's position are greater than that of Dianne 's yet both are
classified the same.
Additionally, we discussed the fact that with the 88 budget
approval , Karen's duties and responsibilities have significantly
changed from that depicted in the salary survey. Our conclusion
was that Karen ' s position now more closely relates to that of
Administrative Assistant III versus a modification of Dianne 's.
As such, I have revised the attached classification description for
Administrative Assistant III to correspond to our needs in the
Public Works Department for which Karen is fulfilling. I am also
herein recommending that Karen Siegel 's position be reclassed to
that of an Administrative Assistant III
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS E C E I V E Q
July 13 , 1988 15 1988
P1110NNEL DEPT.
TO: Mike Webby
t
•-- FROM: Don WickstromLr��
RE: Administrative Assistant III Description
Karen Siegel
.. S
I have reviewed the class description you prepared and have no
problems with it.
Please proceed with the necessary steps to move Karen into that
position.
CITY OF KENT
CLASS TITLE: ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
BASIC FUNCTION:
Under the direction of the Director of Public Works, provides a
variety of complex and responsible administrative tasks; researches
and prepares administrative reports, assists and coordinates the
development of Public Works Comprehensive Plans ; coordinates
preparation of construction contract specifications ; monitors
project status.
DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS:
The Administrative Assistant III reports to the Director of Public
-Works and performs a wide variety of specialized administrative
functions with considerable freedom to act and impact on the
Department' s operations. This class requires a substantial amount
of tact, independent judgement and initiative.
The class of Administrative Assistant I reports to the head of a
large, complex division. The duties and responsibilities are
similar to that of an Administrative Assistant II but encompass
division-wide administrative assistance duties. The incumbents
assigned to the class are required to exercise tact, independence,
judgement and initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE DUTIES:
Assists in establishing project schedules; tracks and monitors
project status; evaluates status for problems, conflicts, etc and
recommends alternative options.
Coordinates preparation of construction specification documents;
assists in the development and preparation of environmental
mitigation agreements; monitors mitigation agreement status.
Coordinates, develops and monitors Administrative section of Public
Works budget in accordance with established parameters; perform
cost analysis, trend analysis and projections; prepares expenditure
and revenue narratives, compose justifications, budget analysis,
summaries , capital improvement programs , salary and benefit
figures, account balance and related budget documents; conduct
independent research and analysis ; evaluate information and
recommend alternative courses of action; project demands for
services.
•.• Administrative Assistant III
Public Works Department
Page 2
Assists and coordinates the development of Public Works
Comprehensive Plans.
Prepares a variety of statistical, financial and administrative
reports; prepares presentation materials, including graphs, charts,
slides, overheads and hardware displays; make oral presentations as
required.
Attends meetings, seminars, conferences and training as appropriate;
maintains a current understanding of functions and programs of the
department; represent department as required.
`Coordinates communications; relieves the Director of Public Works
of administrative duties as appropriate.
Provides information to administrators, other City departments,
government and outside agencies and the public as necessary;
interprets and explains City laws and guidelines , department
policies, programs, rules, requirements and procedures.
Serves as a member of the Public Works Department and City' s
management team; assists in developing Department's goals and
objectives; implements changes and planning as needed; serves as
department representative on various City-wide committees.
Operates telephone dictation equipment to forward work to word
processing and operate a variety of office machines such as
computer terminal, plotter, projector, calculator, telephone and
telephone dictation.
Trains , supervises and evaluates assigned Administrative Support
staff ; provides work direction and guidance ; changes work
-- procedures for quality control and efficiency.
Develops and trains Public Works staff on computer applications.
Performs related duties as assigned.
Administrative Assistant III
Public Works Department
Page 3
KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITIES:
KNOWLEDGE OF:
Public Works terminology and equipment.
Applicable laws, codes, regulations, policies and procedures.
Municipal organization, operations, policies and objectives.
Oral and written communications skills.
Correct English usage , grammar , spelling , punctuation and
vocabulary.
Research and analysis methods and techniques.
Record-keeping techniques.
Modern office practices, procedures and equipment.
Principles and practices of administration, supervision and
training.
Technical aspects of field of specialty.
Principals and practices of governmental budgeting, accounting and
purchasing.
Operation of a computer and its applications.
Interpersonal skills using tact, patience and courtesy.
ABILITY TO:
o Provide a variety of complex and responsible administrative
assistance including budget preparation and monitoring and
relieve the Director of Public Works of administrative duties
as assigned.
o Communicate effectively both orally and in writing.
o Establish and maintain cooperative and effective working
relationships with others.
o Plan and organize work.
o Meet schedules and time lines.
o Compose complex reports independently.
o Make arithmetic calculations quickly and accurately.
o Work independently with little direction.
o Work confidentially with discretion.
o Analyze situations accurately and adopt an effective course of
action.
o Train, supervise and evaluate personnel.
o Operate a variety of office machines such as computer terminal,
plotter, projector, calculator, telephone and dictaphone.
,.. Administrative Assistant III
Public Works Department
Page 4
o Supervise maintenance of accounting records.
o Interpret , apply and explain laws , rules , regulations ,
contracts, policies and procedures.
o Exercise independent judgement in relieving Director of Public
Works of administrative details.
o Prepare and deliver oral presentations.
o Perform complex duties which require extensive technical
knowledge of the Public Works Department.
EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:
Any combination equivalent to bachelor' s degree or related field
'and three years increasingly responsible administrative experience
in a public setting.
LICENSES AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS:
Valid Washington driver's license. Willingness to obtain Notary
,. Certification.
WORKING CONDITIONS:
Office Environment.
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.
RECLASSIFICAITON 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
r Kent City CouncilMeeting
Me g
Date August 16, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: CONDEMNATION ORDINANCE - KENT SPRINGS TRANSMISSION
MAIN
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. 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 ft south of Southeast 272nd Street; between
120th and 124th at the South 286th block; and between 282nd and
274th at the South 278th block; as was approved by the Council on
August 2, 1988 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Council 8/2/88 meeting
(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. 3F
i
ORDINANCE NO.
• AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, providing for the construction,
improvement and maintenance of Kent Springs
Transmission Main water facilities and related
purposes; for the purpose of providing for
condemnation, appropriation, taking and
damaging of land and other properties therefor;
located as follows:
On the east side of 132nd Avenue Southeast
approximately 300 feet south of Southeast
272nd Street; between 120th and 124th at the
South 286th block; and between 282nd and 274th
at the South 278th block in Kent, Washington.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The public convenience, use and necessity
demand the condemnation of certain real property for the
construction, improvement, and maintenance of certain City water
main facilities and related purposes for an easement across such
properties as described in Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. All land, rights, privileges, and other
property lying within the limits of the lot, blocks, and tracts of
land described in Section 1 herein are hereby condemned,
appropriated, taken and damaged for the purposes set forth above
and other public use; and lands, rights, privileges and other
properties necessary to be taken, used or damaged in the
development and construction of such are hereby condemned,
appropriated, taken and damaged for the public use of such
purpose, and all lands, rights, privileges and other properties
are to be taken, damaged and appropriated only after just
compensation has been made or paid into the court for the owners
thereof in the manner provided by law.
I
Section 3. The entire cost of the improvement and
acquisition provided for by this ordinance shall be paid from the
Kent Springs Transmission Main Fund, or from such general funds of
the City of Kent as may be provided by law.
i
Section 4. The City Attorney be and she is hereby
authorized and directed to begin to prosecute the actions and
proceeding in a manner provided by law to condemn, take, damage
and appropriate land and other property necessary to carry out the
provisions of this ordinance. In conducting said condemnation
proceedings, the City Attorney is hereby authorized to enter into
stipulations for the purpose of minimizing damages; such
stipulations to include, but not limited to size and dimensions of
the taking, construction easements and property interest.
Section 5. Any act consistent with the authority and
prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified
and confirmed.
Section 6. 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
I
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY
2 -
----
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER;
-• AND
THE EAST 30 FEET OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST
9 QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTERi
ALL IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN,
IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONi
EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN 112TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST. FIND RLSO
PARCEL NO. 4 OF SHORT PLAT NUMBER 276034, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING
NUMBER 7704060489, BEING A PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY:
Ip THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING
COUNTY, WASHINGTON1
TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND UTILITY PURPOSES
OVER TRACTS "X" AND "Y" AS DESIGNATED ON SAID SHORT PLATi
ALSO, TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS, AND UTILITIES OVER
THE SOUTH 30 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER AND OVER THE WESTERLY 30
FEET OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER,
ALL IN SAID SECTION 32. RND ALSO
LOT 4 OF KING COUNTY SHORT PLAT NUMBER 681001 RECORDED UNDER RECORDING
NUMBER 8306171037, SAID SHORT PLAT BEING THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF
I" OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP
22, NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONi
-.. TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS, AND UTILITIES OVER THAT 60
FOOT RIGHT OF WAY DESIGNATED TRACT "X" COVERING PORTION OF LOTS 1, 2, 3
AND 4 OF SHORT PLAT NUMBER 279080 RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER
8006130568, BEING A SHORT PLAT OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE
5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. RND RLSO
LOT 2 OF KING COUNTY SHORT PLAT NUMBER 681001 RECORDED UNDER RECORDING
�1 NUMBER 8306171037, SAID SHORT PLAT BEING THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP
22, NORTH, RAIJGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON;
TOGETHER IJITH AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS, AND UTILITIES OVER THAT 60
FOOT RIGHT OF WAY DESIGNATED TRACT "X" COVERING PORTION OF LOTS 1, 2, 3
". AND 4 OF SHORT PLAT NUMBER 279080 RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER
8006130568, BEING A SHORT PLAT OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER ❑F THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RAIJGE
5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. RND RLSO
THE SOUTH 640 FEET OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
�! NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 32 TOWNSHIP 22
NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONi
EXCEPT ANY PORTION- LYING WITHIN SOUTHEAST 274TH STREET. RND ALSO
PARCEL NO. 3 OF SHORT PLAT NUMBER 276034, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING
NUMBER 7704O6O4a90 BEING A PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY:
THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER ❑F THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING
COUNTY, WASHINGTONi
TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND UTILITY PURPOSES
OVER TRACTS "X" AND "Y" AS DESIGNATED ON SAID SHORT PLAT;
ALSO, TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS, AND UTILITIES OVER
THE WEST 30 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 32. FIND ALSO
,LOT 1 OF KINO COUNTY SHORT PLAT NUMBER 2S4003. RECORDED UNDER RECORDING
/Y NUMBER 8412180261, BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 22
NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W. M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. RND AL SQ
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 22
yo NORTH, RANGE 5, EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ,.
LYING WESTERLY OF THE EAST 20 FEET OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTERi
TOGETHER WITH AN NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT 30 FEET IN WIDTH FOR INGRESS,
EGRESS, AND UTILITIES BEING A 15 FOOT STRIP ON EITHER SIDE OF THE SOUTH
LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER
OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER LYING WESTERLY OF SAID
ROAD IN SAID SECTIONi
(ALSO BEING KNOWN AS PARCEL E AS DESIGNATED ON SHORT PLAT NUMBER 674179,
RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 75050703851 IN KING COUNTY, RNO RLSO
LOT G OF KING •COUNTY SHORT.PLAT NUMBER 674199, ACCORDING T❑ THE SHORT
Zi PLAT SURVEY RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 75050703851
TOGETHER WITH EASEMENTS FOR INGRESS, EGRESS, AND UTILITIES AS DISCLOSED
BY INSTRUMENTS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBERS 7411150319, 7506030836,
AND 7610060624, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. RND FILSO
PORTION OF LOT 1 AND PORTION OF THE WEST 60 FEET OF LOT 2, LYING SOUTH OF
A LINE) BEGINNING ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID WEST 60 FEET OF LOT 2, 175
L Z FEET SOUTH FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF)
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 28'00" WEST TO THE WEST LINE OF LOT 1, ALL IN
BLOCK 1, PINE TREE FARMS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN
VOLUME 43 OF PLATS, PAGE 30, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON)
EXCEPT THE WEST 20 FEET OF SAID LOT i CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY BY DEED
RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 6412854.
PAGE 3/2
Kent City Council Meeting
M� Date August 16, 1988
�1 Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: SURPLUS PROPERTY - RESOLUTION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution No. 1 to set
hearing date for Sept. 6 for the sale of a house at Upper Mill
Creek Detention Basin which is surplus to the City' s needs .
.. S
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Council 8/2/88 meeting
(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. 3G
RESOLUTION NO.
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 public services; and setting a
public hearing pursuant to RCW 35.94.040 for
September 6, 1988.
WHEREAS, the City Council confirmed the Public Works
Committee recommendation to declare the property described in
Exhibit A 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, an appraisal in the amount of $38,000.00 has
been obtained by the Department of Public Works; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The property described in Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by this reference situated in Kent in King
County, Washington is not required for public service and is
surplus to the City's needs.
Section 2. A public hearing is set for September 6, 1988
at 7 p.m. in the Kent City Hall.
„ Section 3. 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.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
._, City of Kent, Washington this _ day of 1988.
Exhibit "A"
ITHAT PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE
MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION WHICH IS 10
FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 291
THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE 315 FEET+
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY TO A POINT WHICH I8 10 FEET WEST OF THE WEST LINE OF
THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, AND 285 FEET NORTH OF A POINT 10 FEET
SOUTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST GUARTERi
THENCE SOUTH 285 FEETi
THENCE EAST ALONG A LINE PARALLEL AND 10 FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER ❑F THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER
OF SAID SECTION 29, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNINGi
EXCEPT THE EAST 30 FEET THEREOF FOR' 106TH AVE SE.
PAGE 2
v \ Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 16, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE DEFINING P OR CEDURES FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT
HOUSING ELEMENT WORK PROGRAM
2 . SL494ARY STATEMENT: Adopt Ordinance No. which
which
designates procedures for amendments to comprehensive plan,
zoning map and zoning text, if any should result from work
program; grants to the Planning Commission the authority to
consider and make recommendations on zoning map amendments, in
lieu of the Hearing Examiner; specifies that amendments to the
comprehensive plan may be made simultaneous with, or prior , to
amendments to zoning code; and provides for public notice
procedures for public hearings held on amendments proposed as a
result of this program. This work program was authorized by the
Council on July 5, 1988 by Resolution #1172 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance, Resolution #1172
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Council
(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. 3H
i
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, regarding Planning Department
Housing Element Work Program, designating
procedures for amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan, Zoning Map and Zoning Text, if any should
result from the Work Program; granting to the
Planning Commission the authority to consider
and make recommendations on zoning map
amendments, in lieu of the Hearing Examiner;
-.., specifying that amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan may be made simultaneous with, or prior
to, amendments to the Zoning Code; and
providing for public notice procedures for
public hearings held on amendments proposed as
a result of this program.
WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1123, evidenced
- a desire to achieve reduction in the density of multifamily
housing through revisions to Kent's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1172, directed
the Planning Department to conduct a study and proposed update of
the housing element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, including and
area by area analysis of multifamily density for East Hill, West
Hill and Valley Floor Planning Areas; and
WHEREAS, the Council directed that the results of said
area-wide study are to be proposed for implementation through text
and/or map zoning amendments to be presented to the Council; and
,._ WHEREAS, the Council had directed that Planning to work
with the City Council to develop a work program for the area by
area analysis; and
WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.020 empowers a city council to
authorize the Planning Commission to hear and make recommendations
to the City Council on Zoning Map amendments; and
WHEREAS, public notice and opportunity for input on the
Work Program process, procedure and results is of the highest
priority to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Council is desirous of establishing
procedural rules for conducting the Work Program, and for
implementation of proposals generated thereby, which are both
expedient in its process and generous in its opportunities for
public hearing and input; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Planning Department shall conduct a study
and proposed update of the housing element of the City's
Comprehensive Plan, including an area by area analysis of
residential density. The result of the area by area study are to
be proposed for implementation through amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Text, and/or official Zoning Maps.
Rules for Work Program procedure, process, hearings and
recommendations to the City Council shall be as defined in
Section 2.
Section 2.
I. Planning Commission
1. Comprehensive Plan.
The Planning Commission is to hold at least one
public hearing on any proposed amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan. The amendment must be processed either concurrent with or
prior to any proposed rezone. Upon completion of the hearing or
hearings on the comprehensive plan or successive parts thereof,
the Planning Commission, after making such changes in the plans as
it deems necessary, is to transmit a copy of its recommendations
for the plan, or successive parts thereof, to the City Council
through the Mayor, who is to acknowledge receipt thereof and
direct the Clerk to certify thereon the date of receipt.
2 -
i
2. Zoning Map Amendments.
A. Authorization. The Planning Commission,
in lieu of the Hearing Examiner, is authorized to conduct the
hearings on all Zoning Map amendments proposed as a result of this
work program. The Commission shall receive and examine available j
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 such
proposals.
B. Report by Planning Department. Departments,
shall coordinate and assemble relevant information regarding any
proposed amendment the comments and recommendations of other City
departments and governmental agencies having an interest in the
Ii
proposal and shall prepare a report summarizing the factors i
involved and the Planning Department analysis and supportive
recommendations. At least seven calendar days prior to the
scheduled hearing, the report shall be filed with the Commission
and copies thereof shall be made available for use by any
interested party for the cost of reproduction.
C. Conflict of Interest .
Planning Commission members shall not
conduct or participate in any hearing or decision in which the
I, Planning Commission members have a direct or indirect personal
interest which might exert such influence upon the Commission that
might interfere with their 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 Planning
Commission members free from personal interest or prehearing
contacts on land use regulatory matters considered by them. 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 members' ability to act on
.._ I 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 member. No Council member, City official, or any
other person shall attempt to interfere with, or improperly
influence the Planning Commission members in the performance of
-- their designated duties.
3 -
I
D. Public Hearing. Before rendering a
decision or recommendation on any proposal, the Commission shall
hold at least one public hearing thereon.
The Commission shall have the power to
prescribe rules and regulations for the conduct of hearings under
this Ordinance and also to administer oaths, and preserve order.
E. Recommendation or Decision.
i. The Commission's recommendation or
decision may be to grant or deny the proposal, or the Commission
may recommend or require such conditions, modifications and
restrictions as the Commission finds necessary to make the
proposal compatible with its environment and carry out the
objectives and goals cf the Comprehensive Plan and amendments
thereto, the Zoning Code, the Subdivision Code, and other codes
and ordinances of the City. Conditions, 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 dedications of additional roads
rights-of-way.
ii. If the zoning amendment is in
conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, or there are no policies
that relate to the zoning amendment, or the policies are not
complete, then a Comprehensive Plan amendment shall be processed
either concurrent with or prior to the rezone.
iii. In regard to proposals for zoning
amendments, the findings and conclusions shall be submitted to the
City Council, which shall have the final authority to act on such
applications.
F. Commission's Decision and Recommendation--
Findings Required. The Commission shall render an oral
recommendation at the conclusion of the final hearing on any
matter. Thereafter, the Commission shall make and enter written
findiLngs from the record and conclusions therefrom which support
such recommendation, which written findings and recommendation
shall be rendered within fourteen calendar days of the conclusion
of the hearing. The copy of such recommendation including
findings and conclusions, shall be transmitted by first class
mail, to all parties of record in the case requesting the same.
There shall be kept on file in the Planning Department a signed
affidavit which shall attest that each mailing was sent in
compliance with this provision.
4 -
4
In addition, the Commission shall file a
recommendation 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.
G. Reconsideration. Any aggrieved person
feeling that the recommendation of the Commission is based on
erroneous procedures, 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 Commission within fourteen days of the date
the recommendation is rendered. This request shall set forth the
specific errors or new information relied upon by such appellant,
and the Commission may, after review of the record, take further
action as they deem proper.
H. Appeal of Commission's Recommendation.
Any party who feels aggrieved by the Commission's recommendation
may submit an appeal in writing to the Council within fourteen
calendar days from the date the final recommendation of the
Commission is rendered, requesting a review of such recommendation'
Such appeal shall be upon the record
µ established and made at the hearing held by the Commission,
provided that new evidence which was not available at the time of
the hearing held by the Commission may be included in such
appeal. The term "new evidence" shall mean only evidence
discovered after the hearing held by the Commission 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.
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 Commission.
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 the manner set out in resolution adopted
by the City Council containing appeal procedure for Hearing
Examiner decisions. If the Commission 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.
5 -
l
3. Text Amendments. The Planning Commission shall
conduct at least one public hearing on all proposed Zoning Text
amendments. The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation
to the City Council. Conduct procedures of the Planning
Commission for proposals under this Work Program shall be as
provided in Kent City Code Chapter 2.32.
II. City Council Review.
1. Comprehensive Plan.
Within 60 days of its receipt from the Planning)
Commission of the recommendation for the Comprehensive Plan, the
i
City Council is required to consider it at a public meeting. The
City Council is to approve, disapprove, or modify the
Comprehensive Plan, or refer it back to the Planning Commission
for further proceedings. In the latter event, the City Council
must specify the time within which the Planning Commission is to
report back to the City Council its findings and recommendations
on the matters referred to it. An affirmative vote of at least a
majority of the total members of the City Council is required for
the adoption of a resolution to approve the Comprehensive Plan or
its parts. Consideration of a Comprehensive Plan amendment shall
be undertaken prior to, or simultaneous with, consideration of any!
proposed rezone. The Comprehensive Plan, or its successive parts,
must be filed with an appropriate city official and be available
for public inspection.
2. Zoning Map Amendments. Any Zoning Map
amendment proposal 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 Commission'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 Commission have been accomplished
or provisions for compliance made to the satisfaction of the Legal
Department.
6
The action of the Council, approving,
modifying, or rejecting a recommendation of the Commission, shall
be final and conclusive, 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.
3. Zoning Text Amendments. The City Council may
affirm, modify or disaffirm any recommendation of the Planning
Commission with regard to text amendments.
III. Public Hearing Notice Requirements.
1. Planning Commission.
A. Comprehensive Plan. Notice of the time,
place and purpose of the public hearing is to be given by at least
one publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City
at least ten days prior to the date of the hearing. Notice of the
hearing must also be given to press, radio and television as
required by Ch. 42.30 RCW, that is; to each local newspaper of
general circulation and to each local radio or television station
which has on file with the City Council a written request to be
notified of such meetings.
B. Zoning Map Amendments. As a minimum,
notice of public hearing shall be given by publication, in a
newspaper of general circulation in the area, at least ten (10)
days prior to the public hearing. Additional mailing or posting
of the notices may, at the option of the Planning Commission, be
required.
C. Zoning Text Amendments. Notice of a
public hearing shall be given by publication, in a newspaper of
general circulation in the area, at least ten (10) days prior to
the public hearing and by posting the notice in three (3) general
public locations.
D. Simultaneous Hearings. In the event that
the Planning Commission shall consider simultaneously any of the
above categories of actions, the Commission shall employ the
public hearing notice requirements for the action considered which
ensures the maximum public notice opportunities.
2. City Council.
A. Comprehensive Plan. Notice of the time,
place and purpose of the public hearing is to be given by at least
7 -
i
one publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City
at least ten days prior to the date of the hearing. Notice of the
hearing must also be given to press, radio and television as
required by CH. 42.30 RCW, that is; to each local newspaper of
general circulation and to each local radio or television station
which has on file with the City Council a written request to be
i
notified of such meetings.
B. Zoning Map Amendments. As a minimum,
notice of public hearing shall be given by publication, in a
newspaper of general circulation in the area, at least ten (10)
days prior to the public hearing. Additional mailing or posting
of the notices may, at the option of the Planning Commission, be
required.
C. Zoning Text Amendments. Notice of a
public hearing shall be given by publication, in a newspaper of
general circulation in the area, at least ten (10) days prior to
the public hearing and by posting the notice in three (3) general
public locations.
D. Simultaneous Hearings. In the event that
the Planning Commission shall consider simultaneously any of the _
above categories of actions, the Commission shall employ the
public hearing notice requirements for the action considered which
ensures the maximum public notice opportunities.
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.
➢AN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
8 -
i
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED the day of , 1988.
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
5950-210
9 -
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City council of the
City of Kent, Washington, regarding housing,
directing an update of the Housing Element of
the City's Comprehensive Plan, including a
area-by-area study of single-family and
multifamily housing densities.
WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1123, evidenced
a desire to achieve reduction in the density of multifamily
housing developments through revision to Kent's comprehensive plan
and zoning code; and
WHEREAS, there is an increasinq imbalance between
multifamily and single-family housing within the City, and a lack
of availability of a mix of housing options for Kent resident;and
WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned with the City's
ability to provide, in a timely manner, the public facilities and
services necessary to support the increase in multifamily
development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1145, endorsed
options B and C of the Planning Department's July, 1987 "Report on
Multifamily Density", and directed the Planning Department,
Planning Commission and Hearing Examiner to undertake actions
necessary to proceed with those options including gathering input
from the public on the report and options; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held Public Hearings on
the multifamily density reduction on November 23, 1987, January
25, 1988 and February 29, 1988; and referred its resulting
recommendation to the City Council.
WHERFAS, on April 19, 1988 and June 7, 1988 the Kent
Planning Committee discussed the matters related to reduction in
the density of multifamily developments; and received additional
public input.
WHEREAS, the Council Planning Committee, on June 21,
1988, submitted to the Kent City Council it's recommendations and
accompanying addendum for implementing Council Resolution 1123;
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY CCUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. City of Kent Ordinance passed
contemporaneous to this resolution, amending the Kent City Zoning
Code to achieve a reduction of multifamily residential housing by
20 percent is incorporated by reference into their resolution.
The City-wide graduated scale reduction referenced in that
ordinance shall be an interim measure, to remain in effect until
the completion and adoption of an area-by-area residential
analysis, as described more fully in Section 2 below.
Section 2.
."• A. The Planning Department shall conduct a study and
proposed update of the housing element of the City's Comprehensive
Plan, including an area-by-area analysis of multifamily
residential density for the East Hill, West Hill and Valley Floor
planning areas.
B. The analysis shall determine those areas which are
appropriate for density increases, for potential new multifamily
areas, or for density reductions. The goal of the analysis shall
be to present to the Council a plan to achieve an average 20
percent reduction in total multifamily residential density.
C. The study shall explore ways to encourage new
single-family residential development and to maintain existing
single-family neighborhoods.
D. The study shall be conducted in steps, area by
._ area. As each step is concluded, the results of the analysis
shall be implemented. The results of the area-by-area study are
to be proposed for implementation through text and/or map zoning
2 _
1
amendments to be presented to the Council within one year of the
adoption of their resolution.
E. The step by step analysis shall include a review of
the Central Business District and surrounding area in order to
consider the potential for increasing residential densities in
that area, either through proposed rezoning or revising of the
zoning in that area. The review is for the purpose of encouraging
implementation of Valley Floor residential densities increases
that are needed as one element of successful implementation of a
commuter rail program.
F. Two city neighborhoods, an area south of Willis and
a small section of North Park, shall be reviewed to consider
revising the zoning of these areas, in order to maintain the
neighborhoods' existing single-family residential character and to
encourage single-family home ownership for, among other things,
low and moderate income residents.
G. The densities of future annexation areas shall be
considered as annexations are presented to the Council for
consideration, with the intent of ensuring that single-family
housing continues to play a major role in the City's housing mix.
Section 3. The Planning Department shall work with the
City Council to develop a work program for the area-by-area
analysis described in Section 2.
Section 9. The Planning Department shall present to the
Council proposed revisions to the City's Planned Unit Development
Ordinance, in order to consider the retention of availability of. a
20 percent multifamily density bonus, and in order to encourage
and increase of the applications for Planned Unit Developments.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this _ day of �n_e ( _ 1988.
i
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this
day of `;f^��, 1988.
y�
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
3 -
Kent City Council Meeting
0� ,-O�
Date August 16, 1988
nn� Category Consent Calendar
KI
1. SUBJECT: SURPLUS VEHICLES
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to declare as surplus
vehicles described in the Fleet Manager ' s memo and to offer same
for sale at auction. (Vehicle #' s 5, 20, 27, 31, 34. 48. 63. 68.
69, 299, 309. 313 . 362 and 387) .
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo
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
�1
,., MEMORANDUM
Date: August 4 , 1988
To: Don Wickstrom CITY OF KENT
Director of Public Works
• From: Jack Spencer
Fleet Manager J�� �� CNGINEERIIVG DEPT.
Subject: Surplus Equipment for Auction
Listed below for your approval are pieces of equipment which I
wish to declare surplus and send to the equipment auction in
September of 1988 :
#5 1978 Ford Van, Serial #CA4262, License D26199,
Mileage 94, 500. Is in rough condition and has high
mileage. It would need extensive repair and paint
work. The vehicle will be replaced with a used Van for
Equipment Rental Shop.
#20 1979 Pontiac Station Wagon, Serial #600737,
License D26531, Mileage 76, 400. The unit has been
replaced with a new vehicle. It has also been used as
a line vehicle. Body and paint repair needed.
#27 1979 Dodge 1/2 Ton Pickup, Serial #238481, License
D26730, Mileage 75, 355. The unit has been replaced
with new truck. It has been used as a line vehicle
for about a year.
#31 1980 Dodge 1/2 Ton Pickup, Serial #138975, License
D28839, Mileage 65, 000. It has been replaced with new
truck.
#34 1980 Dodge 1/2 Ton Pickup, Serial #140475,. License
D28840, Mileage 85, 104 . Has been replaced last year
with a new vehicle.
#48 1980 Dodge 3/4 Ton Service Body, Serial #142448 ,
License D22843 , Mileage 93 , 076. The unit has been
replaced with a new truck. Service body is rough and
needs extensive repair.
#63 1980 Ford Fairmont Station Wagon, Serial #195912 ,
License D22842, Mileage 52, 000. Vehicle has been
replaced with new unit. Needs paint work and engine
repair.
B:\C004E04
i
Surplus Equipment for Auction Page 2 of 2
#68 1976 Chevrolet 1/2 Ton Pickup, Serial #143634, ,
License D23807, Mileage 93 , 925. The truck has high
mileage. It was replaced with a new vehicle three
years ago and has been used as a line vehicle.
#69 1979 Dodge 1/2 Ton Pickup, Serial #241771, License
D26730, Mileage 53 , 965. The truck is in rough
condition. Needs body repair and complete paint job.
It is not practical to keep this unit. Has been
replaced with new unit in 1987.
#299 1958 Gillig Bus, Serial #B5261, License 01858D,
Mileage 159, 000+. Engine needs extensive repair and
possible replacement. Was not practical to repair for
the amount of use.
#309 1980 Chevrolet Malibu Police car, Serial #142448,
License D22843 , Mileage 93 , 076. The car was a K9 unit
and when replaced with new unit it was then used as a
line vehicle.
#313 1984 Trident Parking Scooter, Serial #E10002,
License EXD735, Mileage 94 , 500. It is in rough
condition and has high mileage. Would need extensive
repair and a paint work. The unit will be replaced
with a different vehicle.
#362 1985 Plymouth Gran Fury patrol car, Serial
#610645, License D35036, Mileage 89, 667. The high
mileage makes unit unsuitable for police work.
#387 1979 Dodge Aspen, Serial #254564, License D26790,
Mileage 56, 000. The car has been replaced. It has
been used as administrative, investigative, and a crime
prevention car. The age, condition, and appearance are
poor.
cc: Timothy Heydon
Diane Sullivan
B:\C004E04
Kent City Council Meeting
C� \ Date August 16, 1988
U Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: ARTS COMMISSION APPOINTMENT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor ' s appointment of
• Jim Land to the Arts Commission. Mr . Land will replace Trisha
Evert who has moved from the area. This term will expire 10/91.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Mayor
4 . RECOMMENDED BY
(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. 3J
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
August 8, 1988
TO: JIM WHITE, PRESIDENT, CI COUNCIL
FROM: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR`°
SUBJECT: ARTS COMMISSION--APPOINTMENT
I have recently appointed Mr. Jim Land to the Kent Arts
Commission, replacing Trisha Evert who resigned from the Board
due to a relocation to Denver, Colorado. Mr. Land is the Manager
of Victor's in Tukwila. He has been a resident of Kent for 25
years and is interested in making a contribution to the
community in the area of Arts. He has 20 years of experience in
both performing arts and visual arts and has promoted a variety
of Art programs in the private sector, including sponsoring
artists, helping recording artists, and managing and promoting
art shows. The term of Mr. Land's appointment will be 10/91.
I feel confident you will find Mr. Land to be an excellent
addition to the Kent Arts Commission.
I submit this for your confirmation.
DK:am
cc: City Councilmembers
Marie Jensen, City Clerk
Brent McFall, City Administrator
Patrice Thorell, Culture and Leisure Supt.
Barney Wilson, Parks Director
Don Campbell, Chairman, Kent Arts Commission
Kent City Council Meeting
11 Date August 16, 1988
1 Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: APPEAL - REGULATORY REVIEW REQUEST TO ALLOW PUBLIC
STORAGE FACILITY IN A COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONE NO.
RR-88-1
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: On July 25, 1988, the Planning Commission
denied a regulatory review request by the Carolina Berg Estate to
allow public storage facility in a community commercial zoning
district. The applicant is appealing the decision of the
Planning Commission.
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo, letter of appeal, regulatory review
" request, Planning Commission minutes, staff report , Planning
Committee minutes
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission 7/25/88
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
Denial
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS•
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to accept the decision of the Planning Commission to deny
regulatory review request No. RR-88-1.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4 -A
LAW OFFICES
..._ DOUGLAS P. BECKER CURRAN, KLEWENO & JOHNSON TELEPHONE
C. PETER CURRAN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION (206)852-2345
JAMES P. CURRAN
MARK W. DAVIS 555 WEST SMITH STREET ESCROW DEPARTMENT
DAVIT T. HOKIT (206)859-I090
y STEPHEN L.JOHNSON POST OFFICE BOX 14O
MELVIN L. KLEWENO,JR. KENT,WASHINGTON 98035-0140 TELECOPIER
JOSEPH A. McKAMEY (206)852.2030
LAAAY R.SCHAEITER
July 29, 1988 JUL ) 9 1988
CITY OF KENT
CITY CLERK
City of Kent
Att: Mayor
City Counsil
City Clerk
Planning Commissioner
4th and Gowe Street
Kent, Washington 98032
Re: Regulatory Review. Carolina Berg Estate - Chris Leedy
application for amendment of the text of Kent Code Section
15.04 . 100 community commercial district to allow mini
storage
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
Please accept this letter as our NOTICE OF APPEAL to the City
Council of the denial of this request by a three to two vote of the
Planning Commission on Monday, July 25, 1988 .
We will await your advice as to the procedure to be followed by us
in presenting this appeal
Very t ours,
CUR N, KL ENO & JOHNSON, P.S.
CHARLES PETER CURRAN
CPC:jo
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
August 12 , 1988
MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members
FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Regulatory Review; Mini Warehouses in CC, Community
Commercial Zoning District
On July 25, 1988 the Planning Commission concluded its hearing on
a regulatory review request made by Chris Leady to amend the
Zoning Code to permit mini storage in the CC, Community
Commercial zoning district. At that hearing the Planning
Commission denied the applicant' s request.
On July 29, 1988 the applicant' s representative, C. Peter
Curran appealed the Commission's denial to the City Council.
When the regulatory review process was first set up, the
Council ' s Planning Committee screened all applications. If the
committee felt an application was worthy, it was sent to the
Planning Commission for their review and action.
On August 24 , 1987 the Planning Committee changed its procedures
and decided to have all regulatory review applications go
directly to the Planning Commission. The committee also decided
that if the Planning Commission decided not to hear a regulatory
review application, an appeal could be made to the committee.
Planning Committee appeals would be held every three months.
The committee did not address the situation where the Commission
decides to hear an application but denies it.
It would appear that an appeal of the Commission' s denial of a
regulatory review application, although properly addressed to the
Council, should be referred to the Planning Committee.
JPH:ca
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING OF AUGUST 24 , 1987
PAGE TWO
present to the City Council the policies, procedures and maps in an
executive summary format with an accompanying memo explaining how the
issue has progressed. The technical background and rationale will be
outlined in a separate document to be used as backup. The
recommendation will be made to adopt the Greater Kent Study as a
"preferred annexation policy. " The Greater Kent Study will be
presented first at a workshop session prior to being presented to the
full Council.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS
The committee accepted the interlocal agreement form as designed by the
Suburban Planning Directors. This item will be on the Consent Calendar
for the September 1st City Council meeting. It was suggested that the
material presented to the Council indicate the non-binding nature of
the agreement at this time, and that the Council is merely approving a
form.
REGULATORY REVIEW - PROPOSALS FOR HANDLING
The committee approved the staff proposal to send Regulatory Review
requests directly to the Planning Commission, who would decide whether
or not to proceed with public hearings on the request. The committee
recommended one change; that is to allow an appeal to the Planning
" Committee for those requests with which the Planning Commission decides
not to proceed. Planning Committee meetings to consider appeals would
be held every three months. The new procedures will be implemented on
a one-year trial basis.
NEXT MEETING DATE
The next meeting of the Planning Committee is scheduled for September
1, 1987 at 4 : 00 PM.
The meeting was adjourned at 4 :40 PM.
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
July 25, 1988
quoted from a letter dated April 13 , 1988 stating that the Task
Force was concerned about the location of manufacturing uses in
the proposed Central Business District and felt the uses would be
inappropriate. He suggested rezoning the existing manufacturing
areas to a classification consistent with the present CBD Plan
Map. The employees felt that the CBD Plan as proposed threatened
their jobs. They would like to have the plan amended to exclude
the existing manufacturers in the proposed Central Business area.
Pat Curran submitted to the Planning Commission a letter from
Steve Burpee. Commissioner Martinez asked that the letter from
Steve Burpee be admitted into the record. Commissioner Stoner
SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
Commissioner Martinez MOVED that the public hearing on the
Central Business District be continued until August 22 .
Commissioner Rudy SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. It was
pointed out that there would be a workshop on this issue on
August 15 and there would be a tour preceding the workshop.
REGULATORY REVIEW
AMENDMENT TO ALLOW PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITIES
IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT (RR-88-1)
Peter Curran, 555 West Smith Street, representing the Berg
Estate, stated the Berg family has owned the property since 1921.
The property was rezoned to Community Commercial in 1984 . If the
five-acre site were developed as a retail center such as Fred
Meyer, a 50, 000 square foot structure could be built on the site.
This could create 4, 000 car trips per day. A mini storage would
create approximately 208 car trips per day. He pointed out that
there are 208 acres of Community Commercial land in Kent, and
only approximately 40 acres remain. He suggested a motion be
made to amend KCC 15 . 04 . 100 to add D4 "self storage facility
subject to a conditional use permit shall address site
development, design and buffering issues. " He suggested that
this issue be referred to a work session for the purpose of
working out the differences.
Greg McCormick stated that there are 210.74 acres of Community
Commercial land in the City of Kent, 18. 6 percent of this land is
now vacant (39 acres) . Current projects would reduce the land to
15 percent, 31. 6 acres. He showed on the map the locations of
mini storage facilities within the city. Storage managers stated
that people come to their storage units approximately once every
month or two. He did not feel that trips into the valley would
add substantially to the existing traffic problems. If
commercial uses are displaced from the existing Community
3
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
July 25, 1988
- Commercial zone and more land-intensive uses are allowed to be
built, then there would be more pressure to expand the existing
CC districts to include areas along 104th and 256th. Community
Commercial is intended to serve day-to-day or weekly needs of the
people in the area, not monthly needs. Discussion followed
regarding the high vacancy rate of mini storage units in Kent.
Mr. Harris pointed out that this was not a site-specific issue.
He felt this commercial land should be used for commercial uses.
Discussion followed regarding intensive and extensive use of
land.
Leona Orr, 24909 114th Avenue SE, read a letter into the record
from Joan McCallum opposing the proposed mini storage units in
this area. She was concerned about the possibility of lowered
land values for residential land in the area. She felt that
there was space in the valley for this use and that the Community
Commercial area should have professional offices.
Jim Orr, 24909 114th Avenue SE wondered if this were an
_. appropriate use for this site and how this use might affect the
people in the general area.
Larry Cragun, B. L. Perkins Company, feels that a need exists in
this area for 2, 000 mini storage units on East Hill. He
suggested design control standards be adopted and felt that mini
storage would be an asset to the community.
Ed Heineman, 10824 SE 244th, owner of the property adjacent to
the proposed site, supported the Planning staff's position. He
felt a retail use would be more appropriate than mini storage for
this site. He would prefer to go to the valley for storage.
Chris Liede, stated that there is a great need for this type of
storage on East Hill and he would be willing to pay retail
prices for the land for this type of development. He suggested
that this proposal be allowed as a conditional use with strict
-• development standards.
Peter Curran, reiterated that any design standard requirements
would be for all mini storage sites developed under the
conditional use permit in the Community Commercial district.
Chairman Badger closed the public hearing.
Chairman Badger was not opposed to the conditional use permit
concept.
4
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
July 25, 1988
Commissioner Forner was not opposed to this use with a
conditional use permit but felt that it should be placed in a
multifamily zone rather than in a Community Commercial zone.
Commissioner Rudy felt that if storage were needed, people would
find the storage. She felt that Community Commercial space is
limited and should be used for that purpose. She supported the
idea of mini storage in a multifamily area.
Commissioner Stoner asked for figures regarding vacant
multifamily land on East Hill.
Mr. McCormick responded that there are 40-50 acres of available
multifamily land on East Hill.
Commissioner Stoner MOVED to retain the Community Commercial zone
as is and to deny this request to expand it. Commissioner Rudy
SECONDED the motion. She felt that the current community
commercial area on East Hill functions with daily usage. Because
of the projected housing growth in that area, she felt the
commercially zoned area would be needed for that purpose. She
suggested that staff look for ways to meet this need in other
zones, specifically multifamily. She felt this kind of use with
strict development standards might be appropriately placed in
the multifamily area but not in the Community Commercial zone.
Commissioner Ward felt that the Commission should grant a
conditional use in the CC zone for mini storage facilities
because it would provide less than maximum usage of the land. He
felt that the Hearing Examiner, Planning Department and developer
could work togther regarding the necessary conditions.
Commissioner Martinez abstained because of a conflict of
interest.
Motion carried, three in favor (Stoner, Ward, Forner) and two
opposed (Badger, Rudy) .
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Badger adjourned the meeting at 10: 10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
i
ames Harris, Secretary
r
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 27, 1988
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS:
Robert Badger, Chairman
Linda Martinez, Vice Chairwoman
Anne Biteman
Elmira Forner
Greg Greenstreet
Nancy Rudy
Carol Stoner
Raymond Ward
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Senior Planner
Carol Proud, Planner
Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 23 and MAY 31, 1988
Commissioner Martinez MOVED that the minutes of the May 23 and
May 31 meetings be approved as presented. Commissioner Biteman
SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
Mr. Harris stated that the City Council adopted the 20 percent
multifamily reduction on June 21, 1988 .
REGULATORY REVIEW
AMENDMENT TO ALLOW PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITIES
IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT (RR-88-1)
Mr. Harris suggested that this hearing be continued since the
applicant's correspondence regarding this issue had not been
received by the Planning Department until the morning of this
meeting. Chairman Badger opened the public hearing for testimony
from the community.
_ Larry Cragun, Real Estate Director with B. L. Perkins Company,
presented a copy of pages from the King County Zoning Code which
permits mini storage in high-density multiple dwelling zones with
restrictions and conditions. He showed a rendering of a project
he is preparing to build in Bellingham. He suggested that there
be design restrictions on projects of this type.
1
r -
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING OF JUNE 27 , 1988
Lila Ray, who has lived in the Kent area for 15 years, expressed
concern regarding additional development on the East Hill because
of the traffic problems that already exist.
Peter Curran, Curran, Kleweno and Johnson, 555 West Smith
Street, Kent, attorney for the applicant, felt that mini
warehouses at this location would reduce the intensity of traffic
at the intersection. He suggested that the traffic for the
proposed use would be less intensive and less debilitating than a
Fred Meyer or Target type of store, roller skating rink or
veterinary kennels. One half of the apartments in Kent are
close to this intersection, but statistics in other areas show
that over 50 percent of storage units are utilized by single
family dwelling residents. He endorsed extensive landscaping and
sprinklers which would help to keep the area attractive. He
suggested that there not be a limit on the number of mini
warehouses permitted, but that the market is allowed to
determine how much storage is needed.
Chris Leady, 2000 124th Avenue NE, Bellevue, 98005, proponent of
this request, expressed concern about the timeliness of the
report delivered to the Planning Commission and Planning
Department. He felt that mini warehouses should be classified as
a limited commercial use, which is allowed in the area. He
compared the Thriftway Shopping Center to the proposed
development. He stated there is a need for this facility,
there can be applied strict standards, and he suggested this use
be allowed as a conditional use which would be heard by the
Hearing Examiner.
Ned Nelson, Three Lake Bellevue Drive, Suite 200, Bellevue 98005,
architect for the project, pointed out that traffic generated by
this project is low. He concurred with the staff report and
presented a potential layout showing 40 percent lot coverage
using three acres of this site. A small retail center is proposed
for the front of the development on 240th. Only 25 percent of
the frontage would be dedicated to mini warehouse access; the
balance of the storage facility would be behind the proposed
retail use. The building height would be 12 feet and would be
within 20 feet of the property line. A two-story building
proposed for construction 40 feet from the property line would be
20 feet to the gutter line; however, in order to have a pitched
roof, they would need to exceed this 20 foot limit. Ten feet of
landscaping is planned for the rear and side yards. They would -
like to increase the buffering to Type I landscaping and would
like to increase the size of the evergreens by 25 percent over
current standards. A cedar fence is planned to conceal a chain-
link fence so that property owners would be able to enjoy the
2
e
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING OF JUNE 27 , 1988
wooden fence and landscaping.
Commissioner Ward asked for an explanation of adjacent property
uses. Mr. Leady responded that a 30-foot-high building with
loading dock is located on one side, and undeveloped residential
property is the other side. He proposed a 5-foot by 20-foot
break every 100 feet which would allow an additional five feet of
landscaping to help break the facade.
Mr. Ward asked if the retail use would be developed concurrently
with the storage units. Mr. Leady responded that it would be
economically feasible to develop both at the same time, but the
market would dictate the timing of retail development.
Commissioner Martinez asked if this request were site specific or
a request to change the zoning code. Mr. Leady responded that
they were requesting an amendment to the zoning code.
Commissioner Forner commented that the facility appeared to be
architecturally pleasing. However, this is not a design issue
but is a request to change the zoning code to allow this type of
structure in this zone.
Commissioner Martinez MOVED to continue the public hearing to
July 25 and suggested that the developers and the Planning
Department get together before the public hearing. Commissioner
Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
Commissioner Stoner asked that the next hearing include
information regarding the amount and location of undeveloped
Community Commercial land in the City of Kent.
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PLAN AMENDMENTS - CONTINUED
.,_ Fred Satterstrom presented the Central Business District Plan as
one of four subarea plans in Kent. The original CBD Plan was
completed in 1974 and has been under consideration by the
Downtown Revitalization Task Force. The present discussion
includes a Comprehensive Plan update, which is a vision statement
expressing what Kent hopes to achieve as a community in its land
use pattern. The present issue does not include zoning, but
zoning follows as implementation of the plan. These are separate
actions and only the Comprehensive Plan will be discussed at
this time. The proposed CBD Plan offers expanded opportunities
for commercial and office development in the Central Business
District. It contemplates a commuter rail project, reserves land
consistent with that proposal, and it expands multiple family
opportunities through a mixed use designation. He offered to
continue the staff report subsequent to public testimony.
3
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING OF JUNE 27 , 1988
Terry Prothro, 721 East James, Kent, pointed out that Borden
Chemical has been in the City of Kent for over 30 years and
supports more than 76 businesses in the community and many mills
throughout the state. He was concerned about the possible change
in zoning which would affect this company and his employment.
He mentioned that there are many offices and apartments that are
currently unoccupied and felt that additional structures are not
needed at this time.
Susan Auvinen, Borden employee living at 9210 Mosner Street -
South, Tacoma, pointed out that Renton is moving south with
industry and Auburn is moving north with industry, and she did
not understand why Kent wanted to do away with some of its
industry. She expressed concern about all the employees who
would be losing their jobs if this plan were carried out.
Lloyd Holman, 30877 West Lake Morton Drive SE, Kent, president of
Local 22 , Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers at the
Kent Borden Chemical Plant, received his education and spent most
of his life in Kent. Local 22 has 28 members all working at
Borden, Kent. Local 22 is united with management in opposition
to the adoption of the plan as it is proposed, because it could
have a negative effect on the future income of all concerned.
At the May hearing the CBD Plan did not take into account the
economic impact of the zoning changes. Even if the plants did
not close their doors immediately, he felt that the chances for
company growth seemed minimal . A company that is not allowed to
add buildings or equipment does not provide a very bright future
for its employees. In the past 31 years Borden Chemical has
given many people a chance to earn a living and be part of the
Kent community. To expand the Central Business District and
eliminate manufacturing as indicated in the plan would cause a
great deal of hardship for the many people who work at Borden,
Northwest Metals and Howard Manufacturing. He asked the
Commission to reconsider the plan and not eliminate manufacturing
in this area.
Richard McCann, attorney with Perkins Coie, 1900 Washington
Building in Seattle, 98101, as representative of the Borden
Company, asked that a previously submitted letter dated June 23 ,
1988 be noted; he submitted a supplement dated June 27 to the
Commissioners. Attachments to the letter dated June 27 included
minutes of the last three Task Force meetings. His office is in
the middle of their study of the proposed amendment and suggested
that if the hearing is continued, they would like to present the
results of their additional studies at a future hearing. He
would like to work with the Planning staff and the Task Force
regarding this issue.
4
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
May 31, 1988
of Kent completed a study of adult use which study led to the zoning
code's current regulation of the location of adult theaters and
bookstores. The report detailed uses that the courts had shown could
be protected from adult businesses, i.e. , churches, residential areas,
parks and schools, by implementing distance requirements.
He presented the staff recommendations:
Add the following definition:
15. 02 . 008 Adult Entertainment Establishment
An adult entertainment establishment means any business or
operation regulated by KCC 5. 32 including any business or
.,•- operation that involves an exhibition or dance by persons that is
distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on conduct that
depicts, displays, or relates to "specified sexual activities" or
"specified anatomical areas" , as defined in Section 15. 02 . 502 and
.503 . Such an establishment customarily excludes persons by
virtue of age from all or a portion of the premises.
Amend the definition of Adult Uses:
15. 02 . 009 Adult Uses
For the terms of this code, adult uses shall include adult motion
picture theaters, adult drive-in theaters, adult bookstores, and
adult entertainment establishments.
Add libraries to list of protected uses:
15. 08. 270 Adult Uses
Section A.5. One thousand feet of any public library.
Commissioner Martinez MOVED and Commissioner Rudy SECONDED a motion to
close the public hearing. Motion carried.
Commissioner Martinez MOVED that the Commission approve the three
recommendations presented. Commissioner Forner SECONDED the motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
AMENDMENT TO ALLOW PUBLIC STORAGE IN CC-- RR 88-1 (Continued)
Greg McCormick presented the regulatory review request to allow mini-
self storage warehouses in the CC, Community Commercial zone. The
purpose of the CC district is to provide areas for limited commercial
activities that serve several residential neighborhoods. Allowed uses
would include hardware stores, barber and beauty shops, grocery stores,
restaurants, theaters, etc. Also allowed in the CC zone are special
permit uses which include gasoline service stations, churches and
3
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
May 31, 1988
nursery schools and day care centers. Conditionally permitted uses
include apartments, building supply uses and auto repair facilities.
Specifically excluded from the CC zone are heavier uses such as
wholesale manufacturing uses, warehouses, car lots and storage lots.
He stated that none of the cities surveyed allowed mini-storage
facilities as a principally permitted use in a zone that is comparable
to the Community Commercial zone. Two jurisdictions allowed mini-
storage facilities in a zone that would be comparable to the General
Commercial zone, where currently mini-storage facilities can be located
as a conditional use.
The Planning staff does not consider rental of storage space to
constitute retail use, nor would this use fit the Community Retail zone
w i.ch is intended to provide personal goods and services, such as
s,;permarkets, hardware stores, drug stores, restaurants, etc. These
uses generally provide the day-to-day shopping needs of the community.
Mr. McCormick did not feel that people would go to a mini-storage
facility on a day-to-day basis.
In response to the applicant's argument that these facilities should be
located near residential neighborhoods so that residents do not drive
to the valley to use these services, Mr. McCormick presented a map
which showed the areas in the city where this type of storage is
allowed outright and where it is allowed as a conditional use.
In response to the applicant 's argument that the proposed change will
not have an effect on related ordinances, regulations, plans and
policies, the Planning staff believes that allowing this use would put
additional pressure on the City to expand the limited CC areas; this
could force existing commercial nodes to become large, sprawling
commercial areas. Self-storage facilities tend to use large tracts of
land.
Even if quality materials are used, self-storage facilities tend to
have an austere, compound-like appearance. Security requirements often
include fencing topped with some form of barbed wire. The conditional
use permit process offers the city no influence on the architectural
treatment, mass, color, etc. , of the facility.
Mr. McCormick presented three alternatives. The first is no action,
which would maintain the existing Community Commercial zoning
standards. The second is to allow this activity as a conditional use,
to be processed via public hearing and reviewed by the Kent Hearing
Examiner. The third is to allow this use as a special permit use with
development standards that exceed those for principally permitted uses
in this zone.
The Planning staff recommends that the request for mini-storage
4
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
May 31, 1988
facilities in the CC zone be denied both as a conditional use and as a
permitted use.
Peter Curran, 555 West Smith Street, attorney for applicant, pointed
out that on 228th and West Valley Highway there is a warehouse built in
a way that is a credit to the community. He stated that there are
8,900 multifamily units in Kent; 5,700 are in the east side of Kent;
- 4 , 300 are in the Benson Center area. He felt that mini-storage
facilities are needed on the East Hill and suggested that this should
be considered a retail use. He felt that this site could be built into
_. additional multifamily dwellings, but he felt that it would be better
use of the space if it were developed into mini-storage facilities.
Precise standards could be established to provide attractive storage
units that would soften the density of this area which has so many
:,:ultifamily dwelling units. He felt there was nothing demeaning about
the storage of goods. He emphasized that there were only a few uses
that differed between the Community Commercial and General Commercial
zones. He pointed out that other communities and King County allow
this type of use in multifamily zones. He urged the Commission to
visit Totem Lake and observe what Mr. Leady has done in that community.
He urged the Commission to allow this mini-storage facility as a
conditional use or as a special permit use.
Chris Leady, developer of the proposal, requested that the hearing be
continued in order for the Commission to visit the Totem Lake facility.
He pointed out that King County allows self-storage facilities in their
BC zone as an outright use. Everett allows this type of storage in
commercial zones, and Renton allows it in commercial zones with a
conditional use. Times are changing and residents want to have storage
near their homes . He suggested design standards that would
specifically address the size of the facility: the possibility of a
live-in manager; whether or not outside storage or storage of flammable
or dangerous materials would be allowed; the use of colors; whether to
include masonry or concrete tilt-up design so that there would be a
textured look which would blend in with the residential area. He felt
that this facility would be a service to the community, a low generator
of traffic and an attractive project.
Commissioner Biteman asked how many units were planned for the site.
Mr. Leady responded that there was only 80, 000 square feet. He did not
specify a number of units.
Ned Nelson, Project Architect, Three Lake Bellevue Drive, Suite 200,
Bellevue, 98005, felt that design seemed to be the major issue. He
-- gave illustrations of residential communities in this area and Lake
Oswego in which the residents were pleased with the end result. He was
confident he could design a mini-storage facility for this site which
would be aesthetically pleasing to the residents in the area.
5
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
May 31, 1988
Larry Cregan, Real Estate Director for B. L Perkins Company, 13120 SE
30th, Bellevue, which develops Econo mini storage facilities, has found
that the public wishes to have its storage area within a two-mile
radius of their residence. He suggested that CC zoning be modified to
include this type of storage. He stated that Seattle allows mini-
storage facilities to be located in C1 zones, but allows no more than a
40, 000 square foot building which is no more than 40 feet to 65 feet
high. He felt that mini-storage facilities could be three stories high
and still not look like a storage facility.
Leona Orr, 24901 114th Avenue SE, is opposed to allowing mini-
warehouses in the Community Commercial zone. She did not feel that
storage facilities would be an appropriate use of land that will be
needed for services to the residents in the area. People commute many
miles to their jobs each day, and she felt people would not mind
driving a few miles to their storage unit. She did not feel that a
facility which is typically surrounded by a chain-link fence is
appropriate in an area that is predominantly residential in nature.
Lauri Sunstedt, 24805 114th Avenue SE, was opposed to mini-warehouses
in a residential area.
Commissioner Martinez MOVED that the hearing be continued until the
next regularly scheduled meeting (June 27) . Commissioner Forner
SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL OPERATIONAL HOURS FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS
(RR-88-2)
Chairman Badger opened the public hearing. Commissioner Martinez
stated that she would not support the increase of hours for the home
occupations.
Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the Commission approve the staff
recommendation to not expand hours for home occupations. Commissioner
Forner SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Badger adjourned the meeting at 10: 00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
. /a.�
James P. Harris, Secretary
6
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING OF MAY 23 , 1988
they are allowed as an accessory use for 20, 000 pounds or less and
above that as a conditional use. There is a 5, 000 pound limit in
Downtown Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial and there is no
_. provision for conditional use above this amount. In heavy commercial
areas there is a 10, 000 pound limit and more than that would require a
conditional use permit. For on-site facilities in all the industrial
zones 20, 000 pounds or less would be an accessory use and above that a
conditional use would be required. He added that 20, 000 pounds would
be approximately 40 drums. Hazardous uses are allowed under current
zoning without any controls. The amendments would provide an
opportunity to place special conditions on these.
Commissioner Rudy MOVED and Commissioner Martinez SECONDED the motion
_. to close the public hearing. Motion carried.
Commissioner Stoner MOVED and Commissioner Rudy SECONDED a motion to
adopt the recommendations in the Hazardous Waste report (attached) .
Motion carried unanimously.
REGULATORY REVIEW
-• 2� AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL OPERATIONAL HOURS FOR HOME
OCCUPATIONS (RR-88-2)
This item was not discussed and is continued to the hearing of May 31,
1988.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Badger adjourned the meeting at 11: 10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
James H ris, Secretary
14
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING OF MAY 23 , 1988
provision for the road into the southern section of the site. The bike
trail will be continued at the river's edge around the horseshoe.
Chairman Badger asked if an additional access street had been
considered. Mr. Grimm responded that no study had been done regarding
a second access road to the property. They will participate in the
installation of a signal and contribute to the 272nd Street Corridor.
Chairman Badger asked how the storm water would be handled. Mr. Grim
stated that an LID is being formed to handle the drainage from the area
so that it will protect the river. A levee will protect the river from
the road, and a swale along the river will channel the water into the
city drainage system.
Commissioner Stoner MOVED to continue the public hearing to May 31.
Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
AMENDMENTS TO ADULT USE REGULATIONS
Commissioner Stoner opened the public hearing regarding adult use
regulations and continued it to May 31. Commissioner Rudy SECONDED the
motion. Motion carried unanimously.
HAZARDOUS WASTE ZONING
Brad Collins, consultant to the City of Kent regarding the hazardous
waste zoning amendments, presented the recommendation for language to
permit the city and the state to site those facilities which treat and
store hazardous waste materials. In order for the city to have the
opportunity to zone those type of facilities, state legislation
requires that the city provide the language to the state by June 30,
1988 . Otherwise, the opportunity would be preempted by the state.
Philip Morley, consultant regarding hazardous waste, pointed out that
where hazardous materials are allowed, storage and treatment facilities
also must be allowed. The purpose of the amendments is to limit and
guide responsible placement of hazardous waste storage and treatment
facilities. Left over from an economic activity, hazardous waste is
that waste which is either harmful to the environment or is toxic.
This is distinguished from solid waste. Storage can be in an
underground or in an above-ground storage tank. Treatment is any
process that reduces the hazardous nature of hazardous waste, reduces
its volume or recycles it for some other purpose. This is not a form
of disposal, such as incineration or landfilling. On-site storage and
treatment and storage facilities deal only with waste that is generated
at that particular site. When a substance is imported from another
facility, it becomes an off-site facility. Storage and treatment
facilities are not allowed in residential zones. In agricultural zones
13
F
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 16, 1988
FILE NO: #ZCA-88-1 REGULATORY REVIEW OF MINI-
WAREHOUSES IN A CC, COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL, DISTRICT
INTERESTED PARTY: Chris C. Leady c/o Peter Curran, Attorney at
Law
ORDINANCE/REGULATION BEING REVIEWED:
Section 15. 04 . 100, CC, Community Commercial,
district of the Kent Zoning Code which
' presently does not permit mini-warehouses.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION:
The action before the Planning Commission is
to consider changes to the CC, Community
Commercial, district that will permit mini-
warehouses in a CC, Community Commercial,
zone.
I. BACKGROUND
The regulatory review process was set up by the City Council to
r permit interested persons to submit concerns nd proposals
related to Kent Zoning Code and Ordinances.
The first step in the process is to fill out a form entitled
City of Kent Regulatory Review. A number of questions are
listed on the form. The interested public submits the completed
form to the Planning Department and a staff report is prepared
on the proposal. This staff report is then sent to the Planning
Commission for their review. The Commission then decides
whether or not to proceed with public hearings on the request.
An appeal to the City Council Planning Committee may be made for
those requests with which the Planning Commission decides not to
proceed. Planning Committee meetings to consider appeals are
held every three months or as necessary.
II. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
The Planning Department considered the following facts in
relation to this regulatory review item:
1
Staff Report
Mini-warehouses in a CC zone
#ZCA-88-1
Existing situation in CC Community Commercial District:
The Kent Zoning Code currently states that the purpose of this
district is to provide areas for limited commercial activities
that serve several residential neighborhoods. The permitted uses
in this type of zone include those considered as convenience
shopping goods. These include such uses as: hardware, furniture,
barber and beauty shops, laundrettes, restaurants, theaters, and
branches of financial institutions.
Special Permit Uses in the CC, Community Commercial zone
include: 1) gasoline service stations, 2) churches and 3)
nursery schools and day care centers.
Accessory uses include uses and buildings customarily
appurtenant to a permitted use, such as incidental storage
facilities.
Conditional uses presently allowed in the CC, Community
Commercial , zone include; the General Conditional Uses
referenced below, apartments (either by themselves or in
conjunction with commercial uses) , building supply uses and auto
repair facilities.
General Conditional Uses, as stated in Section 15. 08 . 030B of the
Kent Zoning Code, are permitted in the CC zone. These uses
generally fall into several broad categories which include the
following: utility, transportation and communication facilities;
public facilities ( i . e . schools, libraries, governmental
agencies) ; open space uses and uses such as churches, retirement
homes, and welfare facilities.
Excluded uses from the CC, Community Commercial, zone include
wholesale and manufacturing uses, warehouses, car lots, storage
lots, etc.
The development standards in a CC, Community Commercial, zone
are some of the least restrictive with only a 20 foot rear yard
setback and no side yard setbacks (except when abutting a more
restrictive zone. In addition, the landscape requirements for
this zone include only a 5 foot landscape strip along a public
right of way. Ten feet of perimeter landscaping is required
only when the site abuts a residential district.
III. DISCUSSION OF APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL
An informal telephone survey was conducted of cities in the area
to determine in what zoning districts mini-storage facilities
are allowed. The results of this survey are attached to the
2
Staff Report
Mini-warehouses in a CC zone
#ZCA-88-1
staff report which lists the city surveyed, the zones where the
use in question are allowed and the special provisions that may
apply to this type of development.
None of the cities surveyed allowed mini-storage facilities as a
principally permitted use in zones comparable to the Community
Commercial, zone. In two of the jurisdictions surveyed, mini-
storages were allowed as conditional uses in zones similar to
Kent's General Commercial zone. All cities surveyed allowed
mini-storages as principally permitted uses in industrial zones.
(Please see attachment A, showing zones which allow mini-
warehouses in several local communities) .
The applicant has presented several arguments for allowing mini
storage facilities in the CC, Community Commercial, zone. The
arguments are listed below with a Planning Department comment
after each:
A. A self-storage facility is a commercial activity that is in
the business of "retailing" space to the nearby residential
neighborhoods.
Planning Department Comment
Staff does not consider a self-storage facility as a commercial
activity. The dictionary defines retail as "the selling of
goods in small quantities to the public" . Clearly, the rental
of storage space does not constitute a retail use. The East
Hill area plan adopted by the Planning Commission and City
Council in 1982 describes Community Retail as follows:
This use is intended to provide areas for the
provision of personal goods and services such as
supermarkets , hardware stores, drug stores,
restaurants, etc. These uses generally provide
the day-to-day shopping needs of the community.
Generally , personal storage users visit the facility
infrequently, not on a day-to-day basis.
B. These facilities should be located near residential
neighborhoods so that residents do not drive "all the way
down to the valley" .
Planning Department Comment
There are several self-storage facilities available in the
valley that are within two to three miles of the residential
3
Y ,
Staff Report
Mini-warehouses in a CC zone
#ZCA-88-1
neighborhoods on the east hill. This would not appear to be an
unreasonable distance to travel to a self-storage facility.
This is particularly true when considering the infrequent number
of times that a user visits this type of facility in a year.
At a public hearing in 1986 for a mini-storage facility, the
applicant testified that only three percent of the clients for a
given facility will visit the site within a 24-hour period.
C. The applicant states that the proposed change will not have
an effect on the related ordinances, regulations, plans and
policies.
Planning Department Comment
The staff feels that this code amendment will indeed affect the
related plans and policies for the east hill area. Allowing
this type of land intensive use in the CC zone would put
additional pressure to expand the CC zoned areas. This would
result in the existing compact commercial nodes on the east hill
becoming large, sprawling commercial areas.
Self-storage facilities tend to use large tracts of land. Land
currently available in the CC, Community Commercial , zone is
limited when compared to the available land in the industrial
zones; CM, Commercial Manufacturing and GC, General Commercial,
zones where self-storage facilities are permitted. Self-storage
facilities are more suitably located in the valley with other
warehouse uses.
D. The applicants state that they would construct a quality
self storage facility.
Planning Department Comment
Even if quality materials are used, these uses by nature have an
austere, compound-like appearance because of the security
requirement which includes fencing often topped with some form
of barbed wire. Buildings in these facilities are typically
long and narrow with nothing but garage doors on one side and
long, flat, monotonous walls on the sides usually facing other
properties.
The site plan submitted with this application shows a long, flat
wall a distance of 400± feet right on the side property line.
Further, even if this is proposed to be a quality project,
allowing this use in the CC zone would allow less desirable
appearing storage facilities to be located in this zone. The
conditional use permit process offers the city little in the way
4
,... Staff Report
Mini-warehouses in a CC zone
#ZCA-88-1
of a formal design review process. The city would still have
virtually no influence as to architectural treatment, mass,
-.. colors, etc. of the facility.
IV. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
A. Permitting personal storage units in the CC, Community
Commercial, zone would open the door to allowing other uses
in the GC, General Commercial, zone. Again, the East Hill
Plan describes Community Retail as those uses providing the
day-to-day shopping needs of the community. Currently uses
such as car lots, RV storage facilities, contractor' s shops
are allowed in the GC, General Commercial, zone but
prohibited in the CC, Community Commercial, zone.
The Planning Department fees uses allowed in the CC,
Community Commercial, zone should be pedestrian oriented
and used daily by the surrounding residential area in order
to preserve the integrity of the district.
B. Approximately two years ago, the City Council was
approached by a number of citizens concerned about the
large number of multifamily developments we have in Kent.
The East Hill residents were among those who expressed
their concern about the number of units, traffic generated,
and design issues.
Since these concerns have been raised, a number of
multifamily design standards have been implemented and
reduction of multifamily projects remains an issue. The
public has made it clear they are concerned about what is
going in and around their neighborhoods.
Encouraging self-storage projects that are typically in
garish colors, have monotonous architectural features and
can vary from three-story structures to one-story portable
buildings is a consideration we cannot ignore.
V. ALTERNATIVES/ACTIONS
The Planning Department staff has considered the request and
offer the following options for review and consideration.
A. No action . Under this alternative the uses (both
principally permitted and conditional) in the Community
Commercial zone would remain the same. Mini-storage
facilities would not be allowed either outright or as a
conditional use. This is the staff's preferred alternative
based on the following:
5
Staff Report
Mini-warehouses in a CC zone
#ZCA-88-1
1. As shown on the display map, CC zoned land is very
limited, while land which is zoned to allow mini
storages is abundant. Allowing a land intensive use
such as mini storages in the CC zone, would put
additional pressure to expand CC zoned land.
2 . The CC, Community Commercial, zone is intended for
retail uses to serve nearby residential neighborhoods,
staff does not consider this a retail use. The
dictionary (Webster' s II - Office Edition) defines
retail as "the sale of goods in small quantities to
the public" . Staff would argue that this in clearly
not the sale of goods, but the rental of storage space
and would not qualify as a retail operation.
3 . Even if this use is subject to the conditional use
permit process, the City would have little control
over design, materials used, etc.
4 . The City does not have a formal design review process
which would give the City more influence on structure
design and other design considerations. -
5. The areas of the city which are zoned for these
facilities are very accessible and reasonably close to
residential neighborhoods.
6. Retail uses typically allowed in the CC zone are used
frequently by surrounding residents, whereas, users of
mini-storages use this facility less frequently.
B. Allow as a conditional use. Under this alternative, mini-
storage facilities would be allowed as a conditional use in
the CC zone. A conditional use must go through the public
hearing process and review by the Kent Hearing Examiner -
prior to being allowed to develop in this zone.
C. Allow as a special permit use. Under this alternative,
mini-storage facilities would be allowed in the CC zone as
a special permit use. This would allow these facilities as
a permitted use with development standards that exceed
those for principally permitted uses in this zone.
VI. PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
After reviewing this request, the information available, and the
above options, and the likely adverse impacts on the existing
land use patterns on the east hill, the planning staff strongly
6
Staff Report
Mini-warehouses in a CC zone
#ZCA-88-1
recommends that the existing uses, both principally permitted
and conditional, not be modified to allow mini storage
facilities in the CC, Community Commercial, zoning district.
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
May 16, 1988
CITY OF KENT L1APR1
11988
REGULATORY REVIEW
AAtR/�'eNT
CITY pf KENT
The Kent City Council has determined that ongoing review of the City's regulatory process is in the
public's best interest, The Council wants the public to be able to participate in this review. The
outline on this page is intended to give the public an opportunity to write down those things that
they do not like about an ordinance or regulation. The Council will then review the public's comments
and, when appropriate, make changes to ordinances and regulations.
0 What ordinance or regulation do you want the Council to review?
Kent Zoning Code Number 15.04.100, Community Commerical District or CC.
0 What is it that bothers you about this ordinance/regulation?
We are seeking to construct a self-storage facility within the CC zone classification
in accordance with the attached site plan. Said use is not permitted outright, nor
is it prohibited. A modern self-storage facility is a commercial activity that is in
the business of "retailing' space to the nearby residential neighborhoods. Accordingly,
it should be allowed pursuant to Section 15.0I1.100.A.10 which states "Any other (see p.2)
0 What changes do you suggest to this ordinance/regulation?
The code needs to clarify that a self-storage facility is of the same general character
as other principally permitted uses, and is in accordance with the stated purpose of
the district. Although the zoning code may allow self-storage under Section 15-05.100 C
(Conditionally permitted Uses) and Section 15.08.030.B.4. (General Conditional Use)
the code should be more specific in subsection B-11. The question of whether it (see p.2)
0 What significance to the Community will occur with your proposed change?
The nearby residential neighborhoods will be conveniently served with closeby storage,
rather than driving all the way down to the valley. A self-storage facility is a
very low generator of traffic. Therefore, the traffic impact associated with other
CC uses will be far less with a self-storage facility. (see page 2) .,,.
0 What effect, if any, will your proposed change have on related ordinances,
regulations, plans and policies?
No effects are know to Applicant.
0 Have you reviewed your concern with a City staff member?
This issue has been discussed with the Mayor, Mr. Dan Kelleher, and the Planning
Director, Mr. Jim Harris.
0 Do you have any general comments you wish to make (can be about the or-
dinance/regulation you want changed or about anything else to do with
ordinances/regulations or the permit process)?
We would propose to construct a self-storage facility of the kind and quality to our
project in Totem Lake (pictures attached). This facility is in the City of Kirkland
and situated almost exactly like the property subject to this Regulatory Review.
The Totem Lake Self-Storage facility is located adjacent to a shopping center to
the east BC zoned property to the west, apartments to the north, and an office (see p.2;
Estate of Carolinrt-Berg,
NAME Chris C. Lead�[o Peter Curran�Attsz ey_& raw . ntf-nrney fnr RPrq
ADDRESS 213 - 4th Ave. South, Kent, WA 98035-1126
RHONE NO. 852-2145
10/85
c .
REGULATORY REVIEW LAPR 111988
(continued from page 1)
. Plf GfI+Fy"T' ENT
What is it that bothers ou about this ordinance/re ulation? CITYGFtisNT
use that is determined by the Planning Director to be the same general character as
the above permitted uses and is in accordance with the stated purpose of the district".
Clearly, a self-storage facility is as actively involved in "limited commercial
activity as other uses allowed within the zone classification, i.e., car washes,
nurseries, greenhouses, theaters, bowling alleys, skating rinks, miniature golf;
veterinary clinics, nursery schools, day care centers, golf courses, parks, churches,
retirement homes, convalescent homes, private cluvs, and fraternal lodges.
What changes do YOU sug&est to this ordinance/regulation?
should be specifically allowed under the Principally Permitted Use section or the
Conditionally Permited Use Section depends on how much the City Council wants to
burden the Hearing Examiner, since subsection 15.0h.100 }i requires development plan
approval pursuant to Section 15.08.
What significance to the Communit will occur with the ro osed changes?
A self-storage facility has a very low demand for utilities and services. Finally,
they can be a very attractive transitional use between the heavy retail surrounding
the property to the west and north, and the residential uses to the east and south.
(Please refer to the photographs attached to this application. )
General comments.
development to the south. The City of Kirkland allowed the self-storage facility
in their RC zone as a permitted use. (Questions regarding this matter can be
directed to Mr. Eric Shields, Principal Planner, City of Kirkland.) King County,
Washington also allows self-storage in their RC zone classification (see.King
County 0 dinance No. 8099). The City of Renton allows a self-storage facility within
th �e as a conditional use. The compatJbility of self-storage with the general
character of commercial areas, and the need to serve nearby residential neighborhoods
is a trend that has recently been recognized by many ,Jurisdictions. Lastly, please
note that our proposed development is really the development of the back land,
and that the front land is exempted from.the self-storage facility. This is
significant in that we find self-storage to be compatible with other commerical
activities and plan to devleop the front land accordingly.
i
1
N Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 16, 1988
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) ORDINANCE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: On 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.
3 . EXHIBITS: Draft ordinance and Staff Memo
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee
(Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:Councilmember&4 moves, Councilmember 6/9 seconds
to accept the decision of the Planning Committee and Citizens
Advisory Committee ' s recommendation and to direct the City
Attorney to prepare the ordinance.
�U
~ DISCUSSION:
ACTION• C
Council Agenda
Item No. 4B
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
August 12 , 1988
MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members
FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Planned Unit Development Ordinance
On July 19, 1988 the Council ' s Planning Committee recommended to
the full Council that the PUD Citizens Advisory Committee's
proposed draft of the PUD ordinance be adopted.
The citizen ' s PUD draft was formulated from an earlier
recommendation to the Council by the Planning Commission that a
new PUD ordinance be adopted. The Council had received the
Commission's recommendation in mid 1987 and had referred it to
the Council 's Planning Committee. In April, 1988 the Planning
Committee formed a citizens committee to review the Planning
Commission' s draft.
The PUD committee has spent considerable time and effort in
reshaping the proposed PUD ordinance. Examples of some of the
major changes in the redrafted ordinance are:
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.
JPH:ca
ry
7/13/88
15. 04 . 080 Planned Unit Development (PUD1_
General Purpose.
The intent of the PUD section 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. Permitted Planned Unit Development 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 of
this ordinance.
3 . Accessory Uses .
Accessory uses and buildings which are customarily
incidental and subordinate to a principally
1
permitted use are also permitted.
4 . Affected Zoning Districts .
PUD' s are permitted in all zoning districts with
the exception of the A-1 Agricultural zoning
district.
B. Exceptions.
1. In single family residential zoning districts (RA
and R1) attached side by side (not vertically
stacked) residential units may be permitted in a
PUD.
2 . 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. Review Criteria for Planned Unit Development.
Upon receipt of a complete application 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 Criteria
a . The proposed PUD project will 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
will not be detrimental to existing 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.
C. 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. Promote variety and innovation in site and
2
building design. Buildings in groups should be
related by common materials and roof styles, but
contrast should be provided throughout the site by
the use of varied materials , architectural
detailing, building scale and orientation.
e. Building design should be based on a unified
design concept, particularly when construction
will be in phases.
2 . Non-Residential Planned Unit Development' s
a. The proposed project will 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.
C. 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. Promote variety and innovation in site and
building design. 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 should be based on a unified
design concept, particularly when construction
will be in phases.
D. Development Standards For Planned Unit Development' s
The following standards are 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.
3
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 - R1 (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 K. C. C. ) ,
except where specifically exempted by
Administrative Design Review (15 . 09 . 045 K.C.C. ) .
The Hearing Examiner may reduce building
separation requirements to the 'minimum required by
Building and Fire Departments. If a Adjacent
property is undevelopable, 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 K.C.C. ) , except where
specifically exempted by Administrative Design
Review (15 . 09 . 045 K. C.C. ) . 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
This standard shall apply to PUD residential
developments only. Each PUD shall provide not
less than 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
4
area used for residential use shall be reserved in
open space.
For the purpose of this section, open space shall
be defined as land which is not used for
buildings , public right-of-ways , traffic
circulation and roads, parking areas, or any kind
of storage. Open space includes but is not limited to: 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 to 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 40
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 .
5
b. Vehicle Parking Areas
Adequate vehicular parking areas shall be
provided. The required number of parking
spaces may vary from the requirements of
K. C. C. 15 . 05 and shall be approved by the
_ Hearing Examiner based upon a parking needs
assessment submitted by the applicant.
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 , K. C. C.
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.
7 . Pedestrian Walkways
Pedestrian walkways shall be constructed of
" material deemed to be an "all weather surface" by
the City Engineer and Planning Director.
_ 8 . Landscaping.
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 K. C. C.
b. All PUD developments shall ensure that
parking areas are integrated with the
landscaping system and provides screening of
vehicles from public streets. Parking areas
shall be conveniently located to buildings
and streets while providing for landscaping
adjacent to buildings and pedestrian access.
C. Refuse collection areas shall be conveniently
and safely located for on-site use and
collection, and attractively site screened.
6
9 . Signs
The sign regulations of Chapter 15. 06, K.C.C.
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 Zoning
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 K. C. C. 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.
E. 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 following findings
that the amenities or design features which promote the
purposes of this section, and listed below, are
provided:
a. 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
7
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, vehicular circulation, right-of-
ways and areas used for any kind of storage.
b. 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.
C. 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.
d. 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.
e. 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, K. C.C.
At least fifty (50) percent of these parking areas
must be designed as outlined above to receive the
density bonus.
f. Mixed Housing Types
- A two (2) percent density bonus may be authorized
8
if a development features a mix of 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.
g. 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.
F. Application Process
The application process includes the following steps:
informal review process, SEPA, community information
meeting, development plan review, and public hearing
before the hearing examiner.
1. Informal Review Process
An applicant is encouraged. to 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.
2 . 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 development prior to being
reviewed at a public hearing before the Hearing
Examiner.
3 . Community Information Meeting
9
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
will present the development proposed to
interested residents. Issues raised at the meeting
may be used to refine the PUD plan.
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.
4 . Public Notice And Hearing Examiner Public Hearing
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) 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.
5 . 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 appealed to the City Council .
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
10
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 be deemed to
be approved until the City Council has approved
the related land use permit.
G. Time Limits
1. Application For Development 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, includes
extension) the PUD shall become null and void. The
property shall then revert to the underlying
zoning district.
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;
(b) No increase in density, number of dwelling
units or lots id proposed;
(c) No changes in the general location or number
11
of access points is proposed;
(d) No reduction in the amount of open space is
proposed;
(e) No reduction in the amount of parking is
proposed;
(f) No increase in the total square footage of
structures to be developed is proposed;
(g) No increase in general height of structures
is proposed.
-- Examples. of minor modifications are lot line
adjustments, minor relocations of buildings or
landscaped areas, minor changes in phasing and
timing, and minor changes is elevations of
buildings, however this list is not all inclusive.
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
K.C. C. 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 .
Stephen Clifton
A:pudrewrt
12
Kent City Council Meeting
G� Date August 16, 1988
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO KENT ZONING CODE 15 .09 .030E
NO. ZCA-88-5
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: On July 25, 1988, the Planning 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.
3 . EXHIBITS: Planning Commission minutes, staff report
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 moves, Councilmember seconds
To accept the recommendation f the Planning Commission to amend
KCC 15.09.030E and to ins t ct the City Attorney to prepare the
required ordinance.
.'r
- DISCUSSION: %,ki
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4C
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 16, 1988
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING FOR LF,BLANC ANNEXATION - ORDINANCE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Included for purposes of discussion is an
ordinance reflecting the last motion before the Council prior to
this item being tabled at the August 2, 1988 meeting. This is
the same proposed ordinance initially presented to the Council at
that meeting with the exception that the last motion had proposed
that the number of permissible units be changed from 8 to 12 .
That proposed change is reflected in this draft ordinance now
before the Council .
Also for your information it is noted that there was full
compliance with the required public notice procedures for the
public hearings held for this action on May 3 and June 7 and that
the public hearing process was concluded on the June 7 date.
3 . EXHIBITS: Verbatim minutes of the Hearing Examiner ' s public
hearings, her findings and recommendations to the City, the City
Council minutes of the Council ' s Public Hearings held on May 3
and June 7 and Council minutes of June 21, July 5, July 19 and
August 2, 1988 .
4. RECOMMENDED BY•
(Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. E_XPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS•
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4 D
8/11 /88
NEC H WE
A U G 12 1988
CITY OF KENT
CITY CLERK
EXCERPTS FROM RECORDED DOCUMENTS AND MINUTES
OF OFFICIAL MEETINGS , FOR THE KENT CITY COUNCIL' S
CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING THE INITIAL ZONING
OF THE "LeBLANC ANNEXATION" .
Prepared By
Dennis Dague
11218 S .E. 234th Pl.
Kent , Wash.
8/1 1 /88 Pg 1 of 7
To : The Mayor, the City Council , and Planning Department , of the
City of Kent , Washington, and to all else whom it may concern:
1 . Fire Department comments which were made on a Routing Slip that
was received on Octo er 5 , 1987 by the Kent Planning Department ,
concerning the Le Blanc Annexation which includes the area on
which concominiums are proposed to be built :
" . . it is right in the middle of our worst response time area. A
station is due to be built in the area by late 1989. However
the staffing to operate engine and truck companies for that
station are not insured. Therefore this area if developed could
add significantly to an area that is already overwhelming and
outstripping our abilities to deliver adequate levels of service . '...
2. Hearing Examiner for the city of Kent made these written comments
as part of her Findings And Recommendations concerning the
Le Blanc Annexation (File No : LeBlanc Annexation #AZ-87-5) on
February 24 , 1988, which includes the area on which condominiums
are proposed to be built :
"Considering the proximity of single family uses on three sides of
ei�f suject si site ,i isTil icuIt o�tin why the currently
existing Comprehensive Plan designates portions of the site as
multifamily. "
"However, given the total absence of discretion granted the
undersigned in annexation hearings , I am mandated to recommend
initial zoning consistent with the currerr-7ly existing
Comprehensive Plan. " (From pg 4 of the Findings)
"In addition, 112th Avenue SE to the west of the subject site is
classified as a residential collector. Development on the
subject site will generate considerable traffic . Traffic
impacts associated with future development on the site will need
to be exactly determined and mitigated once the applicant submits
a final site plan. " (From pg 3 of the Findings)
3 . Kent Public School District made these written comments in a
letter sent to the Planning Department on January 15 , 1985 :
" . . .we do have serious concerns about the impact that multi-family
development at this ioca ion wouldhave on e safety o
school-aged children and overcrowding at Park Orchard Elementary. "
8/1 1 /88 pg 2 of 7
4 . Greg McCormick, Assistant Planner, City of Kent , made these
written comments in a memo to Diane Vanderbeek, Hearing Examiner,
on December 28 , 1987 :
"The LeBlanc area was zoned in King County as SR-7200. This is
a density of six units per acre which is a maximum density. The
actual density is determined by services such as water, sewer,
paved streets , sidewa s , etc . that are available or could be
provided to the site . "
5 . Kent School District AGAIN wrote the Planning Department , and in
a letter dated January 27 , 1988 made these comments concerning
multi-family development on the LeBlanc annexation:
"While the administration of the Kent School District does not
generally oppose the concept of annexation of the Le Blanc
property, we would be verV much op2osed to an annexation of
this proper y hat brought with it higher density rezoning ,
or negative impacts to the school district and school-aged
children. "
"Our second major concern is overcrowding at Park Orchard
Elementary School. Simply stated , we o no Curren y ave
room in our existing schools for the students 7777wouid be
generated from a development of this type. "
"Thirdly, it is obvious that development would generate a
substantial number of school-aged children whose daily
recreational needs would not be met by existing: parks or
recreational facilities . We strongly urge you to require
that sufficient land , near the center of the proposed
development be dedicated , landscaped and equipped to _meet the
needs of school-aged children.
6. Kent Planning Commission Meeting , January 15 , 1985 , excerpt from
the minutes :
"Commissioner Lambert wondered if those in the area were aware
that the LeBlancs would be able to apply for a short plat , and
that the area could be built into single family homes. "
8/1 1 /88 pg 3 of 7
7. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REPORT , Decision Document , LeBlanc
Annexation Initial Aoning , #ENV-87-101 , excerpt :
"The subject property abuts 112th Avenue SE which is a
substandard roadway with insufficient right of way for future_
widening to residential collector standards. "
8o HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES , verbatim , LeBlanc SEPA Appeal ,
AP-88-1 . Excerpts from Gary Gill City Engineer, concerning
the lack of sidewalks in t e Park Orchar area(which causes
children to wa o and from school in the streets) :
City Engineer:
"If there is a real serious safetZ problem with children, then
guess we would encourage them to do ha form LID s to put in
sidewalks) .
"It ' s not within the City of Kent , so we don' t really have an
control over 777 part f i . arK Orchard)
9. Park Orchard PTA PRESIDENT Debbie Montgomery, excerpts from
Hearing Examiner Minutes , AP-88-1 :
"Park Orchard is a nonbussing school at this point. . . .So the
children a live in the vicinity, it ' s a walking school. A
lot of them walk right down 112th. . . . you on only have the
impact of the elementary children going down 112th, you have
the impact of junior hi h children which at times makes the
road very impassable. . . .we have a responsibility for their
sa ety and we are .
10. Mr. Wickstrom Public Works Director, excerpts from the Kent
P anning Commission Minutes , Fe ruary 260 1985 , in explaining
how LID ' s might be used to improve roads :
"Persons in the Count could protest that their portion not
e inc u e in e projec , which would leave out portions
of the work that needed to be done .
8/1 1 /88 pg 4 of 7
11 . Mr. Harris , Planning Director of Kent , and Commissioner Lambert ,
excerpts from the Kent Planning Commission Minutes , February 26,
1985 :
"Commissioner Lambert again emphasized that he felt it would be
unfair to have a property owner hold up a certain street
improvement because of unwillingness to release property. "
"Mr. Harris admitted that this could happen. . . "
12. Commissioner S ier Kent Planning Commission Minutes , February 26 ,
in response o a motion to amenj the East Hill Plan
specifically in the LeBlanc Garden site to increase its density
from single family 4- units per acre to multifamily 7-12 units
per acre. Excerpt :
"Commissioner Spier suggested that the motion be amended to add
that the commission was concerned about the safety in the area,
and that s ecia a ention be given to 112th if this area were
annexed into Cit,y�—
"Motion unanimously approved. "
13. Bob Robertson, Master Senior Appraiser, and Real Estate Consultant.
Hearing Examiner Minutes , August 19 , 1987 , excerpt :
" I would like to bring to the attention of the Hearing Examiner
the United States Supreme Court ruling in May of this year in
the case of Luther Glen vs. the County of Los Angelos , and in
that case the U.S . Supreme Court ruled that any down zoning
of property, whether for the good of the City or other government
agency, did constitute a taking of property, and the cities or
agencies would have to reimburse the owners for the taking of
that property if they did down zone , from the date that the
down zoning was accomplished. . . "
8/11 /88 p�a 5 of 7
14 . Kent Planning Agency Staff Report , for Planning Commission
Meeting of January 15 , 1985. Excerpts
"The re uest is to amend the Kent ' s East Hill Subarea Plan.
7p—ecirically the request is to change the East Hill Plan Land
Use Map from its current single family designation (4 - 6 units
per acre7co multifamily 2 units per acre) . "
"The subject property is within the area covered by two different
lawn use plans. King County developed the Soos Creek Plateau
Communities Plan for this area, while the City, of Kent developed
the East Hill Plan. The proponent has appliedfor a change in
the i y s Eas Hi11 Plan. "
_ "Each of the above mentioned plans designates the subject property ..
as ' Single Fam�ill 4 - units per acre . In ad ition o having
simi air aesignationscor t i�ubject property, the plans also
designate adjacent properties to the east , north and west as
' Single Family: 4 - 6 units per acre . "
"The owners of the LeBlanc Garden' s property wish to develop
to a multifamily residential density. To accomplish this goal ,
the need to annex to Kent. Since Kent Ts East Hill Plan calls
for a single famil_y resi ential land use ensity, a change to
multifamily density is necessary in order to apply a multifamily
residential zoning classification to the parcel. Otherwise the
�roperty, if annexed would be zoned single family residential
7 ,200 square feet per dwelling unit) . it
15. Kent Planning Commission Minutes , February 26 , 1985 , excerpts
concerning the Le Blanc area:
"Commissioner Badger asked if the Soos Creek Plan designates this
area for single amily clings at the present time. "
"Mr. Harris agreed that this was true , but if the City of Kent
would than e its pla (which wou overlap part of the Soos
Creek Plan area to a multifamily des *i nation, then when they come
into the Cityit wouldbe easier or he 7 ancs , because the
sta f would be—co-e2=ed to recommend that the area be
designated multifamily. "
8/1 1 /88 pg 4 of 7
11 . Mr. Harris , Planning Director of Kent , and Commissioner Lambert ,
excerpts from the Kent Planning Commission Minutes , February 269
1985 :
"Commissioner Lambert again emphasized that he felt it would be
unfair to have a property owner hold up a certain street
improvement because o unwillingness to release property. "
"Mr. Harris admitted that this could happen. . . "
12. Commissioner Spier, Kent Planning Commission Minutes , February 26 ,
T777, in response to a motion to amend the East Hill Plan
specifically in the LeBlanc Garden site to increase its density
from single family 4- units per acre to multifamily 7-12 units
per acre. Excerpt :
"Commissioner Spier suggested that the motion be amended to add
that the commission was concerned about the safetV in the area,
and that s e�cia a ention be given to 112th if this area were
annexed into the City. "
"Motion unanimously approved. "
13. Bob Robertson, Master Senior Appraiser, and Real Estate Consultant.
Hearing Examiner Minutes , August 19, 1987 , excerpt :
" I would like to bring to the attention of the Hearing Examiner
the United States Supreme Court ruling in May of this year in
the case of Luther Glen vs . the County of Los Angelos , and in
that case the U.S . Supreme Court ruled that any down zoning
of property, whether for the good of the City or other government
agency, did constitute a taking of property, and the cities or
agencies would have to reimburse the owners for the taking of
that property if they did down zone , from the date that the
down zoning was accomplished. . . "
8/11 /88 pg 5 of 7
14 . Kent Planning AEencZ Staff Report , for Planning Commission
Meeting of January 15 , 85. Excerpts :
"The re uest is to amend the Kent ' s East Hill Subarea Plan.
Tp--ecilically the request is to change the East Hill Plan Land
Use Map from its current single family designation (4 - 6 units
per acrejfo multifamily 2 units per acre) . "
"The subject property is within the area covered by two different
land use plans. King County developed the Soos Creek Plateau
Communi ies an for t is area, while the City of Kent developed
the East Hill Plan. The proponent has applied for a change in
the ity s Eas Hill Plan. "
_ "Each of the above mentioned plans designates the subject property ..
as ' Single Famil 4 - units per acre . In audition o having
simi ar designations r irk e Subject property, the plans also
designate adjacent properties to the east , north and west as
' Single Family: 4 - units per acre . it
"The owners of the LeBlanc Garden' s property wish to develop
to a multifamily residential density. To accom lish this goal ,
the need to annex to Kent. Since Kent s East Hill Plan calls
for a single family residential land use density, a change to
multifamily density is necessary in order to apply a multifamily
residential zoning classification to the parcel. Otherwise the
�roperty, if annexed would be zoned single family residential
7 ,200 square feet per dwelling unit) . "
15. Kent Planning Commission Minutes , February 26 , 1985 , excerpts
concerning the Le Blanc area:
"Commissioner Badger asked if the Soos Creek Plan designates this
area for single family clings at the present time ."
"Mr. Harris agreed that this was true , but if the City of Kent
would change its plan (which would overlap part of the Soos
Creek Plan area to a multifamily designation, then when they come
into the City it wou be easier for the LeB ancs , because the
sta f would be-To-mpe�Ted to recommend that the area be
designated multifamily. "
8/1 1 /88 pg 6 of 7
16. Mr. Harris , Planning Director for Kent , excerpts from Hearing
Examiner Minutes , Verbatim , LeBlanc SEPA Appeal , #AP-88-1 :
"I know that the school ' s situation is really crowded there . "
(Park Orchard)
17. Hearing Examiner and Greg excerpts from the Hearing
Examiner Minutes , December 16 , 1987 :
VanDerbeek: "Why in the area to be recommended single family residential
are you recommending at the low end of the density scale as
recommended by the East Hill Plan, in other words four units
per acre , and then on the multiple family area why are you
recommending the developer be permitted to have the maximum
units , number of multiple family units? "
McCormick " . .we went with a MRG with 12 units per acre which offers a
good transition. . . "
VanDerbeek: "Oh , but in other cases , in other cases where staff has
recommended that multiple family zoning be used as a
transition zone and MRG zoning designation is used there has
been a previously recommended smaller number of units per acre
and I 'm thinking of that zero-lot line development , Walnut
Tree or Park or something , wasn' t that seven units per acre? "
McCormick: "I think it was six units per acre . "
VanDerbeek: "And that ' s essentially a development pattern which is somewhat
similar to this one in that the neighborhood there on one side
was intense multiple family development , and then on the other
side there was single family development , so what facts are
different here to justify the different density recommendation? "
Y McCormick: " . . . that was a zero lot line development. . . . . this is more of
a condominium type project. . .and the density would be a happy
medium between what' s to the south . . . .and should it be zoned
single family and have the significant vegatation on the site
probably be all but taken down. . . "
VanDerbeek: " . . .but if density were more strictly limited , wouldn' t you
preserve more .
McCormick: "That ' s right you could. "
8/1 1 /88 pg 7 Of 7
VanDerbeek: "For example , the East Hill Plan is recommending multiple
family 7 - 12 units per acre . Well if you recommended
MRG , seven units per acre thten more trees would be e t? "
McCormick: "That ' s correct , there would probably be more trees left. "
In consideration of the above and other testimony and evidence ,
I ask that the Kent City Council only allow a density of 7 units per
acre on the portion of the"LeBlanc Annexation" that is proposed to
have condominiums built on it , but , if' it is possible , I ask the
Council to send this matter back to the Planning Department for
further study and for reconsideration, and again, if it is possible
I most prefer, and do ask the Council to designate this area as
a single family density area.
Respectfully ours ,
Dennis Dague /
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, relating to land use and zoning, �)
establishing the zoning of the LeBlanc
Annexation generally located in the vicinity of `, �i (�
112th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 236th Street from 7f�. o
R1-20, Single Family Residential, to MRG, q7
Garden Density Multifamily Residential,Eiaht �1
Units, and R1-9.6, Single Family Residennti^a ..
WHEREAS, the property above described, known as the
LeBlanc Annexation, was annexed to the City of Kent on June 15,
1987 under Ordinance 2727 and was automatically zoned R1-20,
Single Family Residential; and
WHEREAS, on December 16, 1987 the Hearing Examiner held a
public hearing to consider the initial zoning of the area
described as:
The Northwest one quarter of the Northeast one quarter in
Section 17, Township 22 North, Range 5, EWM in King
County, Washington EXCEPT that portion lyn within the
Plat of Park Orchard Division #4 as recorded in Vol. 68
of Plats Pages 58 thru 60 AND EXCEPT the North 30.00 feet
thereof;
and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner recommended to the City
Council that the property be rezoned from R1-20, Single Family
Residential, to MPG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential, with
a maximum density of 12 units per acre for the 5.85 acres known as
LeBlanc Gardens and R1-9.6, Single Family Residential for the
remainder of the site consisting of approximately 10 acres; and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner attached two conditions to
the recommendation for zoning as follows:
1. If the applicant makes a significant change to the
conceptual site plan, the initial zoning designation
on the newly annexed land should be brought back to
the Hearing Examiner for review. For purposes of
this condition, a significant change includes, but
shall not be limited to:
A. Landscape buffer of less than 30 feet;
B. Two different size or configuration of buildings
on the site; and, or
C. Different percentage of site coverage.
2. The owners of the property adjacent to 112th Avenue
S.E. shall deed to the City of Kent sufficient
property for street purposes such that 30 feet of
right-of-way exists as measured from the north-south ;
centerline on the southeast quarter of Section 17,
Township 22, Range 5, W.M. ;
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted public hearings on
May 3, 1988 and June 7, 1988; and
WHEREAS, the City Council examined the impact of high
density occupancy on streets, schools, and traffic; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determined that a higher
density for this property will significantly impact the traffic in
the area requiring street improvements prior to the addition of
such higher density;
and
WHEREAS, it is recommended by the Public Works Department
to the Council that the second condition be revised so that the
right-of-way need not be deeded to the City until prior to
issuance of a development permit as follows:
'I I
_ 2 _
Prior to the issuance of a development permit (building,
zoning, etc. ) for a permitted use for any properties
within the LeBlanc Annexation area, the owner shall deed
to the City of Kent sufficient property for street
purposes such that 30 feet of right-of-way exists as
measured from the north-south centerline of the southeast
quarter of Section 17, Township 22, Range 5, W.M. ;
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KFNT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Findings, Recommendations, and
Conclusions of the Fearing Examiner as set forth in the LeBlanc
Annexation zoning Findings and Recommendations of the Hearing
Examiner for the City of Kent, which is on file with the Kent City
Clerk, are adopted and the findings concurred with for this site
except as modified below.
Section 2. Zoning for this site, generally located on
approximately in the vicinity of 112th Avenue S.E. and S.F. 236th
Street and legally described as:
The Northwest one quarter of the Northeast one quarter in
Section 17, Township 22 North, Range 5, EWM in King
County, Washington EXCEPT that portion lyn within the
_ Plat of Park Orchard Division #4 as recorded in Vol. 68
of Plats Pages 56 thru 60 AND FXCEPT the North 30.00 feet
thereof,
is hereby changed from R1-20, Single Family Residential, to MPG,
Garden Density Multifamily Residential, limited to ( (eight) )
twelve units per acre for the LeBlanc Gardens area consisting of
approximately 5.85 acres and R1-9.6, Single Family Residential,
for the remainder of the site consisting of approximately ten
acres.
Section 3. The zoning is subject to the following
conditions:
3 -
1. If the applicant makes a significant change to the
conceptual site plan, the initial zoning designation
on the newly annexed land should be brought back to
the Hearing Examiner for review. For purposes of -
this condition, a significant change includes, but
shall not be limited to:
A. Landscape buffer of less than 30 feet;
B. Two different size or configuration of buildings
on the site; and, or
C. Different percentage of site coverage.
2. Prior to the issuance of a development permit
(building, zoning, etc. ) for a permitted use for any
properties within the LeBlanc Annexation area, the j
owner shall deed to the City of Kent sufficient
I
property for street purposes such that 30 feet of
right-of-way exists as measured from the north-southll
centerline of the southeast quarter of Section 17,
Township 22, Range 5, w.M. -
3. Prior to the issuance of a development permit for a
permitted use for any properties within the LeBlanc
Annexation area, the owner shall Iimprove 112th
v ',\
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 -
1 agreeing to participate in the formation of and to
pay its proportionate share of the final costs of a
�Y Local Improvement District to improve 112th Avenue.
i
Section 4. Any act consistent with the authority and
prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified
and confirmed.
May 3 , 1988
FINAL PLAT (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3L)
Sanctuary No. 3 Final Plat No. SU-87-2.
AUPHORIZATION to set May 17 , 1988 as the date
for a public meeting to consider the Sanctuary
No. 3 Final Plat No. SU-87-2 . The site is
.. located at 4802 So. 216th Street between 42nd
Avenue South and Frager Road.
ANNEXATION ZONING LeBlanc Annexation Zoning - AZ-87-5. This is
the first hearing to consider the Hearing Exam-
iner ' s recommended initial zoning of the LeBlanc
Annexation No. AZ-87-5. The property is approx-
imately 15 acres in size and is located south
of S.E. 232nd Street and east of 112th Avenue
S.E. The Hearing Examiner has recommended
,..., zoning of MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Resi-
dential (with a maximum density of 12 units
per acre ) for the LeBlanc Gardens area and
R1 -9. 6, Single Family Residential (minimum lot
" size 9600 sq. ft. ) for the remainder of the site.
The two conditions recommended by the Hearing
Examiner are outlined in her findings and
recommendation dated March 23 , 1988 ( revise•3 ) .
Fred Satterstrom of the Planning Department
noted that the second public hearing on this
matter will be held on June 7, 1988. Greg
McCormick of the Planning Department described
the area and noted that it was annexed into the
city in June of 1987 . He also noted that this
property was involved in 1985 in a Comprehen-
sive Plan Amendment request by the property
owner which requested an amendment from the
existing single family density to a multi-
family designation. This was reviewed by the
Hearing Examiner and Council and approved.
The Mayor declared the public hearing open.
Dennis Dague, 11218 S.E. 234th Place, read from
-~ the Hearing Examiner ' s Findings and Recommenda-
tion as follows :
-- 1. The City of Kent Zoning Code gives the undersigned no discretion
with respect to recommendation for zoning on newly annexed land.
Specifically, Kent Zoning Code Section 15.09.055 D indicates "the
decision of the Bearing Examiner shall be limited to recommending
initial zoning designations which are consistent with the current
-.... Comprehensive Plan".
2. For reasons which are entirely unclear to the undersigned, the
Comprehensive Plan and the East 1[ill subarea Plan were amended in
April 1985 to designate portions of the subject property from
single family, 4-6 units per acre, to multifamily, 7-12 units per
acre.
- 4 -
May 3 , 1988
ANNEXATION ZONING ]. considering the proximity of single family uses on three sides of
the subject site, it is difficult to ascertain why the currently
existing comprehensive Plan designates portions of the site as —
multifamily.
4. however, given the total absence of discretion granted the
undersigned in annexation hearings, I am mandated to recommend
initial zoning consistent with the currently existing
Comprehensive Plan.
Dague noted that the Hearing Examiner was man-
dated to make that recommendation. He said he
felt that they had had a non-hearing , since it
was predetermined what the outcome would be,
and that he intends to advance this to the
Attorney General . He suggested that the Code
be changed to allow more discretion to the
Hearing Examiner. Dague also noted that there
was insufficent notification of these hearings .
He said that Park Orchard School knew nothing
of the hearing until he told them, and that
the residents of the housing area directly
across the stret were not aware of it either.
He said that one of the people who is on the
mailing list did not receive their notice and
suggested that the notification procedure for
hearings and Council meetings be changed to
include notification to the principals of the
closest schools , as well as the PTA presidents
and the school district.
Dague then stated that the Planning DepartmentIs
only reason for multifamily zoning is for tree
preservation. He pointed out , however, that
the plans show almost wall to wall pavement
and buildings . He stated that most of the
trees which are going to be saved are on the
periphery, which could be done with single
family development . He stated that the Plan-
ning Department could make recommendations to
take care of trees or to put up additional
barriers with trees , but they have no force of
law; developers often look only at profits.
The real issue is the building of multifamily
units in a single family neighborhood, and that
it should not be allowed. He noted that the
school district had contacted the Planning
Department in 1985 and in 1988 regarding the
lack of sidewalks, the narrow roadway and lack
of shoulders making the area dangerous for
pedestrians. Dague suggested that the LeBlanc
Annexation be developed as a park, and that if
multifamily units are built there, a full EIS
be required of any builder. He suggested that
5 -
May 3 , 1988
ANNEXATION ZONING the LeBlanc Annexation be zoned only for single
family homes consistent with the single family
zoning in the surrounding community.
Warren Tuttle, 11208 S.E. 235th Place, stated
that he is opposed to multifamily zoning. He
said he agrees that it seems the Hearing Exami-
ner was bound by law to recommend as she did.
Upon the Mayor ' s question, City Attorney
Driscoll explained that the Council can, upon
hearing public testimony, make a determination
that may be different from the recommendation
of the Hearing Examiner; however, the Council
would need to articulate the reasons for the
change in the recommendation of the Hearing
Examiner. Upon Tuttle ' s question, Driscoll
confirmed that the Hearing Examiner is bound
by what the Comprhensive Plan provides , which
is according to State law and subsequent City
ordinance. Tuttle stated that the main concern
of the residents of the area is the welfare of
their children. He noted that 112th Avenue S. E.
is very narrow, and that cars have to stop to
let children walk down the road. A daycare
center has added to the traffic congestion and
speedin is a problem. 112th Avenue needs
.., improvements now and apartments will add to
the problems. He urged the Council to zone the
area single family.
Ed Smith, 23508 112th Avenue S.E. , urged the
Councilmembers to visit the area at 8: 30 a .m.
when children are walking to school or 2 : 30 p.m.
when they are coming home, so that they can
see how dangerous this narrow road is . He
noted that according to the Planning Commission
minutes of February 26 , 1985 , City staff would
be compelled to recommend multifamily zoning
for this annexation. He said he hoped the
Council did not feel so compelled. Carol Smith,
23508 112th Avenue S .E. , noted that the resi-
dents fought against multifamily zoning in
1985 . She said that a local improvement district
for sidewalks has been suggested but many resi-
dents do not have children and that half of the
condominiums are now rentals. Mrs. Smith
suggested cutting the number of units from 7 - 12
to 7 - 8 if the real reason is to protect the
trees, which would bring in a higher level of
condominium which people would live in rather
than rent out. Tilak Sharma , 11205 S.E. 235th ,
noted that he bought his home nine years ago
thinking that they would not be living among
6 -
May 3 , 1988
ANNEXATION ZONING apartments and condominiums . He noted that
fifty paople had come to a meeting last January
and about twenty had made presentations, but
felt these were meaningless if the Hearing
Examiner was mandated to make certain recomend-
ations. He felt they should have been told
that in the beginning. Sharma recommended that
the Council visit the area during school hours
and pointed out that Park Orchard School is
already overcrowded with no room for expansion .
He stated that the property values have already
decreased and that because of the condominiums
and apartments in the area , the crime rate has
gone up. He noted that there are no stop signs
since the condominiums and apartments are on
private property, and that this makes driving
very dangerous. Sharma pointed out that there
are insufficient sewer lines in the area , and
that whenever it rains , part of the area is
flooded.
There were no further comments from the audience
and WOODS MOVED to continue the public hearing
on the LeBlanc Annexation Initial Zoning No.
AZ-87-5 to June 7, 1988. Johnson seconded and
the motion carried .
BUSINESS LICENSE Babe ' s Topless Nightclub. Mayor Kelleher opened
the floor to anyone who wanted to speak on the
\enn
f a topless establishment on Pacific
Hth. Bob Brown, 2911 S . 252 , stated
tsidents of the area do not want
tf business there. He submitted a
lblems caused by a similar establish-
meral Way. Mark Bradberry, Sharon Hoyt,
ai le also spoke in opposition. Erma
Hanson urge the Council to deny Gerald John-
son ' s applic tion for a business license and
submitted a s tement containing 130 signatures .
Douglas Smith, rlie Palmer, Brian Curran, Diana
Ishlam, Irene Qu ell and Shirley Easter spoke
against allowing t e businF
open.
In response to a ques ' on lie Palmer,
Police Chief Frederikse shat they have
increased patrols in the a also encouraged
citizens who are aware of a illegal activities
to contact them. Dowell said hat the uneven
boundaries of the city make it fficult for
police and fire to tell where the ity begins
and ends , and encouraged the citizen to con-
sider annexation.
7 -
June 7, 1988
ANNEXATION LeBlanc Annexation Initial Zoning - No. AZ-87-5.
ZONING This is the second and final hearing to consider
the Hearing Examiner ' s recommended zoning of the
LeBlanc Annexation. The first hearing was May 3 ,
1988. The property is approximately 15 acres in
size and is locatedsouth of S.E. 232nd Street and
west of 112th Avenue S . E.
Mayor Pro Tem White declared the public hearing open.
Upon a question from Ed Smith, 23508 112th Avenue
S. E. , McFall noted that the Council could establish
a lower limit than the maximum 12 units allowed.
Smith urged the Council to set the limit at 8 units
per acre, and noted that 112th does not have any
sidewalks for the children who walk to school .
Warren Tuttle , 11208 S.E. 235th Place, stated that
- the residents of the area have made their concerns
known and urged the Council to consider them.
Deborah Tuttle, 11208 S. E. 235th Place, noted that
there are no shoulders on 112th and voiced concern
about the safety of children walking to school .
She also noted that if condominiums go in, it would
impact an already overcrowded school . She urged
the Council to take into consideration the fact
that the Hearing Examiner was mandated to make the
decision she made. Dennis Dague , 11218 S.E. 234th
-- Place, submitted several letters , petitions and a
site plan and read the recommendations of the Hear-
ing Examiner. Dague then requested that the deci-
sion of the Hearing Examiner be overturned. WOODS
MOVED to make the exhibits a part of the record.
Biteman seconded and the motion carried. Public
Works Director Wickstrom suggested that one of the
Hearing Examiner ' s two conditions be changed. He
explained that with the present wording, until all
property owners deed the required right of way, the
-- final passage of the ordinance could not take
place, which could be a problem if any of the pro-
perty owners within the annexation area were to
object to the condition and refuse to deed the addi-
tional right of way.
Jim Hansen noted that prior to annexation, the Com-
prehensive Plan was amended as a result of the pro-
perty owner ' s interest in saving as many trees as
possible on the site, which was initially a botanical
garden. He noted that there are many rare trees
which are over 40 years old and are now quite large.
Hansen stated that the issue before the Council at
this time is the assigned density. He noted that
10 -
June 7 , 1988
ANNEXATION when the land is finalized in terms of zoning, the
ZONING applicant will submit a site plan which the staff
will analyze, and that conditions could be estab-
lished through the SEPA process. He stated that
the public would be informed and involved in that
process.
There were no further comments from the audience
and BITEMAN MOVED that the public hearing be closed.
Woods seconded and the motion carried. Upon Woods '
question, Harris stated that the Council could con-
dition the MRG down to a less dense use. Wickstrom
noted for Dowell that adding the improvement of
the street or sidewalk could be a third condition.
Hansen noted for Johnson that if the zoning were 12
units per acre , the net effect would probably be
about 70 units , and 20 units for single family zon-
ing, but emphasized that many factors would be
taken into consideration and that it is difficult
to determine exactly. JOHNSON MOVED that the Hear-
ing Examiner ' s recommendation be modified, that MRG
be approved with 8 units per acre, that 112th Avenue
be fully improved from 240th to 232nd with side-
walks on both sides of the street prior to the
issuance of a development permit, that Hearing Exami-
ner ' s Conditions 1 and 2 (as revised ) be approved
and that the northern portion of the site be zoned
R1 -9 . 6 . Woods seconded.
Dowell voiced concern that if density is reduced
it might not be possible to make the improvements .
Biteman said he is concerned that the cost to the
tenant would be exorbitant. Woods stated that she
is a resident of 112th Avenue S.E. and that it must
be brought up to standard. White offered a friendly
amendment to the motion, that the area be approved
with 12 units per acre rather than 8. Dowell
seconded. White clarified that his concern is that
the street be improved. Johnson explained that
8 units per acre would reduce the impact on the
school and traffic. The proposed amendment failed
with Mann, Johnson, Woods and Houser voting against
it. Dowell stated that he would like to see the
improvements made with 12 units per acre. Biteman
agreed . The original motion, which is to zone the
area 8 units per acre, carried with Dowell and Bite-
man voting against it. BITEMAN MOVED that the
area recommended by the Hearing Examiner for single
family R1 -9. 6 be included with the 8 units per acre
designation. There was no second and the motion
failed.
- 11 -
June 21 , 1988
CITY PROPERTY to evaluation and JOHNSON MOVED to approve this
item, with the change. Mann seconded and the
motion carried.
HEARING EXAMINER Amendment to Ordinance 2233 - Hearing Examiner.
The Hearing Examiner has requested that Ordinance
2233 , Section 14 , be amended to enable Hearing .
Examiner decisions including findings and conclu-
sions to be sent to the applicant and other parties
of record via first class mail rather than by
certified mail . This change would save the City
the extra postage and staff time expended in pre-
paring certified mailings. WOODS MOVED to amend
Ordinance 2233 , Section 14 as recommended by the
City Council Planning Committee and to instruct
the City Attorney to prepare the amending ordinance.
Biteman seconded. Driscoll clarified for White
that State statutes would allow this change and
the motion carried.
AUTOMATION PLAN (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3D)
General Government Software Contract. AUTHORIZA-
TION for the Mayor to sign a contract with Manage-
ment Advisory Group, not to exceed $350 , 000 , sub-
ject to the approval of the City Attorney.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3E)
ACCESS/WACIC/NCIC Agreement. AUTHORIZATION to
sign an agreement between the State and the Police
Department for establishment of a computer to com-
puter interface.
ANNEXATION ZONING (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3C)
REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER BITEMAN
LeBlanc Annexation. Councilmember Biteman requested
that the ordinance for the zoning of the LeBlanc
Annexation be postponed until the next Council
meeting. Mr. Coluccio stated that he would like
to have time to meet with the Public Works and Plan-
ning Departments to clarify the matter of the roads .
BITEMAN MOVED to postpone this item to the July 5
meeting. Dowell seconded and the motion passed.
VALLEY FLOOR PLAN (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3H)
MAP AMENDMENT Valley Floor Plan Map Amendment. ADOPTION of
Resolution 1170 incorporating the amendments to the
Valley Floor Plan that were recommended in the East
Valley Study.
ZONING CODE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3G)
AMENDMENT Adult Entertainment. ADOPTION of Ordinance 2785
amending the Zoning Code to add adult entertainment
establishments to the list of adult uses.
3 -
July S , 1988
ANNEXATION ZONING (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3I )
REMOVED BY CITY ADMINISTRATOR MCFALL
LeBlanc Annexation. City Administrator McFall
announced that he had received a letter on July 1
on behalf of the owner which raised legal questions
regarding the proposed zoning ordinance. He
requested that this item be continued for two weeks
to allow time to review and research the issues
raised. WOODS SO MOVED. Houser seconded and the
motion carried.
REZONE APPEAL \�yan Doren' s Landing II Rezone Appeal. This date
been established as the hearing date to con-
er an appeal of the Hearing Examiner ' s denial
o %an Doren ' s Landing — rezone No. RZ-88-2 . The
requbst is to rezone 7 . 1 acres from M1 ( Industrial
Park) ``to M1 -C ( Industrial Park, Commercial Suffix ) .
The pro\p\erty is located on the south side of South
212th Str et approximately 1200 feet west of West
Valley Highway.
Greg McCormi11ic of the Planning Department noted
that the West Valley Study was completed in 1986 -
and the Council\ dopted an ordinance which would
allow for M1 -C z ding. This zoning would allow
for commercial nodes at major intersections of
West Valley Highway`,at 180th, 212th and 228th.
Two requests for rez�es to the M1 -C designation
have been received. The Green River Square rezone
was approved, consistin of 34 acres on the south-
west corner of S. 212th nd West Valley Highway
for such purposes as Note , restaurant, and auto-
mobile service center. Th public hearing was
declared open by Mayor Kell her.
Ted Knapp of Union Pacific Re ty Company referred
to his letter of appeal which h s been distributed
to the Council and has been made a part of the
record. He stated that the West alley Study had
suggested that retail uses be allo ed and that the
zoning code had then been amended t allow retail
nodes on West Valley Highway at S. 1 oh, S. 212th,
and S. 228th. The property proposed r rezone by
Union Pacific Realty is 1200 feet west f the West
Valley Highway and is outside the "C-cir le" shown
for the intersection. Knapp pointed out hat the
"circles"were not intended to limit the b undaries
for the "C" zoning and that the Hearing Exa finer
had confirmed this . Other developments have xtendec
- 4 -
July 19, 1988
ANNEXATION ZONING LeBlanc Annexation Zoning. Public hearings were
held on the zoning for the LeBlanc Annexation
on May 3 and June 7, 1988. Adoption of the ordi-
nance to zone the annexation was delayed to
address issues of concern. Woods noted that
the property owner has raised questions about
the question of fairness of her voting on this
issue inasmuch as she owns property contiguous
to the road that parallels the LeBlanc property.
She stated that although the law might not so
require, she would abstain from participating
on this matter to avoid even the possibility of
an appearance of unfairness . She was then excused
by the Mayor and left the chambers .
City Attorney Driscoll noted that the owner had
questioned the conditions to the zoning which
required a 30 ft. right of way and the requirement
for improvement to 112th Avenue S.E. , stating
that these would be arbitrary and capricious
and would constitute an unconstitutional taking
of property without just compensation. She
pointed out that in view of a recent court case,
she had reviewed the record. It would appear
that the 30 ft. right of way requirement certainly
relates to the testimony before the Hearing
Examiner, and to her findings and to the testi-
mony before the Council regarding adverse impacts
from traffic indicating the need for some improve-
ments to the road. Relating to the second item,
speaking specifically to improvements on 112th
from S. 240th to S . 232nd, it would appear that
there is not yet sufficient information to deter-
mine precisely what improvements need to be made.
The Council could require that prior to the
granting of a development permit, the owner be
required to improve 112th on whatever portion
would be appropriate to address the impact of
said development. At the Council ' s discretion
an alternative to full improvement would be an
agreement to participate in formation and payment
of final costs their proportionate share of a
Local Improvement District. The Council has a
fair amount of discretion within the guidance
of the Comprehensive Plan, to set the precise
number of units for a precise area.
- JOHNSON MOVED to adopt Ordinance 2791 , estab-
lishing the zoning for the LeBlanc Annexation
and Mann seconded. Johnson noted that the City
had testimony and findings regarding:
8 -
July 19, 1988
ANNEXATION ZONING (1) the need for and desirability of tree preservation;
(2) that limitation of density would make it possible to
preserve as many of the unique botanical features of
the site as possible;
(3) the inadequacy of 112th Ave. to handle additional
traffic caused by the development and the high
threat to pedestrian safety;
(4) concern for the safety of children walking to and from _.
the daycare and/or the elementary school;
(5) the desire for protection of the single-family
residential users in the neighborhood;
(6) 112th Ave. is classified as a residential collector;
(7) development of the property will generate considerable
traffic and the hearing examiner stated that the
traffic impacts will need to be exactly determined
and mitigated;
(a) * it is anticipated by staff that the traffic impacts
will be able to be mitigated;
(9) East }[ill comprehensive plan for this area permits
multi-family for 7 to 12 units per acre for a portion
of the property;
(10) the Public Works Department has recommended
that a 30 foot right-of-way be deeded to the
City for street purposes in conjunction with
the development of the property in order to
address traffic impacts from the development;
(11) it is in the public interest to provide
safe roads.
He then added Condition No. 3 to the motion,
as follows :
- 9 -
July 19 , 1988
ANNEXATION ZONING That prior to the issuance of a development per-
mit for a permitted use for any properties within
_ the LeBlanc 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. It was deter-
mined that this Condition No. 3 is meant to
replace Condition No. 3 of the ordinance, as
,.., prepared. Upon questions, Driscoll explained
that the new wording for Condition No. 3 states
that prior to getting a development permit the
developer will be required to make improvements
to 112th that are necessary to deal with the
impacts caused by the higher density resulting
from the development. The commitments will be
determined when the owner commences development of
the property. Dowell noted that passage of the
ordinance had been delayed to clarify some of
•,,,, the conditions and he questioned whether proper
clarification had been made. He suggested that
some of the language was subject to several
interpretations and suggested that passage of
the ordinance be delayed.
DOWELL MOVED to table and Mann seconded. The
motion failed with Dowell and Mann supporting
and Johnson and Houser opposing. Mann noted
that during the hearing, it was pointed out that
there were no sidewalks for children and ques-
tioned whether this matter was fully covered
in the conditions. Johnson acknowledged this ,
- and opined that the language did address this
situation in that in order to develop, the
developer would have to participate in improving
the road. Dowell stated that if the development
did not go through, it could be that the road
would not be improved. Johnson stated that the
City could initiate an LID for sidewalks.
The motion to adopt Ordinance 2791 , with Con-
dition No. 3 revised, then carried, with Mann,
-- Johnson and Houser voting in favor and Dowell
voting against.
10 -
August 2 , 1988
ANNEXATION ZONINS LeBlanc Annexation Zoning Ordinance. At the July
19th Council meeting, Ordinance 2791 was adopted
establishing zoning, including 8 units per acre ,
for the LeBlanc Annexation. The City Attorney has
advised that the vote of 3 to 1 was insufficient
to adopt the ordinance, that a majority of the
entire Council is required. The •ordinance ,
containing the revised Condition 3 as approved at
the last meeting, has been presented again for con-
sideration.
James Graham, attorney for LeBlanc, noted that the
ordinance provides for 8 units per acre and that
the Comprehensive Plan, the Hearing Examiner and
the Planning staff had recommended 12 units per
acre. He noted that 23 units per acre are allowed
to the south of this site and that 12 units would
provide a transition area and would comply with the
City ' s plan to reduce multifamily zoning. Bill
Kreager showed slides of the proposed condominium
development, pointing out that more of the existing
trees could be saved under the 12 units per acre
plan than under 8 units per acre.
Ed Smith of 23508 112th S.E. noted that although
there were 23 units per acre on one side of the
property, the other three sides were zoned single
family residential . He noted the traffic problems
on 112th and stated that he couldn ' t believe that
more trees could be saved with the higher density
plan. Smith stated that the residents objected to
the 8 units per acre, and certainly were not in
favor of changing it to 12 .
Mayor Kelleher pointed out that hearings had been
held both at the Hearing Examiner and at the Council
level and suggested that a motion be offered before
allowing discussion from the floor. DOWELL MOVED
to approve the recommendation of the Hearing Exam-
iner to direct the City Attorney to prepare the
appropriate ordinance, and to further discuss the
conditions. White seconded. Dennis Dague of 11218
S. E. 234th Place stated he had had no notification
of this meeting, noted that the Hearing Examiner
had had to comply with the Comprehensive Plan when
making her recommendation for 12 units per acre.
He suggested that the claim of saving trees was
invalid. Wickstrom noted that if the Hearing Exam-
iner ' s original recommendation is adopted, it
should be noted that Condition No. 2 on page 4
5 -
August 2, 1988
ANNEXATION ZONING of the ordinance as presented was recommended by
staff. Dowell agreed that this should be contained
-• in his motion and would then be a part of a new
ordinance.
White noted that his concern is that something be
done to improve the street, and that the LeBlancs
had indicated it would be done. He expressed con-
cern that at 8 units per acre, the development
might not go ahead, so he was willing to support
12 units in order to ensure that the street and
the sidewalks are built. Graham noted that the
Comprehensive Plan was meant to be a guide only,
and further that Garden Density allowed 16 units
per acre, but that this request is only for 12 .
".,• He clarified that the owners were perfectly will-
ing to participate in an LID to address the side-
walk issue, and had so stated at the hearing.
Impacts created by the development would be miti-
gated by the owners. Johnson stated that it was
not the Council ' s function to determine the economic
feasibility of a specific development. He noted
that the Council could, at public expense, improve
a street or put in sidewalks and that he thought
that the 8 units per acre was a fair compromise .
.._ Upon Dowell ' s question , Kreager noted that the
landscaping would be maintained through .a home-
owners association and further that the private
roads planned provided for flexibility in posi-
tioning these $120 , 000-130 , 000 condos.
Mann noted the City Attorneys remarks from the
minutes of the July 19 meeting, noting especially
the requirements for the improvement of 112th, and
how much leeway the Council had in requiring the
rights of way. He stated that he would support
Dowell ' s motion for the 12 units per acre. Smith
asked if White had information that the development
would not be built if not approved for 12 units
per acre. White stated that his concern was to get
the sidewalks in whether the property was developed
or not. McFall clarified for Dowell that the
right of way dedication requirement was for ten
feet beyond the existing right of way. He noted
further that Ordinance 2791 now before the Council
incorporates the Hearing Examiner ' s recommendations
and also has the correct language regarding dedi-
cation of right of way . Increasing the density to
12 units per acre could be done by amending Sec-
- 6 -
August 2, 1988
ANNEXATION ZONING tion 2 on page 3 of Ordinance 2791 . Upon Dowell ' s
question, it was determined that Condition No. 3
as is currently written, provides for signing a
no-protest agreement, and that if no LID is formed,
that the development permit will still be allowed.
It was clarified that a SEPA determination would
be required as to the extent of the improvement to
be required for 112th. Dowell expressed concern
about the City requiring that an entire street
be improved for a development. It was determined
that although SEPA would review the matter, the
SEPA determination may not be exactly what the
Council has approved as a condition. The City
Attorney advised that the SEPA process was an inde-
pendent process and the Council should not issue
direction in lieu of imposing a condition. She
noted that it is likely that SEPA' s determination
will be similar to Condition No. 3 , but it is not
a known fact.
DOWELL MOVED to change Condition No. 3 to read:
"Prior to the issuance of a development permit for
a permitted use for any properties within the
LeBlanc Annexation area, the owner will sign a no-
protest agreement for the development of 112th and
will pay their proportionate share of the final
cost" . White concurred. Mayor Kelleher restated
the motion to change the density to 12 units per
acre and to change Condition No. 3 as shown above .
JOHNSON MOVED to table the motion to allow time
for the public to respond. The motion FAILED for
lack of a second. Dennis Dague stated that we
should make sure that the sidewalks will be in and
the traffic problems resolved before the development.
He requested that this be delayed to allow time
for input from the public. He stated that some
people had not been notified of the hearing.
Dowell noted that there was no response from the
audience at the last meeting when he had attempted
to table the matter. Mann asked if there was a
way to ensure that the street will be finished
before the property is fully developed. MANN MOVED
to amend Dowell ' s motion to go back to the original
version of Condition No. 3 : "Prior to the issuance
of a development permit for a permitted use for any
properties within the LeBlanc 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.
7 -
August 2 , 1988
ANNEXATION ZONING This obligation may be met by agreeing to partici-
pate in the formation of and to pay its propor-
tionate share of the final costs of a Local Improve-
ment District to improve 112th Avenue. " Johnson
seconded. White expressed concern that in this
situation if someone refused to participate and
pay their fair share, it would affect the entire
neighborhood, as well as LeBlanc. M Fall clarified
for Mann that the right of way acquisition is
accomplished as the property develops . Upon White ' s
question, Wickstrom noted that there were a few no-
protest agreements signed for 112th. He stated
that probably an LID for sidewalks would be success-
ful from LeBlanc ' s property north up to the school ,
on LeBlanc ' s side of the street but not to the
south where the condos are. These condos were
built in 1977 prior to the City ' s requirement for
such no-protest agreements . Smith noted that the
utilities were on LeBlanc ' s side of the street .
Houser questioned what would happen if an LID is
not formed due to protests and Graham noted that
the SEPA process would address the traffic impacts ,
and mitigation thereof . Driscoll clarified for
White that the SEPA process will address the traffic
impacts even if the Council does not spell it out
by conditions in this ordinance .
Mann ' s motion to amend to go back to the original
language for Condition No. 3 carried with Dowell
and White opposing and Johnson, Houser and Mann
supporting it . Dague stated that the Hearing Exam-
iner had stated that she couldn ' t understand why
condos were to be allowed in a single family
neighborhood, and now 12 units are to be allowed
instead of only 8 . He stated further that the
residents should have had more opportunity to give
their views. DOWELL MOVED to table the motion and
Johnson seconded. The motion carried with no dis-
senting votes recorded.
FINANCE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3B)
A oval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the
bill eceived through August 8 , 1988 after audit-
ing by e Operations Committee at its meeting at
8: 30 a .m. August 15 , 1988.
A roval of checks iss d for vouchers;
Date Check Numb s Amount
6/9-6/15 61711-61723
6/16-6/27 62030-62059 $ 167, 623.39
6/30 62083-62618 \1, 116, 351.99
8 -
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLC WORKS
t APRIL 28 , 1988
TO: MAYOR KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON WICKSTROM-� 1,(�
RE: LEBLANC ANNEXATION INITIAL ZONING
( Revision of Hearing Examiner Condition #2
( The properties within the LeBlanc Annexation area all have frontage
t on 112th Avenue S .E. The King County Assessor's maps show that 40
feet of right of way exists in this area. There is not a clear
deed of record for this right of way shown on the assessor' s map.
t 112th Avenue S.E. is a substandard roadway without curb and gutter,
sidewalks, etc. The existing 40 feet of right of way is not
sufficient for the eventual widening and improvement of the roadway
to residential collector standards. Sixty feet of right of way is
necessary for such improvements.
Therefore, as a condition of initial zoning for the area, condition
#2 of the Hearing Examiner' s recommendations should be revised to
read as follows:
f
2 . Prior to the issuance of a development permit
` (building, zoning, etc. ) for a permitted use
fl for any properties within the LeBlanc
Annexation area the Owner shall deed to the
City of Kent sufficient property for street
I purposes such that 30 feet of right of way
( exists as measured from the north/south
centerline of the southeast quarter of Section
17, Township 22 , Range 5 W.M.
With the present wording, until all property owners deed the
required right of way, the final passage of the ordinance could not
take place. This could be a problem if any of the property owners
within the annexation area were to object to the condition and
1 refuse to deed the additional right of way.
(_ By rewording the condition as noted above, we will avoid situations
such as the recent problems with the former Good News Bay Rezone
now known as Signature Point.
FINDINGS AND DECISION
"V
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT
FILE NO: #AP-88-1 LEBLANC SEPA APPEAL
APPLICANT: DENNIS DAGUE AND WARREN TUTTLE
REQUEST: An appeal of the Determination of Nonsignificance for the
LeBlanc Annexation #ENV-87-101 .
"T
LOCATION: South of SE 232nd Street and west of 112th Avenue SE
APPLICATION FILED: January 4, 1988
DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE: Not Applicable
HEARING DATE: February 3, 1988
DECISION ISSUED: February 24, 1988
IV
DECISION: DENIED
IV STAFF REPRESENTATIVES: James P. Harris, Planning Director
James M. Hansen, Planning Department
Kathy McClung, Planning Department
Greg McCormick, Planning Department
�Y Gary Gill , Public Works Department
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Dennis Dague
Warren Tuttle
Jeff Garrett
Monti Marchetti
Debbie Montgomery
Rick Foslin
Tilak Sharma
Debra Tuttle
~` Carl Ricketts
A1ok Mathur
WRITTEN TESTIMONY: Kent School District
Carl Ricketts
INTRODUCTION
After due consideration of the evidence presented by the applicant, all
evidence elicited during the public hearing, and as a result of the personal
inspection of the subject property by the Hearing Examiner, the following
findings of fact and conclusions shall constitute the decision of the Hearing
Examiner on this application.
- 1 -
Findings and Decision
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
2AP-88-1
FINDINGS OF FACT
1 . The appellants, Dennis M. Dague and Warren J. Tuttle, appealed the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Determination of Nonsignificance issued by
the Planning Department on December 11 , 1987.
2. The Determination of Nonsignificance was issued for the City's request to
establish initial zoning on a site recently annexed to the City of Kent. j
The site has an interim zoning of R1-20, Single Family Residential , and I
staff recommends in the initial zoning action that zoning of 5.5 acres
known as LeBlanc Gardens be MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential,
with the remainder of the site to be zoned R1-9.6, Single Family
Residential , (approximately 10 acres) .
3. The site is approximately 15 acres in size and is located south of SE _..�
232nd Street and west of 112th Avenue SE
4. The appellants and the public expressed numerous concerns which they felt I
could be addressed through the EIS process. These concerns include !
traffic, tree and bird preservation, hydrology and water runoff problems,
pedestrian safety, vandalism, reduced land values, school overcrowding,
sewer capacity, and fire response times.
5. Staff responds that since this is a non-project zoning request, the
concerns expressed are premature since a site specific development plan
would be required to submit another environmental checklist and the City
of Kent would be able to make another environmental determination. At
that time, staff could recommend mitigating measures or an Environmental
Impact Statement. 1
6. The Public Works Department indicates that the proposed multiple family `
use would generate only 15 additional P.M. peak hour trips per day than -{
would single family uses on the same site.
7. The staff report, with its recommendation that the appeal be denied, is
incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full .
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 . Chapter 12.12A of the Kent City Code and Washington State law require that
the decision of the responsible official with respect to the need or lack
of need for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement be given
substantial weight. See e.g. Chapter 12.12A.520A1c of the Kent City Code.
' L
- 2 - `
Findings and Decision
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
3AP-88-1
2. All concerns expressed by the public and the appellants are legitimate
concerns. However, they are expressed prematurely. The undersigned
.� agrees with staff's position that the request by the public and the
appellants for an Environmental Impact Statement is premature on a
non-project rezone. At such time that there is a site specific
development proposal , site specific impacts can be addressed and mitigated.
DECISION
{ For each of the above reasons, the decision of the City of Kent Hearing
Examiner on the LeBlanc SEPA Appeal is DENIAL.
r
ti Dated this 24th day of February, 1988.
lam-.
DIANE L. VANDERBEEK
Hearing Examiner
.t
.0
.r
144H-1H
- 3 -
c
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES
February 3 , 1988
The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to order by
the presiding officer, Diane L. VanDerbeek, Hearing Examiner, on
Wednesday, February 3 , 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.
The February 3, 1988 synopsis minutes for Tri-State Construction #CE-
`'" 87-9 are separate from the following verbatim minutes for LeBlanc SEPA
Appeal #AP-88-1.
LEBLANC SEPA APPEAL
#AP-88-1
(Tape 1 at 448) James P. Harris: My name is James P. Harris, I 'm the
Planning Director and my business address is 220 Fourth Avenue South,
Kent, 98032 . I 'm also the responsible official for the State
Environmental Policy Act to the City of Kent. I guess what I will do
is go directly to the question that was asked about what an
environment impact statement is and read into the record the pertinent
sections out of State law. I have to go back a little bit and plow
some ground before I get to the EIS. Before we get to an EIS
situation in the City we do what is called a Threshold Determination
and that's under the Washington Administrative Code 197-11-310 and
this threshold determination comes about after someone has applied for
a permit to either build something or to get a rezone or a conditional
use permit or whatever and an environmental impact or environmental
checklist has been filed out by the individual. And we then, ' myself
and staff, review that environmental checklist and we make this
threshold determination. I 'm going to read and quote a little bit
from the WAC 197-11-310 it says, "The threshold determination is
4 required for any proposed (unclear) and is not categorically exempt. "
Now the State law exempts some certain projects and they don't have to
go through the State Environmental Protection Act. The Responsible
Official, and I 'm the Responsible Official, and that' s per the Policy
and Code, Chapter 12 . 12 A1101 I won't read that, quote that, but
that's the Section that designates the Planning Director as the
Responsible Official in the City. The Responsible Official, the lead
agency, the City of Kent, is the lead agency, shall make the threshold
determination which shall be made as close as possible to the time
that agencies developed or as presented as a proposal. And, skipping
down a little bit here. Threshold Determinations shall be documented
N in a determination of nonsignificance, which we call a DNS, or a
1
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
determination of significance. Now, if a determination of `
significance is made, we switch to the Washington Administrative Code i
197-11-330 and it says, "Threshold Determination process". . .and this
says accordingly, "An Environmental Impact Statement is required for
proposes for legislation and other major actions significantly
affecting the quality of the environment. The lead agency, which I 'm
a representative of as the Responsible Official, decides whether an r
EIS is required and a threshold determination processed. And, then t}
it described a long, lengthy process here. So, I working with the
Planning Department staff work through the environmental checklist,
make a threshold determination and what comes before us this evening
is a determination of nonsignificance, conditioned, was made. I don't {
know if that answers the questions earlier.
Diane VanDerbeek: What, could you, could you explain what the AI
conditioned or mitigated determination of nonsignificance is?
Harris: What the condition in this particular case is?
VanDerbeek: What it is? I mean isn't it true that a mitigated
determination of nonsigificance is a document that says to the
applicant, you do not have to prepare an Environmental Impact A
Statement providing that you comply with certain conditions.
Harris: In this case there is one condition applied which will have
to be complied with in the future.
VanDerbeek: And, if the mitigated determination of nonsignificance
was not issued, then the other decision that the responsible official, _-
meaning yourself, could have made would have been to require an
environmental impact statement.
Z
Harris: Right, a declaration of significance which triggers the
environmental impact statement that must be then prepared.
VanDerbeek: All right. Does the witness understand now.
Voice: My questions basically is "what is the checklist", if you rule
on one environmental impact statement, what things do you look at.
VanDerbeek: Well, I think that process can explained during the City
presentation in response to the appeal hearing. Are there any further
questions.
Voice: I have a question that might clear up something that I want to
check on . Would conditions that will cause threats to personal health
and well being, are those two conditions that would be affecting the
quality of the environment. The quality of the environment is going
to be affected to the point that it might cause conditions that would
bring about threats to personal health and well-being. Is that then a
2
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
condition that would start to have to file for environmental
statement.
VanDerbeek: That question can be responded to by staff during staff's
( response to the appeal hearing. That's a substantive question as
, j opposed to a procedural hearing. There any other questions.
Voce: You mentioned that there would be one thing they would have to
do, didn't say what it was, that they would have to do an EIS.
VanDerbeek: The City will indicate what that one thing is during
their response to the appeal hearing. Are there any other questions
that have to do specifically with the procedure at the hearings. All
right, there appearing to be no further procedural questions at this
time, at this time I would ask whether Dennis Dague or Warren Tuttle,
who are the people who filed the appeal, intend to testify.
( Dennis Dague: I 'm Dennis Dague.
VanDerbeek: All right. Do you intend to testify.
Dennis Dague: Yes.
VanDerbeek: All right. Please step forward to the podium, state your
name and address for the record and then tell me the facts in support
of the appeal which you wish to be considered.
Dennis Daaue: All right. I 'm Dennis Dague and my address is 11218 SE
234th Place in Kent. O.k. First of all as far as an impact on the
community that I live in. If you put the condominiums in there, we
will be having a lot of extra kids in the vicinity. There' s no place
for them to play, there were no places set aside in the conceptual
-ti plans for them to play, so they are going to do what kids who live in
the neighborhood do already, go outside their neighborhood, come into
our neighborhood to play. They are also going to do what kids do
which is, to get to the school, the closest junior high school, they
are going to go through my property, my neighbor's property and
continue to trespass and it's a lot shorter, about by a mile, to go
through our property then to go the legal route. The principal coming
out hasn't stopped it, hosing them down hasn't stopped them, calling
the police out hasn ' t stopped them, continual rude remarks,
destruction of our property and now we can see that that's going to
increase.
VanDerbeek: But how would an environmental impact statement stop
that.
Daaue: O.k. , perhaps I don't understand, I guess I thought this was
to show you what kind of impact it would have on the environment. But
- you say that what I have to show you is why an environmental impact
3
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
statement, I guess, again, this way, you do it and hopefully, it will
come out in the environmental impact statement, it will be one more
thing negative to allowing those.
VanDerbeek: O.k. , right.
Dague: All right.
VanDerbeek: Not right, I don't, (unclear) .
Dague: You're understanding the point I'm making. Another thing is
that we have a road, a semirural atmosphere and if you put. . .
VanDerbeek: Which road are you referring. . .
Dague: 112th. If the condominiums are put in, then the conceptual
plans show a beautiful laurel hedge. Well, the only laurel hedge
that' s there, it goes half the distance of the proposed condominiums
and there's places where it will have to be removed, in order to allow "t
for the additional setback for the road widening, so there will
nothing there. Who is going to promise that they are going to put
something in and do we have to wait for it to grow 40 years so it's -r
tall enough to block the _view and give us again a semi-rural
atmosphere. By the way, I have some photographs to show you what it
looks like now and can I submit these?
VanDerbeek: Yes, you may.
Dague: Who do I give these to? t
VanDerbeek: You can give those to Chris, the recording secretary, and
she will mark them as an exhibit.
Dague: O.k. You can see what it looks like now.
VanDerbeek: Right. And, I will indicate to the record that I have t
viewed the site previously and have seen a video tape of this sight at
a previous hearing and I will consider the photographs as evidence.
Dague: Thank you. O.k. Now, I would like to read something here
that, Item 6 of the environmental checklist of the environmental
checklist on the LeBlanc Annexation, this is how it reads: "How will -•�
the proposal be likely to increase the demands on transportation,
public services and utilities. And, then under the column for
Evaluation for Agency Use Only, are the remarks, zoning a portion of
this site to MFM would create a potential for increase demands to the z
higher density and increase site coverage and under comment now, they
say, that if the only road to access the proposed condominiums was
described by the Planning Department as a "substandard roadway with
two lanes of pavement, rounded shoulders and open ditches" and in the
4
Hearing Examiner Minutes
•, Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
addendum to the staff report for the Hearing Examiner meeting of
December 16, 1987, this roadway has no street lights, it has no
shoulders, it has no sidewalks except for a minute portion, it has
open ditches and it is crowded with children walking to and from
school twice a day, and with (unclear) other times of the day while
dodging traffic. There has already been a child hit by a vehicle and
there are near misses each day.
In building the condominiums, 70 proposed, would produce at least a
100 cars from the owners of the condos, that would contribute an
average of 1.5 cars per condo, which I think is conservative and these
condo owners would have friends and service vehicles that visit them
and increase traffic further. So, what is now a very dangerous
situation would become a lethal one. This road cannot handle the
increased traffic that the condos would bring. Allowing the condos,
therefore, seems to contradict this Human Environment Element of the
East Hill Plan which reads, "Overall Goal: Enhance, through good
design, the aesthetic qualities of the natural amenities, manmade
environment to promote the health, safety and welfare of the
community" . I would like to now submit these pictures of these
children actually, in this case coming home from school, with the
traffic going through them (Exhibit 2) .
VanDerbeek: All right. Those photographs will be considered as an
exhibit.
Y Dague: Thank you. In addition, as mentioned for Item #1 of the
Checklist under the column for Evaluation for Agency Use Only, it says
there will be increased storm water runoff, I 'm paraphrasing this
part, increased storm runoff it its increased for multifamily. So now
` I can see the children can do more than fall into the ditches, now
they can drown in them. Am I allowed to comment, I 'm not sure this is
appropriate now, on why proposing the condominiums is not the best way
to save the trees. Or is that not the purpose of this hearing.
VanDerbeek: Well, you can comment on preservation of the trees to the
extent that requiring the applicant to prepare an environmental
statement might result in preservation of the trees.
Dague: What's this then. This is the overall conceptual plan and, if
you noticed, get my (unclear) out of here, in the conceptual plans you
want to save trees, yet you notice that it's almost wall to wall
asphalt and buildings. The only trees that seem to be saved are on
the periphery, that could be done with single family homes. There are
some within that are being saved that could be done to the entrance to
a single family home area and also a small cluster here, but the
school district has requested and we all request that there be a place
for the children to play, that could be done in a single family home
area. Allowing more yard space seems to be more conducive to saving
more of the trees. If the reason the Kent Planning Department,
frankly I don't know why they don't ask for a six-acre skyscraper and
5
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1 i
use the entire site to put the trees on. I don't understand how
building more buildings saves more trees. It doesn't work that way,
there's more asphalt, you have to allow parking, not only for the
people that live there but for service vehicles and friends that
visit.
VanDerbeek: And, how do you think requiring the applicant to prepare
an environmental impact statement would result in tree preservation?
Dague: Well, if we are talking about, if you are saying that you do
an environmental impact statement and taking away more trees reduces
the semi-rural environment is detrimental to the semi-rural
environment, well, in that case, they should do as they say they are
trying to do and save more trees and I 'm saying an environmental
impact statement might show that, in fact, building more units will
not save more trees but, in fact, building fewer units with larger
yards will save more trees thereby preserving more of our semi-rural
environment.
VanDerbeek: All right. I will indicate to the record that the
proposed development plan is already before me in the previous hearing
so you don't need to mark that as an exhibit, make that an exhibit.
Dague: Thank you.
VanDerbeek: All right. '
Dague: Yes, one last thing. Now, I think it's, should be, it's
important information that the notices that were posted for this -�
meeting and for all other meetings were removed a day or so after they
were posted and I might sound, I 'm not pointing an accusing finger,
school children could have done it, but I 'm saying they have been t
removed. I 'm saying that notification of the hearings, including the
previous one that you attended, was not adequate, (unclear) happening
here. Person or persons unknown have removed all the public notice
signs within a day or so after they have been posted. They are posted
across an open ditch and they are unreadable from the road. The only
way to read them before they disappear is to go into the ditch. The
only sign that remained is when it was posted, hidden by telephone -i
poles and telegraphs and that particular sign was for this meeting,
all others have been removed. People living within short distances
did not receive notification but yet we are definitely affected.
Those who did know about it, except for those within 200 feet, and
only those within 200 feet of the site and not even all of those
within 200 feet. The person who passed and initiated the petition two
years ago was conveniently not sent a notice and didn't learn about it
until after the December 16 hearing. I submit the community is not
properly notified and, I will least go on record, saying that I
request there be a rehearing. I don't know if that's legal or
whatever, obviously not, but I at least go on record as requesting a
6
r Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
rehearing. I also go on record as saying that because the Planning
_y Department sent out a notice of this meeting, they included in it a
commentary which I don't think was necessary to include that they
thought this was a premature meeting, and a number of other comments.
But they kept away people that might have been here and might have had
`t something to add, and it is my opinion that if perhaps it's possible
that we may not be able to get a fair hearing and in the event to
(unclear) there may be people who didn't come who might have come who
ti might have had something to add. I feel that is out of place for the
Planning Department to stab us in the back so to speak.
VanDerbeek: Well, what negative commentary are referring to,
specifically?
Daaue: O.k. I will let you know here.
VanDerbeek: Are you talking about the staff report?
ti Dague: Yes, I am. Is that, I can't believe that is something that
they always sent out with the public notice of a meeting. The staff
report itself. And, it was detrimental to our cause. Everyone I
talked too, who received this, they all said to themselves, well, gee,
why bother to go, and of the other, what, 200 people or so, on the
mailing list, that I couldn't talk to, how many other (unclear)
actually might have had something to add. I talked to the Assistant
City Attorney who mentioned that perhaps it was the bases for a
lawsuit and if we. . . I don't know what we can or can't do, I don't know
whether or not there' s any. whether it would be wise to do it or not
i but I will say it here for the record that I will at least look into
it.
VanDerbeek: All right. Any further comments in support of your SEPA
appeal.
Daaue: One more second, if I may, and then I will be done.
VanDerbeek: All right. You may have as much time as you need
4 Dague: Thank you. Yes, something else that was brought up by the
Kent Public Schools. I don't know if you've had a chance to read the
letter by them from the Kent School District. It was submitted to the
Planning Department so you should have a copy or you will have a copy.
But, in support of an environmental impact statement, if an
environmental impact statement was done, it would discover these
things in the letter and it's not that long of a letter. Some of the
r issues have already been covered so I will skip the ones that talk
about the dangerous roads. But I will mention here their second major
concern is overcrowding at Park Orchard. This is a letter from George
T. Daniels, Superintendent of the Kent School District, and I 'm
quoting part of it. Our second major concern is overcrowding at Park
7
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal f
#AP-88-1 11
Orchard Elementary Schools. Simply stated, we do not currently have
the room in our existing schools for the students who would be drawn
in from a development of this type. O.k. They go on to say that they
would want an contribution in case there was building and it amounts
to quite a bit of money if any of this was allowed. In any case, it -1
is going to be necessary. The money must come from someplace to
provide for their students and while they feel this, it is obvious,
the developer is drawing in a substantial number of school-aged -�
children whose daily recreational needs will not be met by existing
parks and recreational facilities. I strongly urge you to require
that sufficient land in the center of the proposed development be
dedicated, landscaped and equipped to meet the needs of the school- 1
aged children . Again, this affects the health, safety and
welfare. . .also, it is obvious that each new residential development by
its very nature brings an additional traffic burden to an already over -1
extended streets and roads. This situation not only causes increasing
greater hazardous for the students and staff who must walk these
roadways but in addition causes our cost of operating school buses and -1
other vehicles on increasing congested, on increasingly congested
(unclear) . Therefore, we urge you to slow down development in this
area and at least require the developer to play a substantial role in
helping to solve the traffic problems attributable to his development.
I would like to point out that 112th is not the only place where there
would be traffic problems but, in fact, we who live in Kent Vista
usually go through Park Orchard to go where we want because very often 1
going to 240th, the intersection of 240th and 112th, it' s so busy
there we find it not convenient to go that way, so what will happen
and the same with those people who will live in the condos, they will Z
find it convenient instead to go through Park Orchard, through the
narrow streets and through the places where there are kids walking on
roads without sidewalks, narrow streets, with cars parked close
together. I talked with some of the kids coming down 112th, giving
them the notices of this meeting, and some of them didn't even live on
112th, they said it was more dangerous going through the narrow,
winding roads of Park Orchard because cars would come upon them Z
suddenly and there are no sidewalks there. All right, that's the end
of my testimony, thank you.
VanDerbeek: I will acknowledge receipt of two items of written
correspondence which will be made a part of the record. First a
letter dated January 27, 1988 from Kent Public Schools from George P.
Daniels, Superintendent, addressed to the Sir Hearing Examiner, I
assume that's to me, that's marked receipt February 3, 1988, I will
consider those written comments as part of the record. There's also a
letter from Carl Ricketts, with respect to this hearing and the letter ,
from Mr. Ricketts raises issues with respect to notice for this
hearing which I will ask the staff to respond to during their
presentation. All right, at this time, Mr. Tuttle do you desire to
give public testimony in support of the appeal which you filed? `
8
Hearing Examiner Minutes
., Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
Warren Tuttle: Now, I will clarify some of the things that I might
have developed that he didn't clarify.
VanDerbeek: Sure, but you have to testify in front of the podium by
stating your name and your address.
Tuttle: O.k. , my name is Warren Tuttle and my address is 11308 SE
235th Place, Kent, Washington, 98031. o.k. , now, at the beginning of
the hearing here you were talking about where we had to prove that the
4` Planning Department made an error. O.k. , I just want to emphasize
that on their, on the Planning staff's recommendation to you, the
nonsignificance, the very end on page 8, o.k. , on some of their, their
fknal recommendations. On Section E, it says recommendation of zoning
would not appear to adversely affect the health, safety and general
welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent and that's what we are
appealing. Because we feel that an environmental impact should be
done because of the poor conditions of the roadways, o.k. Now, also,
if housing is put in there, State law requires because the roads that
are put in there, would be put in there and they become public roads.
Stop signs will be required, o.k. If condominiums go in there, there
will be not stop signs. We already have a problem with the
condominiums and the apartments next to us as it is without people
failing to yield the right of way, o.k.
VanDerbeek: Are you referencing stop signs through roads the interior
of the development or what. . .
Tuttle: Coming out onto 112th.
VanDerbeek: All right.
Tuttle: Now, we live in Kent Vista we have a stop sign because that
-� is a public road. Condominiums went in there that ' is private
property, any road accessing onto 112th doesn't have to because it's
private property.
VanDerbeek: All right.
Tuttle: o.k. Now, one other thing, when we're talking about the
roadway and the extra traffic going through the area, o.k. , as
Mr. Dague mentioned that it would, they would go through Park Orchard,
that means they have to go directly in front of the school, that
means, you know, more safety problems for the kids because 112th, sure
I understand, that 112th down to 240th, eventually 240th will be
widened, o.k. We understand that but people are still going to
continue to go through because there is such a traffic problem, unless
a light is installed and I 've talked with the Engineering Department
and there is no plans for upgrading 112th. Now, when Daybridge day
care when in, there's those picture he had just to show now there are
lines along the highway that road never had any lines until Daybridge
9
_ r
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
went in, so you know you can wander anywhere on the road, cars could
go basically anywhere they wanted to, they didn't have to yield the r
right of away.
VanDerbeek: Are you saying that when there is no centerline you are -j
not required to drive on the right hand of the road.
Tuttle: That' s the way the cars went, they just went anywhere they
wanted to, because the road is very narrow. According to the Planning
Department, we went out and measured it, it's 22 feet across. There
are some areas that are a little wider in front of our housing
development where they required sidewalks. Now, talking to the
Engineering Department they said that if they put housing or
condominiums in there, roads would be required to be either sidewalks
put in, they said that was City policy. But, now, if that's City
policy when Daybridge went in, why weren't they required? Or, is
someone telling us something that' s not going to happen? That's what
we are worried about, we need sidewalks for the kids, so we feel that
the staff has made an error in the safety and health of the citizens
of the City of Kent.
VanDerbeek: All right. Any further testimony in support of your -a
appeal of the Planning Department' s mitigated determination of
nonsignificance.
Tuttle: No, I don't.
VanDerbeek: All right, thank you for your testimony. Is there any
public testimony in support of the SEPA appeal? All right, sir in the
middle and then in the back there.
(Mr. Garrett was not under oath, so Ms. VanDerbeek swore him in. ) t
Jeff Garrett: I 'm Jeff Garrett, 23512 110th Place SE, Kent, 98031. , I
was at the first hearing and I understand your procedure tonight. I
asked some questions at the first hearing regards to the property and
I expected an environmental impact statement to be processed and I was
surprised when I got the notice about this, so I need to come up and
ask the questions again. Maybe, they could be answered by staff
because I didn't receive a staff report. I got the notice of the
hearing but no staff report. I 'm concerned about the report and I
agree with everybody about the health and welfare. But there is a
problem with the property, I believe that an environmental impact
statement would find out, there's a natural aquifers on the property,
springs. A concern of mine would be if property was built on these
springs not only to the detriment of the people living on the property
but to the landowners around it which I 'm one of, we have natural
runoff at all times, off of that property, condominiums or any type of
housing they built on that if there wasn't adequate drainage put on, I
wouldn't want to say disastrous but it has proportions of, you know,
10
C c
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
r #AP-88-1
w' disaster. We get anywhere from 30 to 40 gallons an hour out of
certain open areas on our property right now, if that land was covered
with concrete, asphalt or any other means that water has got to go
somewhere and its going be basically on anybody living below that
( property. The developer has mentioned in the first hearing that they
had some sort of plan for storm drainage if it was deemed necessary by
the City of Kent. I would think an environmental impact statement if
r there was any hydrology tests or soil samples taken would show that
l the property possibly isn't even suited to have such high density of
buildings. You've got natural forest land there. We've talked about
the density of the overall structure and they're going to save trees
by having, you know, the structure and then have trees all around it.
�W T'was hoping someone would mention that when you put these structures
next to trees, a lot of trees are in there, like was mentioned at the
( first meeting are neither natural to the area or were brought into the
l area and they have different type of root structures. Looking at the
plan at the first meeting, and I think the plan that was brought here
t tonight, they have the trees right next to these condominiums and they
JI may last one to two years, standing there looking like good trees but
with those structures being so close and with some of those root
systems, I 'm sure those trees aren't going to last and I 'm pretty sure
that an environmental impact statement, if they looked at the
different type of trees that are on the property, it would show that.
You just can't put a building right next to a tree and expect it to
live. I realize, I stated the main point about the hydrology and soil
sample tests, if that is involved with an environmental impact
statement which, I hope, at least it should be, it would show that
there does seem to be a need to show what is going on with that
property at that time. Thank you.
VanDerbeek: All right, thank you for your testimony, Mr. Garrett.
Further public testimony.
Monte Marchetti: I wasn't sworn in, I was a little late, sorry.
(Ms. VanDerbeek swore in Mr. Marchetti. )
Marchetti: Monte Marchetti of 23608 112th Avenue SE and I would like
to. . .
VanDerbeek: Please spell your last name for the record.
Marchetti: M-a-r-c-h-e-t-t-i. I was here at the first hearing. I
too made some points at that time that I would like to reiterate.
Some of the environmental concerns. I know it has been brought up
before but since I live directly on 112th and actually kitty-corner
from the proposed property, I 've seen what's going on up there and I
would like to object as far as the nonsignificance for the safety
reason as well. My mail .box on 112th Avenue SE, there is no (unclear)
so it's right there on the street so the mailman, you know, won't fall
11
c c
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
in the ditch to deliver the mail. But, anyway, it's been knocked over
in the nine-and-a-half years I've lived there, it's been knocked over
four times, hit by a car. You know, I could have (unclear)
everything's o.k. The thing that I want to bring up is that has the
City Planning Department, I really, I feel have the real obligation to
the community and especially the citizens beyond the, older citizens
that' do not have the presence of mind to protect themselves from
potentially dangerous situations. School children, I would like to
point out at this time too that there are three day cares so not just
one major corporation day care on the corner there also a Lutheran
Church that runs a preschool/day care, there's Ozzie's, it's been sold I
recently but just up a little ways there another day care. So I
a_xtually within a probably a 100 or 200 foot range there we have three
day care centers. I don't know the enrollment of the day care centers
but that in addition to the public school at the other end of the
street. So, we do have a lot of young kids that I feel that if a car
hits, you know, you know you hear the auto/pedestrian type accidents,
you know, if it doesn't result in a major injury, I think, you know,
could be fatal to the kids and I think that is really should be a big
thing of importance for adults to, (unclear) , this fashion to hold as
kind of an honor that there is something that they are really expected
to look out for hazardous. Another environmental concern I have is t
the hydrology. I don't know how, I see about two or three years ago,
well really, back up, about six years ago, Clyde Downing, he was a,
you know, infamous builder up on the East Hill. He put in a cute
little development behind our area and probably three or four years
after he was done, how the Planning Department, he went through the
whole schnick with the Planning Department and. everything else and he
got his approvals. Now, this development, mind you is. . . ...1
VanDerbeek: Is this development within the City of Kent or in King g
County?
"t
Marchetti: I think it's Kent, it's directly, Kent, thank you. O.k. ,
anyway those were energy saving homes but anyway this on the very
crest of the hill on 112th as you go east, the hill slopes downward,
as you go west, the hill slopes downward. Approximately three years
after the homes were built, Clyde Downing was bankrupt, the people, we
had a rain storm and the people were flood out of their basements.
Now, this is right on top of the actual top of the hill and if you
know that, I refer to testimony that gravity and water does go
downhill. Now, what I would like to point out is, I don't know if
that was nonsignificance, I really don't know the, what went on as far
as putting the plan together on that project with Clyde but I do know
that at the very crest of the hill, these people were flooded out of
their homes. Subsequently, the Building Department or the Engineering .6
Department (unclear) the first night was look at the footage to make
sure the roadway you could see about approximately four and a half
feet of asphalt from, oh, I would say anywhere from 235th all the way
down, almost to the end of the Valley High project on 112th, had to be
12
_L
IHearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
dug up and storm systems had to be put in to allow these people to,
you know, go back into their homes and live. They could not handle
the heavy runoff at the very crest of the hill. So with respect to
the nonsignificance and, you know, no hydrology studies, I would say
that perhaps, you know, the past record with the Planning Department,
... perhaps it was somebody else then, whose in there now, there has been
some abnormalities as far as the, what has happened, you know, as a
1 community accepted these projects and this went on. And, they did a
yl good job, they dug up the roadway, they put in culvert pipes and, you
know, its working now, o.k. So, anyway, that's it for the
7 environmental and I have some other things. Is it o.k. to bring up
anything about property devaluation at this time?
VanDerbeek• No.
Marchetti: O.k.
` VanDerbeek: Well, not unless you somehow you think that requiring the
developer to performance an environmental impact statement could
somehow affect that but, I am not permitted in making a land use
decision to require economic arguments because everyone would. . . If
say law permitted decision makers in land use issues to consider
personal economics then the whole world be commercial uses probably.
Marchetti: Well, I talked to my attorney and he told me that if the
land value will decrease, and he's with Olds, Morris and Rancard down
at the Columbia Center, that you do have, you can sue to make up the
difference from what your property was worth prior to the, you know,
unfavorable zoning towards, with respect to the current value of your
property and I think that if we had an environmental impact study and
looked at the community as a whole instead of the interest of, you
know, a few rather than a total community, it would perhaps work out
best for the total community.
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your comments. Is there any
further public testimony in support of the appeal. Ma'am, and then
I 'll hear the testimony from the two gentlemen in the front.
Debbie Montgomery: I 'm Debbie Montgomery and the address is
23320 113th Place SE. I am member of the community there but I 'm here
tonight representing the Park Orchard PTA. I 'm the president for the
organization. They asked me to speak because this does have an impact
- on the school. We have a student body presently of 545 students. I
believe State law requires that you can't have more 30 children in a
classroom. Right now our classrooms are filled to capacity. Even
though the bonds and levies have passed, it is going to be a couple of
years before we get new schools. So the impact of 70 more homes in
that area will impact the school. Park Orchard is a nonbussing school
at this point. We do have other busses that come in to our school,
that ship kids out to other schools. So the children that live in the
13
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
vicinity, it's a walking school. A lot of them walk right down 112th.
A percentage of (unclear) I have no idea. We also have the impact
because the time of dismissal with the elementary, junior high is
dismissed 20 minutes, just about 20 minutes prior to the elementary
being dismissed. Most kids come up to 232nd to walk down 112th
Avenue. So you don't only have the impact of the elementary children
going down 112th you have the impact of junior high children which at
times makes the road very impassable. Not only does it create a
problem with the impact of bringing more students in right at this
point. I have talked to Dr. Daniels. There is no more funding to
bring in a portable to house these children. Even though we've got
the bonds and levies past, at this point there is no fund. So we
don't know where we are going o house them and that is the concern of
the PTA. You know we have a responsibility here to our children and
we have our responsibility for their safety and welfare. Thank you.
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Further public
testimony. Sir, did you want to testify?
Rick Foslin: Rick Foslin, 23337 114th Place SE. The area that I want
to talk about is has already been addressed. I just want to add my
comments of concern that I feel that an environmental impact study
would have probably brought to light the conditions that might cause
threats to personal health and well-being. Namely the condition of
the road, 112th. In its present condition right now is a hazard and I
would like to quote from the letter from the school district, George
Daniels, "Our first major concern is 112th Avenue SE, from SE 240th
Street to Park Orchard Elementary. At the present time there is just
only a small fragment of sidewalk covering thy ,; entire stretch of
roadway. This lack of sidewalks coupled with the narrowness of the
roadway and lack of shoulders makes this area one of the most 7
dangerous areas for pedestrians in the school district" . I feel that
probably an environmental impact statement would have brought this to
light and maybe would have caused the Planning Commission to address
the proposal of going back and entertaining plans to improve the
roadway to sufficient safety to handle the proposed additional traffic
that they are considering. An environmental impact study might have
forced the Council or the Planning Committee to put the improvement of
the road before the condition of changing the zoning to allow for
further density in that area. Also, of environmental concern is the
number of people that cross other people's property to get someplace.
A sufficient amount of children coming through the middle of the block
and I just happen to be in the wrong place and had the amount of 10 to
15 students in the morning and 10 to 15 students in the afternoon
through the yard, over the fence, across the bushes because they did
not want to walk the roadway of 112th out to either 240th or down to
232nd. It was sufficiently hazardous to them. . .for them to decide
that and probably too kids are lazy but anyhow that did create a
substantial amount of pedestrian traffic through my yard that I feel
there is a detrimental environmental effect. I think the safety of
14
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
the children should be considered, the health and safety should be
considered in an environmental study and anything that would be
detrimental or add hazardous conditions that would increase the danger
to the children in the area should be highly considered in any
environmental impact study. Thank you.
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Do you wish to
testify, sir?
j Tilak Sharma: Tilak Sharma, 11205 SE 235th Street, Kent. I wish to
add a few things to the testimony which has been given earlier. Clyde
r Downing was one that was brought up and that is an example on how
s,ametime the loopholes in the law or some other considerations can
overlook the real issues. When construction start, 36 homes there
were put in, those houses are posted by City of Kent and the building
-. is substandard. And therefore, people should not move into the
houses. A week later all those posters are taken out,I called the
City of Kent and find out that I want to close my house, what is the
condition of the (unclear) . They said everything seems to be fine.
Within one week the substandard bill was gone and nothing happened
then, nobody (unclear) , nobody put a new bill, so the highly logical
consideration which I have then brought up on near here , there are
real situations. We can not hide them. There are loop holes by means
of which you can hide them but the effects will still stay there. I
would like to add one or two things, our people have gone to Orchard
and we know the condition of the school and the facilities there, the
temporaries have been mentioned in Dr. (unclear) letter, even if we
have (unclear) for the temporaries, if you go look at the temporaries
my son from my home here has no temporaries and during the summer
"- season not the summer after the schools but between March and June
they had to put special ice water for the kids so that they could
drink and stay healthy in those temporaries they are not very
conducive to their education. The traffic situation which has been
mentioned earlier all along 240th street the left hand (unclear)
either onto our area or onto the new apartments which have been built
on the other side of 240th is so much now during the last two months
it has increased so much that it takes on the average in the morning
and in the rush hours it takes between five to seven minutes to take a
left turn. And the fact is that all the way up the Benson Hwy the
cars are waiting for this one or two left turners. There is a real
traffic problem. On the average, every year there are about three or
four cars which go in the ditches on 112th Avenue. The police record
should show it. The latest one was just a few months ago. And right
in front of the (unclear) the ditch there with a car. It' s rather
risky for the kids to walk back and forth from the school (unclear)
there are footpaths or the sidewalks put in, there is not enough room
space on the road where the cars, the cars can go very easily
(unclear) . There was a one accident on 240th recently and the traffic
was diverted onto 112th Avenue It took me seven minutes to come out of
235th street take a left turn to go towards 240th, just imagine, just
15
4
Hearing Examiner Minutes w
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
w
one incident and when are a 100 or so more cars, what will happen at
that time. I do not wish to make any judgement, or pass any
judgement, but ever since some of the apartments have come into the
area the quality of life has gone down in the (unclear) the crime has
gone up and the stolen, the thefts have gone up. I have lost, my kids
had lost three brand new bicycles during the last six years, five
right from our driveway. The reason for that, in one case the police
were able to recover the pieces of the bicycle and (unclear) the
people and the reason for that is . . .
VanDerbeek: . .They strip down the bikes?
.v
Sharma: Yes, they strip down the bikes, the police has the record.
Now, the reason for that is when the apartments are put in people
don't know each other, because they don't live there long enough.
Therefore, anybody can walk into those areas, strangers they come in.
Now we can't (unclear) that 36 homes. Nobody can go in there
unnoticed. We know right away who is a new person. But in the
apartments and the condos are there at that time because the amount of
stay for each family is much less. People don't know each other,
therefore, the strangers come in and therefore, the theft and the
crime goes up. We (unclear) seldom find out. Thank you.
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Any further
testimony in support of the SEPA appeal. Ma'am.
Debra Tuttle: My name is Debra Tuttle, 11208 SE 236th Place, Kent. I
believe that an environmental impact statement would show that the
sewers are already at capacity in that area. We've already--a letter
in the LeBlanc file to the Kent Planning Department which states that
an environmental impact would show that to be the case. In reference
to driving and congestion, in addition to that, is that. . .well, my
oldest child attends Park Orchard as a kindergartner, I 've received
three letters so far from Park Orchard Elementary requesting us not to
drive our children to school. The school 's too congested, there's too
many cars passing to and from. . .myself, I 'm not going to let a five-
year-old child walk down 112th unprotected without adult supervision.
Therefore, myself and there are many other people in the area, have to
drive our children to protect them. Just some of it. . .they went to
school and got home o.k. That's the school position. They don't want
us having to drive our children, they've asked us not too. When we
call the Kent Planning Department. . . incidentally, I have four more
pictures to add (Exhibit #4) , two of them show the condition of the
last sign, the one that is that is still remaining and two others are
again pedestrian from the condition of the roadway. May I submit,
those.
VanDerbeek: All right, you may pass those to Chris Holden, the
recording secretary and those will be marked as an exhibit to this
hearing.
16
1 Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
Tuttle: Thank you very much. When we called the City of Kent to
report that the signs were removed almost immediately after they were
posted. My house faces directly towards LeBlanc and I have extremely
good visibility of when they are doing something there and when they
are not. It's very noticeable to me. We called the City of Kent to
report that the signs were not there, although we did know what they
- said, they were, you know, aware that the rest of the public did not
know, we were told that the City of Kent would not replace the signs,
would not go back and restand them, the signs were dead, they were in
the ditch, broken in the ditch. That the City of Kent would not
replace or set up the signs and we, by law, could not go and reset the
signs. And so there was no way to. . .although we did what we could to,
you know, make the City of Kent aware of the problem. In reference to
devaluation and how that would effect. . .and how the environmental
•-• impact statement would click in with the devaluation problem that
would ago or the resale that would occur. We feel that would lower the
value of the homes which would increase the renting in the area
because I believe a lot of people would not chose to live there, they
would not want to deal with the headaches that would be created, there
would be less care, less maintenance of the area, it would create a
more slum-type setting for those that are there and I believe it would
make a more transit and a more dangerous community all in all for all
of those that would chose to live in that area. And I feel, that an
environmental impact study would show that devaluating an area like
that. I 'm sure you are aware that the configuration of our
neighborhood. it's very definite and defined and we feel that the
entire neighborhood would be affected in some way and that would
create less desirable location and, therefore, make the entire area
less desirable to anybody that moved there or in the future that would
live there, it would create less pride, less care of the property and
like I said more transient property, essentially that's all I ad to
add.
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for the testimony. Further public
_- testimony in support of the SEPA appeal. Sir.
Carl Ricketts: Carl Rickets, 23533 110th Place SE. I have been sworn
in already and you have in your possession two letters that I 've sent
in. We've covered an awful lot of ground here tonight and it's
getting late but I will go as quickly as I can. I will raise the
issue of annexation size. . .
VanDerbeek: Excuse me, Mr. Ricketts, you don't have to go quickly,
you should feel like rushing your testimony.
Ricketts: Well, it's late.
VanDerbeek: Not for me. I'm used to staying here until 10: 30 if I
have too.
17
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal r
#AP-88-1
Ricketts: The annexation size and several other items that I've -
raised the issue too and other issues that have been raised here
tonight and at the previous meeting. Relate to the study of which I
did receive a copy and in reading it find that, if I understood it
correctly, if, in fact, this is approved, there will be other hearings
covering other items later. Is that not correct.
VanDerbeek: That is correct.
Ricketts: If that be correct then many of the items that we've ,
covered so far are inappropriate at the time as have to with this
particular activity.
VanDerbeek: Right, because the only issue at this hearing is whether
or not the Planning Department erroneously did not require an
environmental impact statement. `
Ricketts: I noted that more than my letters, my concern to the City,
once the people, once it were, approve an activity. When it's done,
the City changes it mind and they did with the Senior Center. I would
hate to see that happen to the extent that if this were to pass based
on condos that, in fact, after having passed it would be converted
into apartments which would increase the density. Those kind of
things are a matter of concern to me. The traffic issue has been
covered over, over and over but it is very much of a concern to me.
Environmental drainage. My particular site has been in place for 20-
22 years, I pointed out at our last meeting. on both sides of my lot,
drainage routes that accumulate on the LeBlanc property after leaving
my property, I didn't design it that way, that's just the way it
occurs, the growth of the trees, etc. in fact are not natural, they're
planted. They're old, they're very mature, they're very attractive, I
appreciate them being behind my, my back fence do not have any serious
difficulty with the paved areas covered to date in terms of saving ,
those islands that the presenter at the last meeting identified would
in fact be saved. I find that there, the bold issue has been covered
locally in the (unclear) area and I think I heard something there
tonight is, not an issue in terms of trees and shrubbery but is an `
issue in terms of cats over which we have no apparent control. I
haven't any of them and would delight in shooting them if I had a gun
to do so. The street, which I believe is 212, I am not, I very 1
recently acquired the property that I have, but it's the I believe
north south, that it leads right into the school. I avoid that as
much as I possibly can, much of reasons have already been covered.
The road is extremely narrow, it's extremely heavily trafficked even
when school is out in the summer time, a number of East Indians I 've
noticed there, because they are just are walkers, I don't if they
choose to or if they have to but the fact is the road is covered with
people, going north and south going to the stores, etc. It's very,
very narrow, vehicular and pedestrian traffic is very severe now on
18
IHearing Examiner Minutes
-•- Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
r that street. Fencing, I know within the city that typically within
I the city when the property is totally resolved within the city, when a
commercial venture is encountered that a twenty to thirty foot strip
is provided that must be planted and fences are required typically a I
tl believe a five or six foot cedar fence I think as defined, I have run
_ into that being a member of a club that has some property here in
town. My back fence is the city limits and I do not know and would
( like to know whether that fence which is twenty odd years old falling
down, I 've actually taken out much of it will be replaced by this
construction effort. It doesn't matter to me a whole lot in that I 'm
building a fence in any case, it would be wire, I am not concerned
about people passing through my property, I do have a pit bull, and
` tbey are welcome to pass through if they chose to, I really don't care
I I don't think he will either. I have not seen any posted notices
whatever anywhere in the area, none, zero, I became aware of these
W_. hearings and the effort involved based involved based upon the former
owner of the property who on two occasions now has notified me of
activities, the school effort, I don't have that problem myself, I do
understand it looks like perhaps as many as 66 kids based on the norms
that are applied would be there that's two and a half class rooms,
that's only part of the issue schools by definition require a specific
acreage the more kids you put on a given area, the less acreage they
have for their activities and that becomes a pretty serious problem
all on it's own. one of the other problems I have is times of _
construction of different efforts. For instance, when will these
roads go in as opposed to when the construction of the facility would
be built. The roads need to be there first, the lights need to be
there first, (unclear) , the signs need to be there first, not after
all these trucks are involved and all the people get there and six or
eight months later a sign or two or light is fired up or whatever.
The control efforts need to go up first if in fact this activity is
approved. Hydrology, I think they've sized that pretty well, I 'm
- concerned with it because I don't what's going to happen to me if in
fact all this water that comes down the hill does across my property,
goes ' onto the LeBlanc property after it's improved upon, whether or
not I will run into law suite, there's a great deal of water, again it
comes down two sides of my property, I have no control over it and do
' I want to be first into the position where I have to control it
because I have to pump it out up here. It can be controlled, but not
by me hopefully. Apartments vs Condo, I think they've covered that,
the school, the sewer, the sewer is a real problem, I have a real
problem in that area this morning relevant to sewer back up,
-•- fortunately I was bowling tonight and drank a lot of beef so you can't
smell it but I have a lot of it over my shoes and over my pants this
morning, that' s unfortunate but I do believe that the sewers are
-r running at near capacity and I think I mentioned this previously.
Home evaluation, I think in fact the valuation of the homes will go
up, not down. I think you can tell that by watching your taxes, I
think that you will find that you will be paying more taxes, which has
absolutely nothing to do with the resale value of that same property
19
c �
Hearing Examiner Minutes -
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1 _•
which I do believe will be going down. I think that covers pretty
much most of the evidence that I had considered, traffic and drainage are probably the biggest items that I 've heard and that I am
particularly concerned with, I have no desire to impact the city plans
for annexation or to infringe upon the rights of the LeBlanc family in
terms of making their property more saleable. Thank you very much.
VanDerbeek: Thank you for your testimony. Any further public
testimony in support of the appeal? Sir? Do you swear the testimony
will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Alok Mathur: I do. My name is Alok Mathur. My address is 11213 S.E.
235th Place, Kent, Washington 98031. I strongly feel that
environmental impact statement should be required within the last
couple of years I have noticed that my basement it gets flooded a _..
couple of times a year. And I have also noticed that a couple of
houses in our neighborhood when they were put on sale, the banks
required them to put sump pumps in their crawl space, so I feel it' s
really important that that be done before anything anymore development
is done in that area. Thank you.
VanDerbeek: Alright, thank you for your testimony. Any further
testimony in support of the appeal?
Carl Ricketts: I have a written comment, should I submit it now, or
wait till the end of the meeting?
VanDerbeek: You may submit it now sir. You can just pass your
written comments to the recording secretary and then do you have any
comments other than your written comments?
Carl Ricketts: No.
VanDerbeek: Alright. Any further public testimony? Alright at this
time I 'll have staff response to the appeal.
James Harris: My name is James P. Harris, Planning Director also
responsible official under the state environmental policy act. There J
are a lot of things have been covered this evening, I can't rebut all
of them but I do want to discuss a little bit about the environmental
check list and for those who haven't seen an environmental check list
in the audience I will just hold it up and show you just what it looks
like. You can come to the Planning Department and review this very
document anyone that wants to can do this and it's several pages and
it's pages have questions and the questions are related to certain
kinds of environmental impact some environmental impacts that you
might think would be impacts are not even questioned in this
checklist. The question was asked earlier and I want to refer to it
was what condition did we apply to the declaration of nonsignificance.
And that one condition was the developers of the (unclear) garden
20 -
c c
r .
Hearing Examiner Minutes
..... Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
property shall submit a true plan prior to the development of the
property and in conjunction with the site plan or design the developer
shall maximize the protection submitted in trues on this site, the
true plan shall be drawn and submitted to the Planning Department as
outlined in section 15. 08.240 of the Kent Zoning Code. The, I think
most of you probably know the (unclear) garden site is a an arboretum,
a rather rare thing in this area, an individual over a long period of
time planted some very rare trees such things as a copper beach tree,
I found on the copper beach tree in the City of Kent, you won't find
may here. White oak, spanish pine, redwood trees, you don't find very
many redwood trees in this country. We feel as the county staff that
most of those trees those that we can possibly save should be saved,
FQ we are going to be really looking very, very closely at the way
this property develops in the future. One thing I would like to clear
up for the record is that there are two kinds of projects under the
-.. state environmental protection act that we deal with and one is called
a project or non project. This has been identified as a non project.
A non project is a something that deals with a rezone or a zoning code
or some governmental action that regulates or deals with a (unclear)
situation through a regulation. A project declaration of
nonsignificance or environmental check list deals with actual
construction. A contractor is going to come on the site and actually
start digging dirt and someone is going to start actually building
buildings on the site. We are not at that point yet in the
environmental review of this project. The point that we're at now is
,..•, simply going through a environmental review of a zoning, that' s the
initial zoning for this site. The (unclear) staff has reviewed this
reviewed this based on the fact that there' s going to probably be some
future action on this site, and someone is going to take out a
building permit and build if it's zoned for multi-family perhaps
multi-family to a certain density, perhaps 12 units per acre. At that
time the Planning Department staff, myself as the responsible official
will take a very, very close look at the environmental check list
that's submitted with that application and do an exhaustive review of
all of the things that we've heard mentioned this evening. If we did
that today we feel that we would have a premature situation as far as
environmental review is takes place. The (unclear) may be applied if
the council or the hearing examiner recommends approval of a certain
zoning designation that the density will be set if the hearing
examiner opposed that designation or that recommendation but nothing
will happen with the ground, the ground will just sit there the trees
will still be there because no one has taken out a permit to actually
build anything and when the permit is taken out to build something
that's the time when the situation with the streets, the situation
with drainage, the situation of the school district and there is a
-, specific question to ask in this environmental checklist how will this
project affect schools, how will if affect police and fire service.
And the person who filled this checklist out who is the applicant for
this zoning states that this impact will occur at the time of the
development, that's when the City is going to determine if an
21
cc Hearing Examiner Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
environmental impact statement is going to be done or if an expanded
declaration of nonsignificance is going to be done. That's one thing
we can do, we can have a person go back, do a traffic study, show us
the impact at 212th and James Street, show us the impact on the
children who are walking to school on 112th, show us the impact on the
internal circulation system, the need for sidewalks. The, (unclear) ,
talk a little bit about our staff report because it was brought up
this evening. The reference was to the staff report that was titled,
Kent Planning Agency, Staff Report for Hearing Examiner Meeting of and
then it says File No. , Appeal AP-88-1, LeBlanc SEPA Appeal.
VanDerbeek: There was some question about that being distributed to
people.
Harris: O.k. that's distributed to the appellants, they are the
people who have paid for and asked the Commission for an appeal from
the. . .on the advisability of us doing a environmental, an EIS,
environmental impact statement or not. The, however, as you well
know, we always do a staff report for every case that comes before the
Hearing Examiner, before the Board of Adjustment, the Planning
Commission and we do a memo usually at the City Council level that
describes the case at hand and the Planning Department does an
analysis of the case at hand. In this case we had a letter that was
making certain points, we tried to find what points in that letter
that were pertinent to an actual appeal to be heard on the
determination on whether an EIS should be done or not and that' s what
we've done on pages 1, 2 , 3 and 4 . Someone here was talking about a
page 8 in a staff report, our staff report only goes to page 4 so they
obviously had some other staff report.
VanDerbeek: I understood the reference to be to the environmental
checklist. Whether it said page 8 of the staff report but the
testimony of the witness, the way that page 8 related to the
environmental checklist.
Harris: O.k. But I think what I really want to say is that the staff
does not feel this yet that someday, we don't know when, if this other
zone for multifamily there may be a development on here on this site 1
soon, some time in the future or never. At that time, they must then
submit another environmental checklist and go through the whole
procedure all over again. At that time, there is a much closer
scrutiny, not that there wasn't a close scrutiny here, but a much
closer scrutiny at that time because the impacts are real. We know
that they are applying for a certain density, we know .that within six
months the keys are going to be given to new purchasers of homes or _
whatever and people are going to be living on this site. When this
site is rezoned, whatever density it is rezoned to, there are no keys
given to anybody to move into any building because there's no building
built. It' s not built unit such time as somebody actually applies for
a building permit. And it could well be and I cannot predict in the
22 -
C c �
1 Hearing Examiner Minutes
w_ Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
future, that it could well be we will do an expanded checklist or an
environmental impact statement at that time. But, I can't predict
` that today, there's no way that I can say in advance that I would do
that. That' s totally improper for the staff to do at this time. I do
want to apologize for some of the notices. We, in the Planning
._ Department, learn and learn and learn. We are learning an awful lot
from this case. We are learning that in one case, we made the same
t mistake twice on notifying someone. I 've learned just recently about
w the stakes or the notices that were put into the ground and then taken
out and our feeling is that we don't, we want people to know what's
1 going on. There has been some question about notifying people within
200 feet not being far enough area out from the center of a piece of
p,.roperty that's being dealt with, the City Council has talk about
maybe going 500 feet or even more, that hasn't been something that
we've approved or has been approved. But we do want people to be able
w.: to know what's going on in their neighborhood, we post those notices
and often times they are pulled out or knocked down or whatever, and I
take personal responsibility for that kind of thing because it's my
responsibility to make sure that we get public notices out properly.
I 'm not going to talk about streets and School District situations at
this time. If you would like some questions answered on that more
specifically, we do have Gary Gill here who may talk about what might
happen in the future on 112th, when road widening situations go in, at
what point they go in, do they go in only at this property or is there
a widening situation from, all the way from 240th to the elementary
school, is it a half-street or a full street, when it's completed, is
it curb and gutter, sidewalks, trees, that type of thing. The
drainage that was talked about, is something that would be taken into
consideration if a building goes on the site. Also, we be able to
have someone come in and take core samples and find out really what's
on that site. I think that most of the things are really related to
schools and safety and some hydrology. I know that the school 's
- situation is really crowded there. We have letters from Dr. Daniels,
the superintendent of the school district on almost all projects in
the City of Kent now and we are trying to work with that school
_. district to do what we can to mitigate impacts that are related to
schools. At this time, that's all I really have unless there' s some
questions you have.
VanDerbeek: Well, I have some questions about the citizens concerns
with respect to the hydrology issue but perhaps those questions should
be directed to Mr. Gill. Or, you can answer them if you want, I don't
know.
Harris: Well, you could ask them but I probably can't because I 'm not
a hydraulic' s engineer, I know very little about hydrology.
VanDerbeek: Well, I probably shouldn't ask you. All right, thank
you.
23
I
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
Harris: I 'll answer any question.
VanDerbeek: I 'm sure.
Gary Gill: Gary Gill, City Engineer. Should I wait for specific
questions or would you like me to address some of the general
comments.
VanDerbeek: Well, I guess I have a couple of specific questions that
I will start out with.
Gill: O.k.
VanDerbeek: I guess my main questions has to do with the hydrology
issue that was raised by the majority of the citizens testifying and
I 'm just wondering what your response is to that issue is and what
steps that the City could possibility take through the environmental
review process to deal with some of the currently existing hydrology
issues.
Gill: O.k. I think as far as the environmental review process. I
don't know if there' s anything that we do differently in this
situation than we would under any normal development proposal. As
part of the building process, we look in detail at any potential
drainage impacts that the project would cause on the area and then the
existing problems that already exist in the area. Some of the
problems that were specifically discussed regarding the flooding in
the basement, water under the homes in the development where Clyde
Downing built, we are well aware of. Unfortunately, you've got to
types of drainage systems that you have the public drainage system -
which is essentially the catch basins, the storm drains that are out
in the public roadway system that pick up all the water draining into
the street and directed off-site and then you've got private on-site
drainage concerns. And in this particular case, a lot of those
problems were specifically provided on-site builder oriented types of
problems. If the builder had constructed subdrains as part of the
structure improvements to that home and taken those subdrains out and
tied them into a public drainage system when we probably would have
been able to handle the water situation a lot better than he did. As
far as I know, I don't even know, I think that all I have is
perforated drains on the fittings, stubbed out so many feet passed the
house and who knows where it went from there, obviously it didn't get
away from the house too far.
VanDerbeek: Oh, but doesn't the City have the authority to regulate
that kind of thing?
Gill: It's through the Building Code and it's through the Building -
Department. And the Public Works Department has the public streets
and the public drainage system. The Building Code does not
24 _
( C C
Hearing Examiner Minutes
�- Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
4.+
f specifically require a builder to take a footing drain and tie it into
a public storm drainage system. And, we've ran into that problem all
over the east ridge area too. You had drains running through
backyards, into people's houses and it's all on private property and
f we had no jurisdiction or control over it. Now, I know there's some
legislation that's trying to be, it's being reviewed by King County
and some other public agencies, that may require home builders to pipe
' line or directly connect storm drainage facilities that are part of
residential construction, directly into an approved public storm
drainage system. Right now it's not a requirement as part of any
building code in the City or in King County. What I would say, as
part of the on-site geo-technical investigation and the hydrologic
` i-nvestigations that are done by the private developer, the Building
Department and the Public Works Department would have to review those
reports and attempt to require adequate storm drainage control
,.... facilities to be put on-site to try to alleviate any potential
problems. But, it's pretty hard to catch them all.
r
VanDerbeek: All right. Did you have any further response to the
comments of the public concerning the appeal .
' Gill : Well, what we looked at was with regard to part of the property
as potentially zoned for multifamily use and the rest of it's
residential, I think, ten acres residential and a little over five or
six acres is multifamily. The impact that' s going occurring from that
type of development is not any different than the residential
development impacts created from other residential developments in the
' area. When you already have traffic problems or drainage problems and
we try to review those and require the property owner to mitigate
those impacts as part of this development. In all cases, they would
be required to construct on-site storm water control or drainage
control facilities as part of their development and this would be on-
site storm water detention facilities. We are looking as part of our
storm drainage management, over-all management plan for the City, part
of this drainage basin goes into the Garrison Creek system and we are
in the process of constructing so the regional storm water detention
facilities to alleviate some of the flooding, erosion problems that
' are taking place in that particular basin. So, as far as the
adequacy, an environmental impact statement required on this
particular proposal would not enlighten us anymore on the storm
drainage or traffic problems in the area than we are already aware of.
We are in the process on widening SE 240th Street from 104th to 116th,
- designs are underway right now. We hopefully would have that project
under construction sometime this summer. That would be constructing a
full five lane arterial section all the way from 116th to 104th. That
also includes future provisions for traffic signal at 112th and 108th
Avenue SE. The signals wouldn't necessarily be installed at this time
but we would have to look and see whether the traffic warrants were
met to require signals to be installed. The, looking at the
difference at what would take place if that six acres were developed
25
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
as residential versus multifamily and the number of trips, peak hour
traffic trips that would generated is 15 more trips than what would [
take place if it were residentially, single family residential for
that six acres. We don't feel that 15 additional peak hour trips is
going to unduly overburden an already overburdened traffic system. So
the future plans are to widen and improve this roadway, 112th Avenue
as well as the arterial that would serve the area. As far as what
would be our, what our normal measures would be, I don't know if I
even need to go to explain this but I think Mr. Harris said that this
would help explain the situation of what we normally require. At the
time when somebody comes in with an environmental proposal, an `
environmental checklist for multifamily development, we look at the j
ii,-pacts on the streets and arterial systems in the area. We've got
several requirements that take place: we require the developer to
participate in the regional transportation improvement projects that
are planned as part of the Kent general area which would be the
proposed 277th, 224th, 192nd arterial corridor projects which are
identified in our Transportation Master Plan. We also would require
the developer to make immediate improvements to the roadway which
immediately abuts his property and some times we look at whether or
not we have the ability to create a larger project. Our preference is
to try to do a larger roadway improvement project rather than do a
piecemeal improvements adjacent to each property as it develops. We
would require that the property owner to execute a no-protest LID
covenant for future widening and improvement of 112th Avenue SE to
residential collector standards which would be essentially a 36-foot
wide street, curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, storm
drainage, and normal improvements that are required for new streets
under the present standards. And, this particular developer obviously -
would not have to bear the cost of improving a substandard roadway all
the way from 240th to the site. Nobody could economically even begin to afford to pay for improvements of that magnitude. However, if
adjacent property owners along 112th which to participate in a program
or a project of that nature then they can always submit an LID
petition requesting that the City form an LID project, a local
improvement district project, for widening and improvement of that `
roadway. We would be more than happy to accommodate them. So, I
believe some of the comments regarding the Park Orchard area which is
in King County, there are no sidewalks, it's a residential platted
street and I believe they also have the option within Park orchard to
create LIDS for putting in sidewalks in their own residential
neighborhoods. If there is a real serious safety problem with
children, then I guess we would encourage them to do that. It's not L
within the City of Kent, so we don't really have any control over that
part of it.
VanDerbeek: All right, any further comments.
Gill: Unless you had questions.
26
J Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
1 #AP-88-1
f VanDerbeek: No, I didn't have any questions. Thank you for your
testimony, Mr. Gill. Any further response to the appeal by Planning
staff. Mr. Hansen?
J Jim Hansen: Jim Hansen, Kent Planning Department. I wanted to make
at least one concluding comment because I think it's important that
the public understand the process and we've had a problem in the past
and we'll probably continue to in the future because I think the way
the development process works and the zoning process is confusing,
always will be. But, I ' ll try once again, I think, to explain it.
That this particular appeal is dealing with one issue and one issue
only and that is the establishment of zoning on this site that will
eventually result in the number of units or the number of homes that
can be built. That's really the only issue. Some time later, in a
second stage or a second phase, we will have before us and the public
will have an opportunity through the environmental review process,
actual development plans which will show how many units they want to
build, what they will look like, how they will be located on the site,
which trees will be saved and so on. And, at that time, Gary Gill our
City Engineer and all of us will be more specifically concerned in the
evaluation of the impacts to your neighborhood, to the streets and so
on. At this time, we aren't ignoring that potential impact, it simply
isn't the issue before the City. The issue really only relates to the
number of units, the number of homes they can eventually build on the
property. I hope that' s just a little clearer. Thank you.
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your comment. Any further
response to the appeal from the City. Any rebuttal comments from the
two persons who filed the appeal, any concluding comments. All right.
Please step forward.
Dague: I (unclear) to the record, I 'm Dennis Dague. Just want to say
- that, what I know about filing with the Planning Department is what I
now from the Fire Department is that it's the worst response area that
they have. Again, I would like to say, they call it a nonproject but
- plans have already been submitted. . .conceptual plans but they know
basically what they want. I think it' s a confusing word to those who
are not working in the Planning Department and I think it to be clear
that in fact there's a project, a definite project in mind. But until
we see the actual plans, we see conceptual plans. There is a project.
O.k. (unclear) both the checklist and we should consider the fact
this checklist just considers just a few items here and there, this is
exactly what I think. It doesn't consider anywhere near enough or
deep enough, an environmental impact statement is needed. The
checklist is insufficient, especially for a development of this
_ - magnitude. They say, (unclear) trees, they want to save rare trees
and I would love to save all the rare trees, it (unclear) I wish we
could. Whose going to maintain these rare trees. Condo owners who
may end up renting their apartments, homeowners would maintain these
rare trees, someone else living in condos, if they get bloat or a
27
c � .
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
disease who will maintain them. If they are really concerned with an
impact to the environment on this site, and that rare trees are a
consideration that is, (unclear) environment they want to save certain
rare trees then let's do it right. Let's get the kind of development
in there, the kind of people in there, who will, in fact, save these
trees, who will preserve these trees and nurture these trees. Renters
aren't going to and I 've got a feeling that a lot of people who own i
the condos will eventually move out, move into a home, do whatever,
and (unclear) , will be just like apartments. Again, they mentioned
that they want to save the trees and once again, someone mentioned,
who, will the trees live, what kind of soil is needed for the trees,
(iinclear) asked by the (unclear) , and by the way, what about the fact
that they are going to have buildings in there and the trees will now
have more shade or less shade, or more water or less water. I wonder
if you could consider that in the environmental impact statement. Are
these so particular rare trees really conducive to living in the kind
of conceptual development that we have presented here. O.k. They
said that only the applicants, myself and Mr. Tuttle were to get the
staff report with our notices. I suppose this was just an oversight
or mistake that, in fact, they sent them out to everybody. Well, I
consider the testimony and procedure about people, who not only
(unclear) for us, I again state, that I have no doubt that we were
damaged by people who thought it wasn't, probably wasn't going be need
to come here when they received that staff report. And, I don't what
avenues we have open to us but if we aren't successful here we will -
pursue all of them. Improper posting, improper notification has cost
us the time and the money to come here. We could have been at the
first meeting and presented all these arguments. We feel the City is
responsible for this, we make the motion for the record for whatever
it cost us to come here to file this appeal. We are going to add a
100 or so names, as many people as we can find, anywhere around the
LeBlanc development, proposed development, to be added to - the .mailing
list for the Kent Planning Department. So, in fact, we have to know
about it, consider (unclear) put signs back up when we told them two
or three times that they are down. And in fact, inconsiderate enough
to mail more than 200 feet. Considering the fact that they are
inconsiderate enough to put something negative j.n the notice of this
meeting and we can only hope that, in fact, they will mail all the
notices to all the people and not accidently leave out some of the
most important (unclear) because this time didn't happen to get a
notice sent to the very person who last time got over a hundred
signatures so they didn't, some people in the community say they, in
fact, they did not want the condos development, this was a few years
ago and this particular person who started this petition, he didn't
get his, and his is within 200 feet and by the way I have the
signature, I don't know if that's something you need, but the Kent
Planning Department, if it's something you need to see, if it's
something important I would like to (unclear) now, but my questions
is, if it's already in the LeBlanc file, so (unclear) , something you
already have.
28
C C
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
VanDerbeek: What. . .are you referencing the signatures that were in
the SEPA appeal file.
Dague: Actually, what I'm talking about is two years ago, this man
-- cam out with a petition and submitted over a hundred signatures from
people in the community, around the area, saying they don't want to
have this developed in this way. This man did not get a notice of the
hearing you attended on December 16.
VanDerbeek: Was that petition in connection with zoning hearing for
the Comprehensive Plan?
k._ s
Dague: Was that either for a Council meeting or zoning, I 'm not sure,
I don't have it in front of me right now. I have it here, but not in
-• front of me.
Harris: I can identify that Madam Hearing Examiner.
VanDerbeek: Can you clarify that, Mr. Harris?
Harris: Yes, two years ago we had the hearings on the Comprehensive
Plan change, he is referring to files related to that. That went
through the Planning Commission, Planning Commission made a
recommendation to the City Council, City Council passed on the
Planning Commission recommendation. You would not have those files.
VanDerbeek: No, I don't think that the information in that particular
petition would. . .
Dague: Is relevant, o.k.
VanDerbeek: Would be of assistance to me in determining the SEPA
appeal.
Dague: O.k. I 'll just note then, in fact, the man who had enough
initiative to start that is, happen to be the person within 200 feet,
whose name is Carrett (?) , didn't get a notice. If I were he, he
would have notified (unclear) , and we could have nipped this in the
bud, hopefully, at the first hearing. O.k. , the Engineer mentioned
that certain developments and buildings went up in Kent and there were
certain problems with them. So the question is, who's watching them,
who's watching over these builders, who's supposed to make sure these
are done right. If they had trouble watching over the builders in the
past, how do we know they aren't going to have the same troubles in
,- putting in a huge complex (unclear) a significant problem that would
be too expensive for anybody to really effectuate a remedy. Who's
going to look over the construction of the condos. I noticed it
seemed like the person up seemed to be passing the buck. Well, that's
not my department, that's the Department of Public Works, well that's
29
C C
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
the department of this or that. Well then, who in the heck is going
to do it and I don't know what kind of things that come out in the ..J
environmental impact statement but is that the kind of thing you can
find out actually, who is responsible for every aspect and phase, so
you can just give the answer, so we can know who to go to, to get the
answers. Well, like I say, I don't know the, how far an EIS can go,
but if not, can an environmental impact statement or an environmental
impact statement (unclear) just tell me just who in the City of Kent
is responsible, and just what they can require of a builder and the
lack of an ability to control a private developer definitely affects
our community. So, I would hope there would be something that could
come out in the environmental impact statement, the responsible ...;
paities within the City of Kent, (unclear) mention to that. They
mentioned a stop light at 112th, 240th as though that's going to be,
hey we're taking care of a problem. The fact is that's going to make
the situation worse only because now there ' s a lot of traffic by the
school that goes down to 216th to use the stop light there and
(unclear) oh, wow, this is great, fantastic, now they can use the stop
light here. They are going to attract out of area traffic down 112th
that now bypasses us so we will not only have all the condo traffic
but will have all the traffic that exists right now and then out of
area traffic that is attract to a stop light plus people that go down
240th, they get caught behind traffic, go, wow, hey, I 'm going to get
out of here and they will be attracted down, back ways to get home. I
think it's going to make the traffic worse. He mentioned something
that instead of having 20 homes, you had 76 units, you would only have
about 15 more trips during peak hour and I would just like to know
what school he learned that two plus two is five. An environmental
impact statement now could have saved all these things, at least I
would think so. We would have the answers now. I 'm appalled that a
development of this magnitude isn't required, up front, to do
something like that. What is a no-protest LID? Does that mean that
if a certain percentage of the homeowners say, o.k. we' ll do it, and
only a couple opposed or is that nobody opposes and by the way, on
this (unclear) , there are only two or three homeowners but there are
large sections of land they are on, so are they going to bear the
cost, no matter how much hundred of thousands of dollars it costs to
put in the sidewalks, etc. But, they obviously can't afford it and
for that matter, I 'm not sure that the entire Kent Vista can. It's J
isn't like we have a lot of homeowners to share this cost with, plus,
the people that are making a profit on this, the developer, are the
ones that are causing the impact. I don't understand why it is, that
they should be the one' s sharing the cost when in fact, the values,
people doing articles, I didn't bring them, wished I had, some of it,
in fact, (unclear) the City, or the (unclear) , the people, the
developers ought to share more of the costs and one last thing is that
the City of Kent, I understand, can require the developer to make
improvements but they may be off-site. In fact, they might be miles
away. How, do we know that, in fact, the improvements that they do
require of this developer would be for our community, that we won't
30
l
` Hearing Examiner Minutes
-- Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
i have our impacts lessened. I noticed, for instance, that on the
(unclear) division, which is right down the street, they are saying,
well, he can go ahead and he can. . .we might require that they put
sidewalks in or improve the street or whatever, or they give the
option of improving a place two or three miles away. So, how do we
•- know about what's happening in Kent, that, in fact, we have problems
but one of the outs they are giving us is, you can add to the
' corridor, and that' s going to be called the 228th corridor or
A � something like that. That's great for whoever lives two or three
miles away but that doesn't the impact here but apparently would
1 satisfy the legal requirement. Maybe be stuck without (unclear) as
mentioned. But, I guess, you said, the gentleman over here, said that
thAs is all a matter of zoning, this entire meeting is a matter of
zoning. We were told at the very beginning that this is simply not an
environmental impact statement. We have been told, that in fact, that
this meeting was accomplishing the zoning whether, we can bet it would
be a little bit differently. So. . .
VanDerbeek: No, no, no. You are misscharacterizing the testimony.
The issue is, at this hearing, and the only issue is, whether or not,
what are the environmental impacts associated with the recommended
zoning proposed in the annexation proceeding and whether those impacts
require an environmental impact statement. This is not a hearing that
has anything to do with the actual zoning.
Da ue: I misunderstood his remarks, and I apologize for that. But,
also, and I 'm not sure if this is the place. I guess I will ask it
` and maybe it will be answered somewhere else. _ Is there anything that
we can do, at this point, to keep it single family or to make it
single family? I guess interim is single family zoning, so can we
keep it single family. And, also, there was a meeting that we were
at, you presided over on December 16 and I don't know what things we
could have done, since we missed your meeting, we didn't know about
it. I don't know what else we could have done besides what we are
doing here. But, I know that we went to the Planning Department and
said that we missed the meeting, didn't know about it, what can we do,
is there anything we can do? And, we were told we can go to the City
Council meetings, and about the only other thing we can do, when they
come up. The only other thing we can do is to file a SEPA appeal. If
there are other remedies, we were not informed even though we asked.
I will say they seemed to bend over backwards to discourage us from
filing it. But, just, upon us, it was a waste of time and that we've
never had it done before and, if, (unclear) is when I called up the
first time, the Planning Department, to find out what was going on
here and I found out the first time, I said what does this all mean
and I was told that it means he can build single family homes and I
said that's good, I like single family homes and I thought about it,
and I thought, well, I better ask, is that all he can build, and I was
told he could build duplexes if he wanted to. . .
31
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
VanDerbeek: What possible relevancy does what you were told by the
Planning Department have to this hearing, by the Planning Department.
Dague: A lack of judgment, I should have had an environmental impact
statement. If I can't trust them in one area, I can't them to use
good judgment to say a checklist was enough. I was eventually told,
when I asked, that they could, the fact that condos were proposed. T
VanDerbeek: All right, any further comments in rebuttal.
Dague: I have no further testimony, thank you.
VanDerbeek: All right, thank you. Mr. Tuttle did you have any
response.
Tuttle: (Unclear) . I 'm Warren Tuttle, and the Planning Director was
..a
talking about basically he pushed off the issues we brought up
basically about the safety of the roads and the water problems. Hey,
those are real. They got to be attended to before. We as citizens,
you know, the way I feel, he says, that' s their department or another
department, o.k. What recourse do we have, he says, at the time we
give the permits, that' s when we are going to make the decisions but
the Engineering doesn't realize, I 'm sure they realize, though, that
he said an additional 15 trips per day, o.k. , how do you take 70 unit
and only get 15 additional trips, o.k. 15 people out and 15 in, that' s
30 trips per day. That road, through which I 've looked through the
files, has an average of 2 , 100 trips per day on that narrow road, it's
in the file.
VanDerbeek: I know, I heard the testimony to be 15 additional p.m.
peak hour trips per day. In other words, during the afternoon peak
hour trips 15 additional. . .
Tuttle: How do you get that out of a proposed 70 units, I mean 15
trips.
VanDerbeek: That was the testimony.
Tuttle: That's what I 'm trying to say, it doesn't add up. O.k. , and
as far as the impact, on, like the hydrology, o.k. Now, I 've looked
at pictures of the LeBlanc area which are in the file which are
slides, o.k. It shows downed trees. Everyone that lives in that area
knows that' s hardpanned. My trees in my yard are not very deeply
rooted. What's to say when they put apartments in there, how do we
know how deeply rooted these trees that they have in there are now.
The picture show that there are already fallen trees in there.
Granted, that some of the trees have been there 40 years, o.k. But if
they put additional condominiums and things in there, whose to say
those trees are going to stay there, whose to say they are going to
fall. How do we know. I know that the Planning Department's
32 _
I Hearing Examiner Minutes
••- Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
explanation weren't very well at all. Because the buildings are
planned, they are saying that at a future date, that they may come and
do this. Now, Mr. Dague talked about a petition and the signatures,
o.k. Originally, they had it so that 236th, if you look at that plan,
who go through, o.k. It seems to me that to appease these people on
the King County side, they decided o.k. they aren't going to put 236th
through, o.k. And we see that on the plans, whatever, contemporary
plans, whatever they call it, that road doesn't go through anymore, so
everything comes out onto 112th. So, I feel that the issues here are
being evaded by the Planning Department, that there should be a
statement (unclear) made. Because, you know, especially with the
trees on there, we don't know how deeply rooted they are, you may not
be-. able to build on there, you might not be able to save any of those
trees. And, I 'm not saying, the Engineer was talking about the
roadway, he says that County, am I correct, is that what he said.
VanDerbeek: That's not what I heard.
Tuttle: Because I going to say, how could it be both City limits on
both sides and the road still be County. Now, when he talked about
County roads by Park Orchard. Now, Park Orchard has a walkway coming
through their driveway, through the access, they made one. It' s
asphalted, they've taken and put little blocks so the kids can walk
through. Now, on the other side of Park Orchard where he's saying
there's not sidewalks, there are sections of sidewalks in Park Orchard
and there is allowable walkway where there isn't on 112th. So, I
feel, you know, can't say the County hasn't done anything why should
` they do anything but there is room on the County side for the children
to walk and be off the road. That's all I have.
VanDerbeek: All right, thank you for your testimony. No additional
rebuttal testimony from the public is permitted on the SEPA appeal.
All right, at this time I will close the public hearing with respect
to File #AP-88-1. I will issue written findings of facts and
conclusions of law and decision with respect to this appeal within 14
calendar days from today' s date but I believe there may be a City
holiday in there, I don't know whether or not that will affect the
' time schedule but the secretary is nodding her head affirmatively, so
it may but in any event I will issue written findings and decision on
this matter as well as a recommendation to the City Council on the
LeBlanc Annexation. I will indicate that the Rule of Ex Parte
Communication strictly prohibits my conversing with anyone or
_ receiving any information in any manner concerning the hearing outside
of the record. Because everyone has the right to hear all of the
testimony and so I would strongly discourage anyone from approaching
me after the hearing and attempting to tell me anything because after
sitting here for several hours and the other LeBlanc hearing I would
hate to have to disqualify myself so that we would have to start back
at the beginning so I would remind audience about the Rule of Ex Parte
Communication. Thank you for appearing.
33
[ KENT PLANNING AGENCY
STAFF REPORT
FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF
( FILE NO: #AP-88-1 LEBLANC SEPA APPEAL
r REOUEST: An appeal of the Determination of
11 Nonsignificance for the LeBlanc Annexation
Initial Zoning #ENV-87-101.
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE: LIN BALL/GREG MCCORMICK
l
E. GENERAL INFORMATION
( A. Determination of Nonsignificance
On December 11, 1987, a Determination of Nonsignificance
(DNS) was issued for the initial zoning of the LeBlanc
Annexation area. The Planning Department staff recommended
that the 5. 85 acre area known as the LeBlanc Gardens be zoned
IMRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential, with a maximum
density of 12 units per acre and the remainder of the
annexation area be zoned R1-9 . 6, Single Family Residential
(approximately ten acres) .
The Planning Director concurred with the staff
recommendations and a DNS was issued by the Director under
his authority as SEPA Responsible Official for the City of
Kent.
Dennis M. Dague whose address is 11218 SE 234th Place and
Warren J. Tuttle whose address is 11208 SE 235th Place, have
filed an appeal of the DNS. This appeal was made on
January 4 , 1988, within the time frame for appeals as set
forth in Chapter 12. 12 A, Kent City Code, Section 520,
Appeals.
The SEPA threshold determination was made following WAC 197-
11-330, Threshold Determination Process.
B. Location
- The LeBlanc Annexation area is located south of SE 232nd
Street and west of 112th Avenue SE and is approximately 15
acres in size.
1
Staff Report
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
II. HISTORY
In July 1984, Land America Corporation representing Leo LeBlanc,
requested an amendment to the East Hill Plan Map for the LeBlanc
Gardens area from SF 4, Single Family 4 to 6 units per acre to MF
12 , Multifamily Family 7 to 12 units per acre. Mr. LeBlanc Is
intention was to develop this area in a PUD or cluster type of
development rather than single family in an effort to preserve as
many of the unique trees in the gardens area as possible.
The City of Kent Planning Commission held public hearings on
January 15, 1985 and February 26, 1985 to consider the East Hill
Plan Map amendment requested by Mr. LeBlanc. At the February 26
meeting, the Planning Commission passed a motion unanimously to
recommend approval of the requested change to the City council .
On March 18, 1985, the City Council considered the requested plan ?
map amendment and passed a motion approving the requested change.
On April 1, 1985, the city Council adopted Resolution #1051
amending the East Hill Plan Map.
In June 1987, Ordinance #2727 was passed annexing into the City of
Kent a 15-acre area known as the LeBlanc annexation. The newly
annexed land was given an interim zoning designation of R1-20,
Single Family Residential, minimum lot size of 20, 000 square feet,
until such time as the Hearing Examiner and City Council establish
the initial zoning for the newly annexed land. As part of the
initial zoning process, an environmental checklist was completed
by the City. The initial zoning is considered under SEPA (WAC
197-11-704 2bii) to be a nonproject action. A nonproject action
involves decisions on policies, plans, or programs as opposed to a
project action which deals with a specific project.
s
III. NATURE OF APPEAL
The Kent Planning Department received on January 4, 1988, an
appeal and on January 5, 1988 , an addendum to the original appeal
of the DNS issued for the initial zoning of the LeBlanc annexation
area. The appeal submitted by Dennis Dague and Warren Tuttle
addresses several issues relating to the SEPA review and the
development of the LeBlanc Gardens area. Also submitted with the
appeal was a petition with several signatures of persons concerned
about the development of the LeBlanc Gardens site. These
signatures have not been verified, but a review of the addresses
indicate that the petitioners are both City and County residents
in the vicinity.
The following is a discussion of the issues raised in the SEPA
appeal and Planning Department comment on each issue.
2
�( Staff Report
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
1. Appellants request that none of the LeBlanc Annexation area
be zoned for multifamily development.
Planning Department Comment
This issue raised by the appellants is not related to the SEPA
process and should be addressed during the initial zoning hearing
process. The SEPA Ordinance #2494 adopted by the City allows for
procedural appeals (Section 12 . 12 A.520.A2al) of the SEPA process.
This issue does not appear to be related to procedural matters.
2 . The appellants request that a Traffic Impact Study be
completed for City, SEPA, plus public review prior to
issuance of a Determination of Nonsignificance.
-� Planning Department Comment
The initial zoning is considered a nonproject action under SEPA.
Requiring a traffic study at this point in time would be
-- premature. The appropriate time to require this sort of
information would be when an environmental checklist is submitted
for a site specific plan for a development on the property in
question. This will allow for the most accurate evaluation of the
traffic impacts as they relate to a specific development. A
complete and thorough assessment of both pedestrian and vehicular
traffic needs is not only inappropriate at the nonproject stage,
but also impossible without specific plans.
3 . The appellants request that a Tree and Vegetation Plan be
submitted for City, SEPA and public review for the LeBlanc
Gardens area.
w Planning Department Comment
Prior to recommending the initial zoning, the Kent Planning
Department required that a conceptual site plan for the proposed
condominium project be submitted addressing the preservation of
trees and vegetation. That plan was submitted and displayed at
the public hearing held on December 16, 1987.
As mentioned earlier, since the initial zoning of the property is
a nonproject action under SEPA, it is not appropriate to require a
W site specific tree plan to review as part of the SEPA process.
The City staff does recognize the importance of preservation of
some of the significant trees on the site because of their age and
species. The Zoning Code contains regulations governing the
preservation of trees. In order to strengthen the Ordinance in
this situation, the DNS issued for this initial zoning did contain
a condition that a tree plan must be submitted prior to
development of the LeBlanc Gardens property. This plan must
maximize the preservation of significant trees. The tree
3
Staff Report
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
preservation issue would be addressed again during the SEPA review
for a specific project and during the development plan review
process.
4. The appellants request written plans showing how and when
environmental impacts will be mitigated and how mitigation 1
measures will be financed.
Planning Department Comment
Again, this request is premature. At such time as an
environmental checklist is submitted for a site specific I
development plan, the impacts can be identified and mitigation �l
measures established for the identified impacts.
Z
5. The appellants request that an Environmental Impact Study be 1
completed for the proposed condominiums.
Planning Department Comment
Assuming the appellants are referring to requiring an Environment
Impact Statement (EIS) , this would not be the proper time to
require an EIS for a conceptual project. The initial zoning '
proposed by the City staff is in conformance with the City' s East
Hill Subarea Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
When a checklist is submitted for the condominiums, the
environmental issues of that checklist will be reviewed and a
determination will be made on the probable impacts of the project
at that time. If it is determined that there are significant
adverse environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated, an EIS
will be required.
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT i
January 25, 1988
..L
4
i - CITY Of TENT
00
planning
By
W y
...... • N O W IU
m Y,
e• ryl n
j , 222HD ST ST 2 n
� 515
W
w I N W r6
' i BE 223RD
O W W
s B BE 224TH ST^ i PD - ` ' ua -T �^N W. "t
18 17 BE 224TH _ pA^ ^223RO
v tI rvP PL N •• 'Y SE M PL
SE2251X • n �224TH Y BE 225TH
g1 w
E STH y N
1 , 1..iv.LL r1l BE 225TH p M N .N. >
n
1 BEwW226TH ST m o6 `\•\\^< ^ < ,�ii i
A
.' 3 22eTH r <N BE nuwi mF,
227TM!T <
E ( BE 226TH ST BE 220TH
N 1
' BE 229T b W �O SE 29ST
W N 6aJy TXo W. I
PL qv.
1+ b4 BE 230 H
E BE 231ST I BE 'LS <v' ST \
ri S 231ST ST \ F• ,), SE 23IST SPARK RCHA
v' ST (Pv0 230TH� O.(� ST IN ■SCE LTARY
3 232ND I < PL. - 'Pf 232ND ST ow
1-1 ST S 232ND BE 232ND ST w BE -.< E232ND '
-I !T BE 232ND PL 232ND =. S w $x PL
�7 •�.:, G A,y BE 237R0 P( f ?' G
re >.• •t• ar ' z
N •. 3• y f• = STH'�1 J SF•.b1� r !F
I w �09 oaM1 T 235 TN w234
j S 236TX N N.ai o'0 BE 236TH ST AY ST Fim
W O
I ` I SE 236TN PL N w
y w 9 FN W
SE 237TX ST > P WO1/2 '
Kiasa. - Xa =�YO OSGcL NeservD�• ;
i 1ii. N o` E238TH y Anne><tt,+i
BE 239TH \ STST
8
p N
t it PL z
= a ,18 17 >
ST w T BE IOTH ST -
N y
4 2E1ST ST ¢ PPO OuYU EAST HILL
ELEMENTARY
m SCHOOL '
1 � 3
'^ S 2.12NDQ
ST N
S 243RD
ST 1 f N
BE 2e4TH i ST
W p N
m
> F. N
Fm I -• L
1 w
N
I S 2e6TH
F W
PL
a K S 248TH ST BE v' 2/8TH ST
I N
W I W
<
•i� �-1 F
APPLICATION LeBlanc SEPA Appeal LEGEND.
NUMBER--8AP-88-1 DATE--February 3, 1988,
application silo �IlZd
REQUEST--SEPA Appeal
VICINTY MAP city limits — —
Scale— 1":1,000'
i
1
CITY 6F KENT
planning;
; � _ , a
L- {[��_ � ` �
a
J +t M O 1 232 0
u n
1.
o
r -yy 6
F?- S.E. 231
.
' ' 7
g _ o .
t) U� S.E. 233TH ST.
2}
1 1�/ f
t�V S. \� � 233T1
V 1
^m � I
_ - .
= I
77)
APPLICATION NAME LeBlanc SEPA Appeal LEGEND:
NUMBER--pAP-88-1 DATE--February 3, 1988 application Slfa
REQUEST--SEPA Appeal Zoning *Rdarym
TOPO/ZONING City limits I
Scale = 1":200'
( CITY OF KENT
! OFFICE OF THE
LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
IN RE THE MATTER OF )
ORDER EXTENDING TIME
LEBLANC SEPA APPEAL )
#AP-88-1 )
AND )
,..� LEBLANC ANNEXATION )
#AZ-87-5 )
THIS MATTER having come on regularly for public hearing
before the undersigned Hearing Examiner on February 3, 1988 and
December 16, 1987 , respectively and the undersigned, having
reviewed the record and file herein and deeming herself fully
advised, it is now, HEREBY,
ORDERED that the time for consideration of this SEPA appeal
and annexation request shall be extended and the undersigned
shall issue a written decision and recommendation, respectively,
concerning the same * on or before February 24 , ' 1988 . This
extension is pursuant to the authority granted the undersigned in
City of Kent Ordinance #2233 .
Dated this 17th day of February, 1988 .
4DANE VANDERBEEK
Hearing Examiner
CITY OF KENT
OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER _
IN RE )
ORDER REVISING
LEBLANC ANNEXATION ) CONDITIONS
#AZ-87-5 ) ""
THIS MATTER having come on regularly for public hearing
before the undersigned Hearing Examiner on December 16, 1987 , and
the undersigned having received the request for reconsideration _
in a timely manner, having reviewed the record and the file
herein, and deeming herself fully advised, it is now, HEREBY,
ORDERED that the condition requested is reasonable and
attached herewith as though set forth in full is the revised
Findings and Recommendation of the undersigned showing the added
condition as underlined.
Dated this 23rd day of March, 1988 .
D ANE L. VANDERBEEK
Hearing Examiner
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
( OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT
FILE NO: LEBLANC ANNEXATION #AZ-87-5
APPLICANT: CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1 REOUEST: A request to set the initial zoning on approximately 15
J acres of land.
LOCATION: The property is located south of SE 232nd Street, east
of 112th Avenue SE.
APPLICATION FILED: June 15, 1987
`~ ^EC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE: December 11, 1987
HEARING DATE: December 16, 1987
RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: February 24 , 1988
March 23 , 1988 revised conditions
~Y RECOMMENDATION: Recommended zoning for the LeBlanc
Gardens area is MRG, Garden Density
Multifamily Residential, 12 units per
acre. The recommended zoning for the
remainder of the site is R1-9. 6, Single
Family Residential, minimum lot size of
_- 9, 600 square feet.
STAFF REPRESENTATIVES: Kathy McClung, Planning Department
Greg McCormick, Planning Department
w Ken Morris, Public Works Department
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Bill Kreager
Robert Thomas
Carl Ricketts
Monte Marchetti
Jeff Garrett
Ernest Stowe
WRITTEN TESTIMONY: Carl Ricketts
R. M. Thomas
Judith M. Redding
Jeff & Shirley Garrett
INTRODUCTION
After due consideration of the evidence presented by the applicant,
all evidence elicited during the public hearing, and as a result of
the personal inspection of the subject property by the Hearing
Examiner, the following findings of fact and conclusions shall
constitute the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner on this
application.
.. 1
Findings and Recommendation
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
FINDINGS OF FACT i
1. The City of Kent Planning Department requests the undersigned to
recommend initial zoning on approximately fifteen acres of land _r
which was annexed to the City of Kent in June 1987 .
2 . The subject site is approximately 15 acres in size and is located
south of SE 232nd Street and east of 112th Avenue SE.
3 . The site is currently zoned R1-20, Single Family Residential.
This is an interim zoning designation assigned to all newly -�
annexed land until such time as the Hearing Examiner and City
Council establish initial zoning for newly annexed areas.
4 . The Planning staff is recommending that the area known as LeBlanc
Gardens which is approximately 5. 85 acres in size be zoned MRG,
Garden Density Multifamily Residential , with a maximum density of
12 units per acre. The remainder of the annexation area, or 9 . 15
acres, is recommended to be zoned R1-9. 6, Single Family
Residential.
5. The East Hill Plan Map designates the LeBlanc Gardens area as MF
12 , Multifamily 7-12 ' units per acre. The remainder of the
annexation area is designated as SF 6, Single Family Residential ,
4-6 units per acre.
6. The southern portion of the subject site is known as LeBlanc
Gardens. The evidence establishes that the LeBlanc family has L
owned the subject property for over 40 years. This site was
developed as botanical gardens over 45 years ago when several
grooves of trees unique to the Puget Sound region were planted
here. Accordingly, since the site has gained national attention
for its garden and landscaping, the limitation of residential
density on the site would make it possible to preserve as many of
the unique botanical features of the site as possible.
7 . The northern portion of the site is single family residential on
large lots with the exception of the northern most parcel which
is developed as a church.
8. Prior to the annexation the subject site was zoned SR 7200 in
King County. This is a density of six units per acre maximum
with actual density depending upon the availability of such
services as water, sewer, paved streets and sidewalks that are
available or could be provided to the subject site. L
9 . At the time of the public hearing, numerous residents from the
vicinity appeared to express concern with respect to the uses
which would be permitted on the newly annexed land.
2
� c �
Findings and Recommendation
LeBlanc Annexation
I #AZ-87-5
1 10. Concerns were expressed with respect to tree preservation,
pedestrian safety, inadequacy of 112th Street for additional
traffic and pedestrian safety, and the need to protect single
family neighborhoods from encroachment by more multiple family
1 development.
11. Additionally, concern was expressed with respect to the safety of
children who frequently walk to and from the adjacent elementary
school and are enrolled in the day care at 240th and 112th
Street.
12 . Further, the residents expressed concern with respect to the
affect which building will have upon the old tree root systems
which might be weakened by buildings being placed immediately
adjacent to them.
13 . With respect to adjacent land uses the evidence establishes that
Park Orchard subdivision, located in King County, lies to the
west of the site. The Park Orchard area is zoned SR 7200 and
lots in the development range from 7, 200 to 7, 500 square feet.
This neighborhood currently has a density of approximately six
units per acre. To the northeast of the site the Eastridge
subdivision exists with a density similar to that of Park
Orchard. Land to the south has been developed with multifamily
uses including Kings Place and Kenton Ridge apartments. These
areas are developed at a density of approximately 20 units per
acre. Commercial uses exist to the south and west of the
property. There is a commercial area at the intersection of
104th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street.
14 . Although the residents who live in the vicinity expressed some
concern with respect to storm water runoff, Planning staff
indicates that there are no apparent flood control problems on
the site.
15. The subject property is bordered on three sides by predominantly
single-family residential uses. In addition, 112th Avenue SE to
the west of the subject site is classified as a residential
collector. Development on the subject site will generate
considerable traffic. Traffic impacts associated with future
development on the site will need to be exactly determined and
mitigated once the applicant submits a final site plan.
16. The staff report, with its recommendation that the LeBlanc
Gardens area be designated MRG, Garden Density Multifamily
_ Residential, with the remainder of the annexation area be
designated R1-9. 6, Single Family Residential, is incorporated
herein by reference as though set forth in full.
3
Findings and Recommendation
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
CONCLUSIONS
1. The City of Kent Zoning Code gives the undersigned no discretion
with respect to recommendation for zoning on newly annexed land.
Specifically, Kent Zoning Code Section 15. 09. 055 D indicates "the
decision of the Hearing Examiner shall be limited to recommending
initial zoning designations which are consistent with the current
Comprehensive Plan" .
2 . For reasons which are entirely unclear to the undersigned, the
Comprehensive Plan and the East Hill subarea Plan were amended in
April 1985 to designate portions of the subject property from
single family, 4-6 units per acre, to multifamily, 7-12 units per
acre.
3 . Considering the proximity of single family uses on three sides of
the subject site, it is difficult to ascertain why the currently
existing Comprehensive Plan designates portions of the site as
multifamily.
4. However, given the total absence of discretion granted the
undersigned in annexation hearings, I am mandated to recommend
initial zoning consistent with the currently existing
Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
For each of the above reasons, the recommendation of the Hearing f
Examiner for initial zoning on the LeBlanc Annexation area is that the Z
LeBlanc Gardens area be designated MRG, Garden Density Multifamily, 12
units per acre. The remainder of the annexation area should be
designated R1-9. 6, Single Family Residential, with a minimum lot size
of 9, 600 square feet with the following condition:
1. If the applicant makes a significant change to the conceptual
site plan, the initial zoning designation on the newly annexed
land should be brought back to the Hearing Examiner for review.
For purposes of this condition, a significant change include, but
shall not limited to:
a. A landscape buffer of less than 30 feet,
b. Different size or configuration of buildings on the site,
and, or
C. Different percentage of site coverage.
2 . The owners of property adiacent to 112th Avenue SE shall deed to
the City of Kent sufficient Property for street purposes such
that 30 feet of right of way exists as measured from the
4
w� Findings and Recommendation
LeBlanc Annexation
T #AZ-87-5
north/south centerline of the southeast quarter of Section 17 ,
Township 22 , Range 5 W.M.
T
I
Dated this 23rd day of March, 1988.
D NE 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
.w 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.
w•-
5
C �
CITY OF
March 9 , 1988
11 CTk
Ms. Diane L. VanDerbeek
Suite 312 Key Bank Building
10655 NE Fourth Street
Bellevue, WA 98004 1
RE: LeBlanc Annexation #AZ-87-5
Request for Reconsideration
Dear Ms. VanDerbeek:
In your Findings and Recommendation for the LeBlanc Annexation
Zoning #AZ-87-5, the following condition was not included. This
was a condition the staff had recommended as part of an addendum
to the staff report:
The owners of property adjacent to 112th Avenue SE
shall deed to the City of Kent, sufficient property for
street purposes such that 30 feet of right of way
exists as measured from the north/south centerline of
the southeast quarter of Section 17 , Township 22 ,
Range 5 W.M.
Please reconsider this condition and add it to your Findings.
Sincerely,
i
Kathy McClung
Senior Planner
KM:ch
cc: Public Works Department
.10
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT
FILE NO: LEBLANC ANNEXATION #AZ-87-5
APPLICANT: CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
REOUEST: A request to set the initial zoning on approximately 15
acres of land.
LOCATION: The property is located south of SE 232nd Street, east
of 112th Avenue SE.
APPLICATION FILED: June 15, 1987
DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE: December 11, 1987
HEARING DATE: December 16, 1987
RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: February 17, 1988
RECOMMENDATION: Recommended zoning for the LeBlanc
Gardens area is MRG, Garden Density
Multifamily Residential, 12 units per
acre. The recommended zoning for the
remainder of the site is R1-9 . 6, Single
Family Residential, minimum lot size of
9 , 600 square feet.
-- STAFF REPRESENTATIVES: Kathy McClung, Planning Department
Greg McCormick, Planning Department
Ken Morris, Public Works Department
' PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Bill Kreager
Robert Thomas
Carl Ricketts
Monte Marchetti
Jeff Garrett
Ernest Stowe
WRITTEN TESTIMONY: Carl Ricketts
R. M. Thomas
Judith M. Redding
"`- Jeff & Shirley Garrett
INTRODUCTION
After due consideration of the evidence presented by the applicant,
_ all evidence elicited during the public hearing, and as a result of
the personal inspection of the subject property by the Hearing
Examiner, the following findings of fact and conclusions shall
constitute the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner on this
application.
1
r( Findings and Recommendation
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
.t FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The City of Kent Planning Department requests the undersigned to
recommend initial zoning on approximately fifteen acres of land
which was annexed to the City of Kent in June 1987 .
2 . The subject site is approximately 15 acres in size and is located
south of SE 232nd Street and east of 112th Avenue SE.
3 . The site is currently zoned R1-20, Single , Family Residential.
This is an interim zoning designation assigned to all newly
annexed land until such time as the Hearing Examiner and City
s Council establish initial zoning for newly annexed areas.
4 . The Planning staff is recommending that the area known as LeBlanc
Gardens which is approximately 5.85 acres in size be zoned MRG,
Garden Density Multifamily Residential, with a maximum density of
I12 units per acre. The remainder of the annexation area, or 9. 15
acres, is recommended to be zoned R1-9.6, Single Family
Residential.
1
5. The East Hill Plan Map designates the LeBlanc Gardens area as MF
12 , Multifamily 7-12 units per acre. The remainder of the
annexation area is designated as SF 6, Single Family Residential,
4-6 units per acre.
6. The southern portion of the subject site is known as LeBlanc
Gardens. The evidence establishes that the LeBlanc family has
_w owned the subject property for over 40 years. This site was
developed as botanical gardens over 45 years ago when several
grooves of trees unique to the Puget Sound region were planted
here. Accordingly, since the site has gained national attention
for its garden and landscaping, the limitation of residential
density on the site would make it possible to preserve as many of
the unique botanical features of the site as possible.
7 . The northern portion of the site is single family residential on
large lots with the exception of the northern most parcel which
w..
is developed as a church.
8 . Prior to the annexation the subject site was zoned SR 7200 in
King County. This is a density of six units per acre maximum
with actual density depending upon the availability of such
services as water, sewer, paved streets and sidewalks that are
available or could be provided to the subject site.
9. At the time of the public hearing, numerous residents from the
vicinity appeared to express concern with respect to the uses
which would be permitted on the newly annexed land.
2
f � -
Findings and Recommendation
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
10. Concerns were expressed with respect to tree preservation,
pedestrian safety, inadequacy of 112th Street for additional
traffic and pedestrian safety, and the need to protect single
family neighborhoods from encroachment by more multiple family
development.
11. Additionally, concern was e4pr,essed with respect to the safety of
children who frequently walk to and from the adjacent elementary
school and are enrolled in the day care at 240th and 112th
Street.
12 . Further, the residents expressed concern with respect to the
affect which building will have upon the old tree root systems -
which might be weakened by buildings being placed immediately
adjacent 'to them.
13 . With respect to adjacent land uses the evidence establishes that
Park Orchard subdivision, located in King County, lies to the
west of the site. The Park Orchard area is zoned SR 7200 and
lots in the development range from 7 , 200 to 7, 500 square feet.
This neighborhood currently has a density of approximately six
units per acre. To the northeast of the site the Eastridge
subdivision exists with a density similar to that of Park
Orchard. Land to the south has been developed with multifamily
uses including Kings Place and Kenton Ridge apartments. These
areas are developed at a density of approximately 20 units per
acre. commercial uses exist to the south and west of the
property. There is a commercial area at the intersection of
104th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street.
14 . Although the residents who live in the vicinity expressed some
concern with respect to storm water runoff, Planning staff
indicates that there are no apparent flood control problems on _
the site.
15. The subject property is bordered on three sides by 'predominantly
single-family residential uses. In addition, 112th Avenue SE to
the west of the subject site is classified as a residential
collector. Development on the subject site will generate
considerable traffic. Traffic impacts associated with future -�
development on the site will need to be exactly determined and
mitigated once the applicant submits a final site plan.
16. The staff report, with its recommendation that the LeBlanc
Gardens area be designated MRG, Garden Density Multifamily
Residential, with the remainder of the annexation area be
designated R1-9 . 6, Single Family Residential, is incorporated
herein by reference as though set forth in full .
3
Findings and Recommendation I
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 ,
Dated this 24th day of February, 1988 . [
1
DIANE VANDERBEEK, HEARING EXAMINER f
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 i
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.
l
L
`L
5
CITY OF ( JCM
planning
1 • rt
q
IT-
Singlem �, o
Family
I • r �
1 s - /+
_
7
LO
�[`. `^JX(�.�.' �G7`! LeBlanc//PrJ,ol�perty , El .
., QD
Kent City Limits C3
7C�] Single`-
j O
Family
Multifamily \ 1• O11
L [
I
t
. I
::❑
0
I � Cld 1
o
_ S.E. 240th Street y
e) r
(5 7 .
(31(31 II l+ 1(�\
APPLICATION Name LE BLANC GARDENS LEGEND
__. Number Date 12/18 84 application site ---
Request COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE zoning boundary uuunu
city limns
SCALE = 1":200'
CITY OF KENT
01
planning : .
_ L1 `i 0
a O 232 D fl ry '.
'9
c
�CLI cl
`
r.
" Rl— 60(L
r`fJYJ
233 ,
V o
_} S.E. 233TH ST.O _...
2' ' 'lI•��� �� 1 `4 C ' I
c \ l
MRG Garden De sit
' \(�\ f
S.E. `��./� � 235T1
A m � I
,
r ,c1 YJ
HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDAT
APPLICATION Name IP e�ANr LEGEND
Number—A7-A7_1 pale —11/4IA7 application
8equesl ANNFXATION ZONING toning boundary _--
TOPO/ZONING clly limils
SCALE = 1":200-
J CITY OF KENT
OFFICE OF THE
LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
_I IN RE THE MATTER OF )
t LEBLANC ANNEXATION )
ORDER EXTENDING TIME
#AZ-87-5 )
THIS MATTER having come on regularly for public hearing
before the undersigned Hearing Examiner on December 16, 1987 with
the public hearing held open for further information until
December 23 , 1987 .
FURTHER, on January 5, 1988, a Request for Appeal on the
SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance issued December 11, 1987 ,
was filed and the undersigned having reviewed the record and file
herein and deeming herself fully advised, it is now, HEREBY,
ORDERED that the time for consideration of this initial
zoning request shall be extended and the undersigned shall issue
` a written recommendation concerning the same on or before
February 17, 1988 . This extension is issued pursuant to the
authority granted the undersigned in City of Kent Ordinance
#2233 .
Dated this 6th day of January, 1988.
DIANE L. VANDERBEEK
HEARING EXAMINER
_J HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES
December 16, 1987
�.1
The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to
order by the presiding officer, Diane L. VanDerbeek, Hearing
_l Examiner, on Wednesday, December 16, 1987 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 tq 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. I
s _ The December 16, 1987 synopsis minutes for Goodwin Professional
Center #CE-87-6 are separate from the following verbatim minutes
for LeBlanc Annexation #AZ-87-5.
LEBLANC ANNEXATION
#AZ-87-5
The following correspondence was received: Carl Ricketts (two
- letters) , R. M. Thomas (map attached) , Jeff and Shirley Garrett,
and Judith Redding.
(Tape 2) Greg McCormick: Greg McCormick, City Planning Staff.
The LeBlanc Annexation was passed in June 1987 under
Ordinance 2727 and is composed of approximately 15 acres. Staff
recommends that the area known as LeBlanc Gardens, which is
" approximately 5.85 acres in size, to be zoned MRG, Garden Density
Multifamily Residential, with a maximum density of 12 units per
acre. The remainder of the annexation area or--which comprises
9. 15 acres is recommended to be zoned R1-9 .6, Single Family
Residential. Currently, this land is under an interim zoning
designation of R1-20, Single Family Residential, with minimum lot
size of 20, 000 square feet. The interim zoning is in effect until
the Hearing Examiner and City Council hold the required public
hearings and establishes the initial zoning for the newly annexed
area. The LeBlanc Annexation area is located south of 232nd
` - Street and east of 112th Avenue SE. The property is approximately
15 acres in size.
Zoning in the area includes, to the south of the site, MRM, Medium
Density Multifamily Residential, with a 23-unit per acre density
and to the east across 112th is R1-7 .2 , Single Family Residential.
The northern most area of this site is developed with a Church and
_ central area of the site is developed with single family
residential on large lots and the southern area has some single
family dwellings and the most of the area is in a botanical
- garden. The LeBlanc family developed this site as a botanical
1
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
garden in the early 19401s. The site has several species of trees y
which are unique to the Puget Sound region. In addition to the i
unique trees several native shrubs and flowers have been planted
making the site a special, natural area worthy of preservation. [
This particular area--this particular site was featured in a story 1
done by Sunset Magazine giving the LeBlanc Gardens national
exposure. , ,
A preliminary site plan submitted on December 4 by the applicant -�
for the LeBlanc Garden area addresses the conservation of the
unique vegetation that exists on the site and we posted that on
the board over here. It's proposed to be a seventy-unit
condominium complex and the trees that are identified on here are
unique in most cases, Copper Beech, Black Pine, Spruce, Spanish
Fir, several Sequoia Redwoods, White and Red Maple and Magnolias
and some other species that are unique.
Staff feels that the MRG, Garden Density Multifamily with a
maximum of 12 units per acre, would allow greater flexibility in
site planning which would result in a larger amount of vegetation
to be preserved on the site. It is understood that the
preliminary site plan was submitted and is conceptual at this
stage. However, staff recommends that if there is substantial
change in the preliminary site plan that has been filed with the
Planning Department that plan should be reviewed and brought back
before the Hearing Examiner. This particular area is a mixture of
multifamily and single family residential with some community
facilities in the form of a church on the north portion, up in
this area, I believe that is the footprint for it, and on the
north side of 232nd is Park Orchard Elementary School. Land uses
to the east of the site is generally single family residential,
small subdivision that enters onto 212th at this point which is to
the northern end of the LeBlanc Garden site and east of, excuse ...L
me, west of the site is the Park Orchard Subdivision and Eastridge
Subdivision to the northeast. These areas provide a majority of
single family development in the area. In addition there are a
number of smaller plats and large lots that have been developed
for single family residential use in the area. Land uses to the
south of this site have been developed with multifamily uses
including Kings Place and Kenton Ridge apartments which are
developed at a density of approximately 20 units per acre. The
core of the commercial area exists at the intersection of 104th
and 240th Street which lies southwest of this site. At this time L
I would like to show a short video of the annexation area.
The video was shown.
As was earlier noted, the LeBlanc Gardens area is noted for its
unique and significant vegetation. The area has been developed as
a botanical garden which includes several species of trees that L
are unique to this region including Catalpa trees, Sequoia
2
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
~ Redwoods, Norway and Colorado Blue Spruce, Spanish Fir, Copper
Beech, White and Red Oak, Japanese Larch, Magnolia and Japanese
Black Pine. Parcels to the north of the evergreen area, I have
some native evergreen and deciduous trees.
The initial zoning was reviewed under the State Environmental
" Policy Act and a mitigated pN$, Declaration of Nonsignificance was
issued on December 11, 1987 for the proposed zoning. The
Comprehensive Plan which was adopted by the City in 1969 addresses
-. a broad range of land use regulations. From the comments received
from the various City departments, the Comprehensive Plan as well
as the East Hill Plan, will be reviewed as it pertains to this
annexation zoning request. Under the City-wide Comprehensive
- Plan, the Natural Environment/Open Space Element, the Overall Goal
being to ensure the preservation of land for a variety of open
space uses within the City of Kent. Goal 1 is to encourage open
space throughout the City. Objective 2 under that goal is to
encourage private development of open space and Policy 2 under
that is to promote the incorporation of open space/natural
elements on existing developments.
The area on the southern portion of the annexation area known as
LeBlanc Gardens, I believe, will be the area that' s going to be
recommended as zoned MRG, 12 units per acre, has been developed
for several years and has been recognized nationally for its
unique and significant vegetation. The northern part of the
annexation site is recommended to be zoned as R1-9 . 6, Single
Family Residential, which requires a 9, 600 square foot single
family residential lots. The MRG designation is to act as a
transition area between the higher density residential to the
`M south and the single family residential to the north and to the
east of the site.
Diane VanDerbeek: Excuse me, is the area that you are
recommending MRG, does that follow the same line as on the East
Hill Plan Map where it's recommended Multiple Family, 4. . .
McCormick: Yes, it follows. . .
Diane VanDerbeek: Also, I think there is, isn't there a
typographical error in the staff report that references the
development to the south of the site as having 201 units per acre,
that's Manhattan.
McCormick: Yes, that should be 20 units per acre. The area known
as LeBlanc Gardens is approximately this area here, in here, and
the area north of that would be the area recommended MRG, excuse
me, R1-9.6 and that's essentially the same, referring to the East
Hill Comp Plan Map. It's the same area under the Comprehensive
Plan that is designated Multifamily MF 12 which is Multifamily 7-
12 units per acre. Under the East Hill Comprehensive Plan the
3
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 '
ry
Human Environment Element the Overall Goal being to enhance,
through good design, aesthetic qualities of the natural and
manmade environment to promote the health, safety and welfare of
the community. Goal 2 being to. . .development that will preserve,
maintain and enhance East Hill's natural and manmade environments.
Objective 1, preserve those natural features which contribute to "
the aesthetic quality and 'rural feeling that exists on the East
Hill i.e. streams, lakes, significant views, tall evergreen trees,
woodlands and pastures. Policy 1, consideration shall be given to
the integration and natural features such as streams, lakes,
views, woodlands and pastures into the design of residential and
commercial development. The recommended zoning designation for
the southern area of the annexation area would allow a clustering
of dwelling units on the site. This would encourage innovative
site plans and integrate as many of the grooves of trees into
future development as possible and, as noted on the site plan, y
many of the significant trees under that plan have been preserved.
This area would also act as a buffer between high density
multifamily developments to the south which range, are in the 20-
unit per acre range to the large lot, single family residential
areas to the northeast and northwest of the project. The subject
site is bordered to the east by 112th Avenue SE which is
classified as a residential collector. The preliminary site plan
does not contemplate the extension of 236th and with this
development that is being proposed, that would not, the extension
of 236th would not be necessary.
The Planning Department has reviewed this proposed zoning in
relation to the Comprehensive Plan, current zoning, land use, z
street system, flood control problems and comments from other
departments and agencies and finds that the Comprehensive Plan
designates the LeBlanc Gardens area as MF-12, Multifamily 7-12 r
units per acre. The remainder of the property in the annexation
area is designated as SF-6, Single Family Residential, it should
be 4-6 units per acre. The property is currently under an interim
zoning designation of R1-20, Single Family Residential which will
remain in effect until such time that the City Council passes the
initial zoning for the property. Land uses adjacent to the
annexation area include to the south, multifamily residential at
approximately 20 units per acre. North, single family residential
on large lots. Further north is the Park Orchard Elementary
School and a church. To the west, single family residential and
to the east, single family residential with some vacant land. The
City has recently adopted amendments to the Zoning Code which
includes standards and criteria to be used by the Hearing Examiner
and City Council to evaluate a request for rezone and that' s
covered under Section 15.09.050 A3 of the Kent Zoning Code.
Staff feels that it is appropriate to use these criteria also when
establishing the initial zoning for newly annexed land. The
4
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
initial zoning should only be established if the City Council and
Hearing Examiner feel that the zoning is consistent with the
following standards and criteria:
1. The proposed zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
2 . The proposed zoning and subsequent development of the site
would be compatible with development in the vicinity.
w 3 . The proposed zoning will not unduly burden the transportation
system in the vicinity of the property with significant
adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated.
S
4 . Circumstances have changed substantially since the
establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the
proposed zoning.
5. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health,
safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of
,.- Kent.
The Planning staff has reviewed the proposed zoning in light of
these criteria and finds that:
1. The Comprehensive Plan designates LeBlanc Garden area as MF-
12, Multifamily Residential 7-12 units per acre. The
remainder of the area is designated SF-6, Single Family
Residential, 4-6 units per acre. The recommended zoning
" would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The lid of,
generally or normally under MRG zoning you are allowed a
density of 16 units per acre. However., to keep in, in
keeping with the Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends that be
limited to 12 units acre. The single family designation to
the north is R1-9 . 6 which works out to be roughly four units
per acre which is also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
designation for the area. The annexation area, as I
mentioned before, is bordered on the south by multifamily on
the north, east and west by predominantly single family and
r" the recommended MRG zone would act as a transition from the
higher density which I believe is or which the MRM allows 23
units per acre but these developments have been developed at
approximately 20 units per acre. It would act as a
transition area from that density to the lower density single
family to the north. The annexation area is bordered on the
west, on the east by 112th Avenue which is classified as a
residential collector. The necessity of street improvements
will be determined at the time of environmental and
development plan review, once the permit process is entered
-- into by the developer of the property. It is anticipated by
5
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
staff that all of the traffic impacts will be able to be
mitigated.
This area was zoned SR, Suburban Residential, under King
County prior to annexation. Staff's position is that if the
MRG designation is given to the LeBlanc Gardens area, the '
increased flexibility inrsite design will result in a greater
number of the unique species of trees being saved on the
site. The zoning recommended for the balance of the area is
comparable to the King County designation prior to
annexation. And, finally, the recommended zoning would not
appear to adversely affect the health, safety or general 1
welfare of the citizens of Kent . The City staff
recommendation is that LeBlanc Gardens area be designated
MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential with 12 units per
acre maximum density and the remainder of the annexation area
be designated R1-9. 6, Single Family Residential, with a
minimum lot size of 9, 600 square feet.
During the course of the environmental review for this annexation
zoning some additional comments were received from the Kent Public
Works Department concerning the transportation system in the area
of the LeBlanc annexation. The Public Works Department is
recommending that the following condition be applied to the
approval of the initial zoning of the property. That prior to or
in conjunction with the development of the property in accordance
with the herein established zoning designation, the owners of
property adjacent to 112th Avenue SE shall deed to the City of
Kent sufficient property for street purposes such that 30 feet of
right of way exists as measured from the north/south centerline of
the southeast quarter of Section 17, T 22 N, R 5 E. , W.M. Can I
answer any questions at this time. 4
VanDerbeek: What, what' s the amount of lot size permitted under
the former County zoning, SR, Suburban Residential? Isn't it
12 , 000 square feet.
McCormick: The answer that I got from the person I talked to at
the County was that it depends on what' s happening there now and
I 'm not really sure what that meant but I asked that question and
that was the response I got. I was under the impression that was
around 10, 000 square feet but I didn't get that answer.
VanDerbeek: You mean that if someone wants to do a development in
King County on, if someone wants to do a subdivision on SR zoned
land, a developer, and they walk into the County and say I have a
piece that's this size, how many lots can I make, the people at
King County are going to say, it depends on what's happening there
now.
6
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
I
McCormick: Well, I 'm under the impression that they have a pretty
flexible zoning ordinance and they have a lot of sub, they have a
lot of classifications that in certain situations you can develop
say, a site to a higher density than would normally be allowed
under that general zoning designation but I 'm not real familiar
with King County code.
VanDerbeek: Well, I think that type of flexibility is for some
sort of plan, what's called a planned unit development but there
must be a minimum lot size.
McCormick: Well, I asked the question and that was the response I
got from the person I talked to at the County.
VanDerbeek: Do you think you could possibly find that out.
-- McCormick: Sure, I could check into it again and see if I can't
get a better answer than that.
VanDerbeek: All right. And the other question I had was with
respect to the area designated that you are recommending for
multiple family zoning, MRG with, yeah, MRG, you are recommending
that there be a limitation of 12 units per acre which is the
maximum density recommended by the East Hill Plan. Why in the
area - to be recommended single family residential are you
recommending at the low end of the density scale as recommended by
the East Hill Plan in other words four units per acre and then on
the multiple family area why are you recommending the developer be
permitted to have the maximum units, number of multiple family
units.
McCormick: Well, under the MRG zone, just the straight MRG zone
you are allowed 16 units per units so actually you are reducing
the net density under that zoning district by four units per acre.
We do not have a zoning designation that exactly matches the
Comprehensive Plan designations so that's why we went with a MRG
._„ with 12 units per acre which also offers a good transition between
the 20 units per acre to the south and the larger lot residential
to the north.
VanDerbeek: Oh, but in other cases, in other cases where staff
has recommending that multiple family zoning be used as a
transition zone and MRG zoning designation is used there has been
a previously recommended a smaller number of units per acre and
I 'm thinking of that zero-lot line development, Walnut Tree or
Park or something wasn't that seven units per acre.
McCormick: I think it was six units per acre. MRG, six units per
acre.
7
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
VanDerbeek: And that's essentially a development pattern which is
somewhat similar to this one in that the neighborhood there on one
side there was intense multiple family development and then on the
other side there was single family development, so what facts are
different here to justify the different density recommendation.
McCormick: Well, I believe, t4at particular development was a zero
lot line development and was more--would have more of a single
family residential appearance with common walls for the residences
this is more of a--it's a condominium type of project and, you
know, different configurations and the density recommended was
felt by staff would be a compromise, not a , compromise, but would
be a happy medium between what's to the south and realizing the
potential for subdividing this particular piece of property into
single family, should it be zoned single family and have the
significant vegetation on the site probably be all but taken down _...
if it was subdivided into single family residential lots.
VanDerbeek: Well, I guess, one of the staff's justifications for
recommending multiple family zoning the site is that there would
be additional flexibility to cluster development to preserve more
of the vegetation which exists on the site but if density were
more strictly limited, wouldn't you preserve more?
McCormick: That' s right you could.
VanDerbeek: For example, the East Hill Plan is recommending
multiple family 7 to 12 units per acre. Well, if you recommended
MRG, seven units per acre then more trees would be left.
McCormick: That's correct, there would probably be more trees
left. But with the design that has been submitted the major areas
of significant trees have been preserved. That was a
consideration that was taken into account when staff recommended
the 12 units per acre was the site design that was submitted. .:
And, the applicant has done a good job of incorporating that
vegetation into a site design and accomplished close to 12 units
per acre.
VanDerbeek: I guess my question is that basically the East Hill
Plan for that particular LeBlanc Gardens area recommends
multifamily 7 to 12 units per acre, so basically we are going 36
units over the minimum number of units recommended in the East
Hill Plan for the southern portion of the site and then you want
to recommend the least density possible for the northern portion
of the site where the single family is recommended. I guess I
don't see the, I don't understand the rationale for that
recommendation.
McCormick: Well, I guess, I 'll just kind of repeat myself. Staff
looked at the site design prior to recommending what the,
8
fHearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
recommending the density for the zoning. The applicant was able
to incorporate the majority of the vegetation which, I think, is
the main issues on this particular piece of property and was able
to incorporate that into the site design to preserve most, if not-
-I won't say all, but most of the significant trees on the site.
The lots to the north run in the area of close to an acre to about
an acre and a half from w)iat I have been able to tell from the
Assessor's map and staff felt that the 9. 6 zoning designation
which requires 9, 600 square feet would probably be less than the
size of many of the lots in the area but compatible with the lot
size in say the subdivision just to the east of the subject site.
t
VanDerbeek: Well, but, but, staff is suggesting that one thing,
" that it's appropriate for me to consider the same standards that
considered for a rezone proposal one of which is impacts on the
transportation system and so, basically, the way I see it that the
density recommended on the southern portion of the site would
result in 36 additional multifamily units and, you know, I can ask
Mr. Morris the number of trips per day for multifamily, I can't
remember it exactly but, you know, there's a conclusionary
statement here that, you know, probably will be able to mitigate-
all the traffic impacts at the time of environmental review and
plan review which is probably true but, I guess, I 'm still not
seeing the justification for 12 units per acre on the southern
portion of the site for that recommendation. But, you already
answered by question twice and if you don't have any other
comments, then I won't put you on the spot any further. Thank
you. Any further testimony from staff. All right at this time I
will hear from the applicant or the applicant's representative.
Bill Kreaaer: Madam Examiner, my name is Bill Kreager. I 'm an
architect and planner with the Mithun, Bowman, Emrich Group and
privileged to work on the LeBlanc Gardens site and it has been a
privilege because it's been a lot of fun. It' s a wonderful site.
Before I get into my plan presentation which is a brief slide
presentation I would like to clarify a couple of things/questions
that you have raised previously to staff. One, I was the
architect/planner of record on the Walnut Park project and
appeared before you in this room during the approval process. You
asked the question relating the density transition at Walnut Park
which is a zero lot line detached unit community and its
relationship as a buffer, a transition to what was proposed by
staff here. If I might turn on this and illustrate this again.
• - What we are looking at here is the MRM zoning which is currently
23 units to the acre and I 'm told it was developed at 20 units to
the acre and what we will say politely what is an existing project
of bland quality. We are going transitionally between the 20
acres, these buildings and the single family area, the drop would
be 20, to 12, down to 9.6 and that's where we're headed at this
point. So we have a 20, a 12 and a 9. 6 up there. At Walnut Park
we were going from the Shires which is a townhouse community with
9
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 +
a density of approximately, but they are totally different from
what we are proposing here at LeBlanc where they are looking at
around 12 units to the acre. At Walnut Park we were doing six
units to the acre as a transition to single family which were
much, much larger lots than that. So we were going there 12, 6
and then I don't know what the other lots were but great big, you
know, still undivided pieces of ground. So, if we had 12 , 6 and
big, then here we are looking at 20, 12 and 9.6, it is the same
sort of incremental, almost half the density drop.
VanDerbeek: It's 20, 12 , 4 . See that's what I don't understand,
four units per acre to the north--20, 12 , 4 .
Kreager: O.k. , then, I won't make any statement about the 4 point
but I want to relate to you what had happened at Walnut Park and
how that, since you've raised that project, how that transition
was made and based and ultimately approved. I would like a
clarification from staff. I haven't seen on this drawing or the
other documentation where exactly the line is. You were standing
in front of the drawing, so we couldn't see it back here.
The line between the 12 and the 4 . I 'm presuming, it appears on
this map here, that the incremental jump is about like that there.
We are looking at this piece which is completely LeBlanc residence
and the gardens and all of that as the 12 and then from the upper
portion of LeBlanc's, I 'd say their property line up is the 9 .6 . _ .
Is that correct?
VanDerbeek: I 'm sorry, it's entirely out of order to ask
questions of staff. You can direct questions to the chair and
then I can direct staff to answer that question at the time of
rebuttal testimony. 04
Kreager: O.k. , fine, that's my question to confirm where that
line is actually going to be.
VanDerbeek: All right.
Kreager: Do we have the slides? You were going to do slides for
me. Where usually are slides set up?
Short discussion concerning the setup of the slides was made. A
short recess was called by the Hearing Examiner.
Kreager: O.k. The discussion that I 'm going to illustrate with
the slides is addressing specifically on page 8 of the staff, item _
D which has to do with their position on the MRG designation as a
tool for flexibility to allow us to maintain as many of the trees,
existing trees, on the site as we can. I think items A, B, C and
E were covered very, very well by staff and so I won't take the -
time of the Examiner to hear those. Turn on the slides. The site
10 --
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
` #AZ-87-5 ,
I
..J
plan for the purposes of the slides, can everyone see that, is it
too light, o.k. It's also nice, this is the first opportunity, I
believe, the neighbors have had a chance to see what -we are
proposing to do, so it's great to have you all here and questions
follow later on. For the LeBlanc Gardens site, it's 40 years.
Mr. LeBlanc, who' s here with us this evening, started planting the
trees there some 40 years ,agp and the goal of the site planning
and the entire philosophy is as "says here, is to increase the
flexibility and site design resulting in a greater number of the
unique trees to remain in the area" . The site itself has become
somewhat overgrown. He's had a lot of problems with kids in the
area coming in and breaking down trees, there's been a maintenance
problem just protecting the trees from them. What we are trying
to do at this point is maintain or create a site plan that will
allow the maximum amount of trees in clumps to be saved. What we
are proposing, if I speak from here, can I be heard on the tape.
What we are proposing to do then is to run off of 112th, a looped
site circulation road that will minimize the amount of vehicular
access points to it. In other words we're clustering our parking
,.... within the uniclusters or villages themselves. What this does, it
allows us to have a narrower road and thereby save more and more
of the trees, that's sort of the goal. Everything we are doing
here is to maintain the site. It is a joy as a planner to be able
to attract a site of this nature with everything in place in the
way of landscaping. It' s really a delight. In clustering the
homes then, we're buffering with existing landscaping, both side
to side and also back to back so that we are able to maximize the
use of the trees for the benefit of the people who will be buying
homes in the community as well. We are going to be illustrating
the homes themselves. We are going to illustrate the entry
feeling and the buffer feeling with slides of other projects in
the Bellevue, east side Kent area rather than come along and show
you drawings that would show anything I want to show in the sense
- that an architect's drawing make something pretty lousy look
pretty good. It's simpler, I think, to illustrate what we are
looking to do with slides of existing projects that we all can
relate to. Let's start with the entry.
(The slide presentation was started. ) Right near the entry is a
row of Magnolia trees planted 40 years ago. The trees them don't
` even bloom for the first 20 years of their existence. To have a
40 year old canopy of trees over the entry is a delight to a site
planner. We're going to be doing that. We've chosen to put the
trees in an island illustrating the entrance to Kalhiana out in
Issaquah which is an island type entry. Oops, can't do that
without putting a showed in. Excuse me, if I'm in the way. With
the island up the center, separating and maintenance of existing
landscaping on either side, there will be an architectural entry
statement of sports. This is from the point at Mill Creek up in
Mill Creek, Washington. The effort would be to provide screening
and privacy from 112th so that the units along there wouldn't have
11
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
any of the noisy from that street, and so, that the community
itself will have a dignified and attractive entrance. Just as we
did here at the entrance to Mill Creek we will be using berms and
landscaping and maintenance of existing trees to create a
separation, a sound buffer and a definite sense of entry to the
community. I might mention here, although I will be mentioning a
little bit more later, that the, the width and designation of that
road has a lot to do with whether it becomes public and it only
becomes a publically owned piece of ground/road, if, in fact, it
had to go through and connect to, am I broadcasting? Am I
recording? O.k. It would only become a public right of way if
the City required us to carry it straight on through to 236th, we
don't want to do that for a number of reasons, I will get into
after the slides. But, if it remains a private road, it' s a
narrower road and we can maintain a lot more landscaping and
existing vegetation with it. Looking at the architecture. I 've
mentioned already that the units themselves are clustered around
parking courts, each unit will have a minimum of two parking
places, some of the units will have double car garages, some will
have single. There will also have parking immediately in front of
them. There will be no parking on the loop street at all, again,
in order to keep that street as narrow as we can within reasonable
standards to maintain more of the landscaping.
VanDerbeek: How will the no parking on that street be enforced if
it's a private street. -
Kreager: The Homeowner's Association. Initially there will be
signs, also there will be adequate parking to carry the parking
that would normally be in front of someone's home. So, the front
of this home has its own double-car garage, there is additional
parking in this parking apron and like that. The width of the
street will be such also that it will be comfortable to drive and
pass but not to park on it itself. The parking there will be far
in excess of the required parking anyway, both for the City
requirements for parking per unit and also for the market
requirements. If we look at the architecture of these, I would
illustrate it with a project known as Stonebridge which is in
Juanita, Washington, which is a condominium of approximately the
same density on an area that is buffered actually buffered from
existing single family neighborhoods. Stonebridge itself is a
similar scale. The architectural character may be different from
this but the scale of two-story homes with pitched roofs, one-
story in some areas, two stories to balance the home will give
more of a feeling of a detached scaled product. As I mentioned
earlier, each of the homes will have a private entrance, a private
access point, its own attached garage. The rear of the homes will
look out into landscaping in the buffer area and the buffer area
in this case is a 30-foot wide, fully maintained, landscaped
buffer area. If we look at it specifically, we' ll see that it' s a
wonderful thing. The buffer area itself, 30-feet, goes all the
12
iHearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 ,
way around the site. The, where are we, on the north side of the
j site we have a full row of the white oak, there's a huge bank of
rhododendrons along here which will be faced by all the units
facing in that direction. So, there's privacy and there's that
wonderful buffer. Moving around, we have Doug fir and there's a
whole row of huge evergreens along here. Again, which will be
maintained. They're so big, that the house right here on 236th is
almost enveloped in them. It's just a beautiful background for
that home. Those, of course, are all remaining. coming along the
south side of the site, there's a row of existing trees. Many of
them are poplars, there's spruce, there's an intermix in here.
' This will all stay. Unfortunately, there's an open space here
which will be replanted. The drawings that we are using to
s illustrate show only the existing trees, they do not show the
infilling and the additional planting that will take place to
create additional buffer and additional inplanting. But, the
buffer that we're looking at and the scale of the project is very
similar to what we are looking at here at Stonebridge. From the
neighbors perspective, we about 30 feet from the house. The
landscaping is in front of us. This is sort of the scale and
character that would be visible, is visible, and I 'm not sure it
will be with all of these evergreens in hereto the neighboring
community. One of the fun things that we are doing with this,
again, this is the point of Mill Creek. This is an attached home
but what we are doing and I ' ll illustrate off here. As often as
possible, the ends of the cluster, these units will face outside
the cluster in such a way that it will have the appearance of a
front door and a private garage which is the same tool that we've
used with these homes at Mill Creek which are attached homes. It
gives a very much lower density, more single family scale to the
` community. The courts themselves will be heavily landscaped.
Each home, of course, will have its own front door and focus. As
close to a single family in character as we can come in a detached
development. The emphasis will be on landscaping. The community,
the Homeowners Association will be maintaining all of the public
spaces, public spaces in the sense of the community dedicating
open space so that all these areas will be pruned, will be
maintained, the buffer lawns will all be permanently maintained.
Its not on a neighbor by neighbor, whatever I feel like doing this
weekend basis. It will always be an attractive neighborhood. And
emphasis also on privacy.
A little bit on the interior. It's not a planning issue but for
the character and the scale of the homes. Typically they will be
one-level and two-level homes. Because there is so much beauty
outside there, there will be a lot of window, we want to bring the
environment into these homes. That's what makes it so desirable
to live there. The buffering. . .let's go back to the site plan a
little bit, the areas in and among the homes themselves would be
in fields. The areas where we're doing new planting and
pedestrian ways and the like will be in field with medium
13
� C
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
vegetation or vegetation sympathetic to the kind of planting that
is already there and in areas of open space, we probably will be
using the same technique that was used successfully before which
is an in fielding of native wild flowers. In an area which is
community maintained, it works just beautifully. This is the
Providence Point project out above Lake Sammammish at Issaquah
where this same technique has worked very, very attractively. The
overall goal then is to maintain as much of the gardens as we
possibly can. It would make the project more financially
successful for the developer to keep the trees and it would make a '
whole lot better neighbor for the people around the outside. If
you took and plotted this as a Single Family development and gave
each owner the rights over the trees in his yard which he would
have, I would project that you would lose a whole lot more trees
than you will by allowing this kind of development and sensitive
maintenance of the trees. That's what we are at LeBlanc Gardens.
I have a couple more points, but I 'll turn off my projector.
A couple of items that have come up in the staff report. One is
the issue of the extension of 236th Street. The staff is not
recommending that it happen, the street current deadends into the
property line right now. There's a, not really a cul-de-sac but a
number of very, it' s like cul-de-sac living, it's a very pleasant
neighborhood on the other side. We don't want to run through, we
don't want to carry that through to 236th for a number of reasons.
One, it would be a severe impact on the neighbors in that it would
generate a lot of through traffic from our community as well as
theirs through ours, shortcuts over to the commercial area. More
cars means safety problems, that' s a very quiet street and we
don't want to inflict our traffic upon that neighborhood. In
addition, if that road goes through then it becomes a public right
of way which requires a much wider ownership, a wider road, 4
different standards than private roads would have and I 'm afraid
we would losing, looking at losing a lot more of the existing `
trees. Another question I would like to address would be the
situation on 112th. The staff has recommended that the. . .the
Traffic Division has recommended that the right of way be allowed
to increase to a total of 60 feet. We have no problem at all with
that. We do have a question though, there is a thick buffer, it
showed up in the film presentation of exiting laurel and evergreen
along that street that is in the right of way now. If staff were
to later on require, they have not so far on that side of the
street, that sidewalks and curbs and everything be put in then
that full buffer which would shield the community from the
existing single family homes on the east side of 112th would come
out. Now, we are anticipating in a (unclear) trees would be
running a fence for privacy and, again, screening, from that
street but at the same time we would much prefer to have those
trees maintained as a buffer and a nice, lush green line along
112th. To my understanding, the Kings Place and the Kent Ridge
were not required to do and the most recent project on that side
14
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
M� #AZ-87-5 ,
of the road was the day care center down at the corner of 240th
and they also did not. so, my question has to do and I would
address it to the Hearing Examiner for reference to the staff with
the dedication of that right of way, is there an intent, what is
the situation with traffic as far as the relationship of the
improvements on 112th. That's the completion of my presentation.
` It has been an existing projject to plan. It's seldom, if ever,
that an architect/planner gets this beautiful piece of ground to
work with.
w.
VanDerbeek: Thank you. Further presentation on behalf of the
applicant or not. All right. At this time 1 will hear the public
�! testimony with respect to this matter. All right. Sir, why don't
s you take it first.
Robert Thomas: I 'm Robert Thomas of 23520 110th Place SE in Kent
and my property. . .back property line forms a boundary of the
LeBlanc annexation. I think I first must apologize to you, Madam
Hearing Examiner, for the chauvinistic assumption in my written
submittal when I addressed you as Dear Sir.
VanDerbeek: It' s all right, I 'm used to it.
Thomas: I would like to bring us back to a state of reality from
the state of architectural euphoria that we've just enjoyed and if .
I could I would like to use the overhead projecting, if it' s still
-. working. What I have is the same map, but somewhat different
scale.
VanDerbeek: Mr. McCormick, would you help the witness focus that
please.
Thomas: What I would like to do is to repeat principally one of
- the points that I made in my written submission and then couple of
additional ones that have occurred during this" evenings testimony.
The property under consideration for rezoning is shown in yellow
w_ on this particular map. I too will attempt the trick of moving
with the microphone. The area in green shown around here is
single family residential. At present, the LeBlanc Gardens
section is the southern end of this. This, at the moment, is
single family residential and the church at the top. We've had a
great many instances where we are being told that we are being
provided with a buffer zone between multiple residence and single
family. This area in here is supposedly providing a buffer to
whom I 'm hard put to understand since that are apartments right
here, right next to this development already and this really is an
extrusion into an existing, single-family residential area. I
w have lived in that particularly area for almost 20 years now and
there are a number of my neighbors in the audience who, I know,
brought property in that area because we knew it was zoned single
family. Now, to change the zoning at this time, I think, is quite
15
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
unjustified and to use the argument that this development would
provide a buffer, I think is completely fallacious. In a previous
case, the Planning Department issued the opinion that an
additional 236 trips a day onto 104th Street which is a five-lane
highway was totally unacceptable. Seventy units, in merging out
onto 112th is an absurdity if you consider that statement. At
present, it's hardly able to take the traffic that exists and even
though the current plan does not call for 109th or 236th,
whichever it is, to be extended into the property, I would hazard
the suggestion that people who would live in such a development
who had an intent of traveling north would not travel down 112th,
they would go north to 232nd and then issue forth into Park
Orchard and the architect for the proposed project made the
comment that they did not want to open up that street because he
felt it would provide an unacceptable traffic level in a
residential area. That is going to happen anyway. An argument
also used in the previous hearing was that if you allowed a
particular zoning in an area that was not currently zoned for that
purpose, some of the requests would be likely to follow. Once a
precedent has been set it would be very difficult to deny further
applications. I fail to see why the current proposal which says
multiple residents on one chunk and single residential on the next
shouldn't next year become multiple residential on that entire
piece of property. So I think the whole application lacks merit.
Thank you.
Vanderbeek: Thank you for your testimony Mr. Thomas. Other
witnesses? I don't care, any order is fine.
Carl Ricketts: I am Carl Ricketts, 23533 110th Place SE. Two of i
the documents you have there were provided by me. One was
delivered just today; it was not mailed with the one dated the
14th. I am not adverse to annexation, per se. I am adverse to
the fact that this area where I have two of the border lines,
specifically here, on two sides and most of what has been said to
date has been reasonably accurate in terms of the beauty of the
area, the flowers, the trees, etc, with one possible exception.
There are some flowers there that are on berry vines, they are
like 50 foot canes, I 've measured them. It is still beautiful,
there are some beautiful hollies, etc. in that area. There is a
fence along that area, a little cedar fence, 20 odd years old that
is falling down. In fact, on my property it literally completely
fell. I 've cleaned that up and I 've also removed another section
that was dangerous. I have not yet replaced it. We 've talked
about traffic. In this area, and I ' ll point to the other drawing,
in order for me to go to Safeway which is down here, I planned it
out in such a way that I can make all right-hand turns. That is
today; that isn't after they put a whole bunch more vehicles and
people up into that area. It is almost impossible to utilize
240th or Bensen if you want to go left, so you plan everything -
ahead when you're going somewhere if you're coming out of this
16
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 ,
general area up here. The roads, as you can see, are all crooked
and were not designed as throughways, they're for local access and
when this is opened up as stated by Mr. Thomas (and incidently I
concur with everything you had to say) vehicles will be going
every which way up there and cars are nothing but grief. Now I 've
been active in the City's planning for their police and for their
fire, I know what the problems are up in that area for that
activity and it's severe. I know what the planning is for streets
and they do have some plans but that brings us up to date, just up
,., to date, the plans that are in effect today, just bring us up to
date. They don't talk about all this expansion. I have friends
who live on 240th where some more complexes have already been
built. They are adding sewer. Those people haven't asked for it,
they're being assessed high amounts of money to add to these
1 sewers that the apartments need. Now we have adequate supply up
there, our sewers work well, we have adequate water. We haven't
been. . .had to cut back severely or anything of that nature but as
soon as we start adding more people, more requirements we are
going to have more difficulties. Wells have to drilled, (unclear)
pay for the drilling of wells to get us more water, we' re going to
pay for it, all of us. Streets have been widened, sewers have to
be made larger or extended. That developer is only going to pay
for that area right around there, not the rest of it. The problem
may be clear down here in downtown Kent. We're all going to have
to pay the bill. The only people that's really going to make out
and, again, I 'm not adverse to an individual doing something with
their property, selling it, building it up, doing something with
it, that isn't my argument is what you do with it, that is my
argument. So I would like to see as stated in my letter which I
would like to become a matter of record, that the City put a stop
to all expansion, multifamily, for a while until we catch up. All
of our people have been running for office for the last three
elections that I 'm aware of, have been in favor of doing something
= similar, holding up the multifamilies, let's catch up a little
bit. We can't even get to work appropriately. I have to be to
work at 7 : 30, I get up at 5: 15 so I can get there, that's from
that area today. So there is a lot of problems and this is just
some of them. The letter that I 've provided gives the pro's and
the con's from my point of view and, again, I 'm fully aware that
the City needs to square off its boundaries, to do that you need
annexation but the mechanics of doing it are very, very important
to all of us. So, I 'm totally against this application. One more
thing that I would like to mention. I do have a background in
engineering. I would like to show this one slide for just a
moment, if I may, your slide. In the field of cartography, these
little lines here are contour lines. I know that area, this is my
house, right up there, it tells me that these lines are about five
feet apart, or two meters depending on what kind of a measure that
they used. The property that is immediately behind those
buildings is, and my neighbor next door can attest too, is in fact
- a pass. It actually drops down about five feet. I would like to
17
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
point out one thing and indicate where another one exists just
like it. There, and there's another one right there. Now my time
with the University of Idaho in the field of hydraulics tells me
one thing, water runs downhill. When you see (unclear) typed out
on a map, a contour line, heading up, it points up towards where
the water is coming from.
e
Another thing, distance between contour lines. Look how far apart
they are. Know what that tells me? It's darn near flat, it 's
darn near flat. Where's all that water going. Right now, today,
its not 12 percent but is a very wet lands. I think that needs to
be taken into consideration. Now, is the developer going to put
in some mechanics for removing that water and taking it to the
sewer that's already at capacity or are they going to have to make
it bigger. Now, how are you going to handle these kind of things.
And, these are the things that are important to me. None of this
is a benefit to me or any of my neighbors that I 'm aware of except
the owners of the property today and they have every right to do
something to it. I 'm not arguing with that and the developer. The
developer is going to make his money and then he' s going to be
long gone. The rest of us is going to have to pay the bill later
for all these grandiose ideas. We haven't even got into the
schools, the inner transportation problems and what not which I
would hope the City takes under consideration. I don't want to
take any more of your time, I think you get the idea. Thank you
very much.
VanDerbeek: Thank you for your testimony. Further public
testimony.
Monte Marchetti: My name is Monte Marchetti. My address is
23608 112th Avenue SE. I would just like to show.
VanDerbeek: Would you spell your last name for the record?
Marchetti: M-a-r-c-h-e-t-t-i. My house, I live tight on 112th,
like I said. This is my house, as you see here. This is an
overhead view and I too have trees on my property bordering all
around my property. I 've got, right here on the corner of the lot
where the City's, where the Engineering Department is recommending
moving the road back, I have about an 80-year-old cherry tree that
would have to come out. You know, as long as we are talking about
preservation of the, you know, the natural beauty, that tree kind
of means a lot to me. My concerns with this, and first of all I
would like to say that my neighbors to the north are children of
the LeBlancs or their son and the LeBlanc's have been, you know,
really good neighbors and I really, you know, appreciate them as
neighbors, like they've been in the neighborhood for 40 years.
Now, directly across from my house is the entrance to the Valley
High condominiums. Now, I don't know how familiar everyone is
with the secondary market for paper. . . for condominiums. They
18
( c r
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
" LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
generally sell well the first time out, you know, the new
microwave and everything but when you go to try to resell them,
really the banks don't want the paper and as I think a lot of
people would attest to there is not much secondary market for
them. Now, I know this because there has been a lot of for sales
of the unit across the street. I 've seen the cars come and go.
�- I 've taken my daughters acpo$s the street to trick-or-treat and,
you know, the neighbors aren't there for more than six months and
then you get this turn around and that's a less desirable type of
�.., neighbor than say the LeBlanc's or other long-standing citizens
that are going to stay in the community. This concerns me because
it generally diminish, I feel, the value of the residential
property that is more appropriately laid out and, you know, all
the services and amenities available than this type of higher
t density. Even though, you know, on pictures and everything it
tl looks like they've done their homework. One of the major concerns
in terms of the. . .one of the policies here was for the safety and
welfare of the community as far as the street goes, I 've been
concerned for some time of the substandard condition of the road
w on 112th. I have a daughter, two years old, and a daughter, five
years old, and, luckily I have a half-acre lot right on 112th and
I have a fenced yard with a six-foot chain link fence. I can't
let my children play in the front yard because of the traffic
situation. Without any, even the way it stands right now, today,
i most of the joggers get Christmas presents of these highway suits,
you know, with the florescent lights on them so they can run up
and down the streets. It's not conducive, when you know, we show
pictures of Mill Creek, a Japanese development, and compare this
' with the situation that is present up there today, it's kind of a
mockery to the infrastructure as it exists in our own area and try
to relate this to some Japanese-owned development and, you know,
another area entirely different. That safety concern bothers me,
because we do have, if you take the map and if we would go down a
little further to 240th, we 've just had a new, say this is 240th
and 112th, we have another problem here with traffic. We have a
brand new, I don't know how many, probably 20 plus units per acre
and they have a driveway that is trying to get out, to get onto
240th, facing directly. You've got this chicken chase every
morning with 112th going this way, who's going to go left, who' s
going to go right, head-on to each other as well as bumper to
bumper going down 240th on a slope, gaining speed from their cars,
coming down. Personally I go up to 236th, zig-zag backwards, go
down Benson Hill so I can get to work, seven miles away, in a
-- reasonable fashion. These are some of the concerns that I have, I
have others but mainly is the, you know, what happens down the
road with the condominiums. I know that people have these funds
and they put them all in together. Well, at the Valley High
condominiums for years they were being swindled out of the
Homeowners dues and they were hiring fictitious people to do work
and paid them with money and the work never got done. The siding
pulled back out, the parking lots went to pieces until it got to
19
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
such a, in just you say in seven years, got to such a degraded
state that finally it was uncovered that this was going on. Also,
my neighbors now over at Valley High, temporary, you know, they
may be gone soon, I hope some of them, because they are in the
diesel truck business now, they start out at 3 : 30 in the morning,
crank up the diesel engine, and they warm the truck up for two
hours, you know, this is npt. the kind of thing that I 'm looking
for in the neighborhood, you know, where we have in one picture
the architect painting, you know, St. Thomas Aquinas, across the
street and I'm thinking, oh, God, the diesel truck starting up at
3 : 30 in the morning. So, let's just, you know, say that I 'm not
really highly in favor for more of this high density until we can
straighten out some of the traffic, straighten out some of the
other safety concerns and these kind of issues. I would like to
see and I fully agree with development and doing things as far as
economically and turning your land and, you know, I appreciate all
that but I really feel that we should have something that is more,
that this is going to be a more substantial, long-term type of
development. That people are going to stay an it's going to be a
benefit to me and my neighborhood and community. That's basically
what I would like to say. i
VanDerbeek: Thank you for your testimony. Further public
testimony?
Jeff Garrett: I 'm Jeff Garrett and I live at 23512 110th Place SE. i
First of all I would like to apologize to you also about my
letter, I believe I probably went overboard in the apartment
situation when I first got the notice. Apartments first sprang to
mind, I just found out tonight that the Valley High was
condominiums, they look like apartments and that was the first
fear that came to my mind that apartments were coming into the
area. The developers, I have to give them one thing, they put on ...
a very slick presentation and if I was going to buy in the area, I
probably would be in to do so just by their slide by their
slide show but I feel that it is necessary that you take into -�
consideration where the other units were placed. Kloohonie, Mill
Creek and I wasn't sure of the other area, they did show. . .
VanDerbeek: Juanita. 43
Garrett: O.k. , Juanita. I 'm not real sure from where I seeing
the developments and looking at their pictures, I can't see that
type of development being built in the LeBlanc Gardens. They
didn't mention anything about prices of the condominiums but the
ones in Kloohonie, I know, a lot of people that moved up from the
Phoenix in my office, they went to go look out there and those
were substantial cost and that's not the general area if you look
at the South King County, what home sales are going, I just don't
believe that that area is going to be built like a Kloohonie or a L
Mill Creek there in the LeBlanc Gardens. And the pictures are
20
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 ,
really wonderful, but there again, what's to say what really will
( be built there. The idea of keeping the trees, that's a great
, j idea and I understand the idea of single family homes probably
couldn't reduce the number of trees but the perversity of the
( whole situation is that you do have the trees there now, you have
1 natural setting and you want to preserve this by putting in
condominiums, it's a little, bat beyond me. It's a form of double
f speak, I believe. Speaking of the water problems here, I noticed
in the staff report, there were things that their wasn't any flood
� 1 control problems that they noticed, drainage didn't seem to be a
problem, so that any storm drainage would be, if necessary, would
be looked at when the units were built or the in process of being
,•� built. When I. . .I just bought last year, in the house, I live on
s 110th, and we have a considerable slope in our backyard. I know
the units from, at least what we've been able to see, we haven't
distinguished the property line yet that I know of tonight on
where these units are going to be, but we are talking about the
whole fifteen acres possibly being designated tonight. There is
considerable runoff, let's put it that way, at least onto my
property, and the slope goes further away from me and I notice
some of the other neighbors have runoff problems. If you have a
good rain, a whole days rain, three days later if it' s not raining
you still have runoff, I mean it keeps running, it' s not just
trickling down. Out streets are full on 110th at times, down by
the Pringles, if you don't keep the storm drain clear, you've got
a lake. You know, I guess the other thing, this is going to be
City land and City things are happening on it and unfortunately
you're affecting County residents. Everything in here says, no
problems for the City, no problems for City residents. Well,
you're affecting County residents and there doesn't seem to be
anybody here from the County. We were told that the County
couldn't even come up with a great answer on what they want to do
with the land themselves. I think you do have a water problem
" there that does need to be looked at a little bit more, maybe, you
know, it would be great, I would love the water problem to be
taken care of because I sick of having the runoff in my yard and
in my basement so maybe, you know, if you do get some units you
can get, you know, the City might have this great plan of
diverting all the water in one big storm system, you know, I would
be all for that if that could help them. There are other concerns
that are here, the Park Orchard Elementary, I 'm looking forward to
having my children attend there. I haven't been associated with
the school as of yet and I 'm not sure what its capacity is. There
-- again, if the condominiums are of the such as they show at Mill
Creek and Kloonhonie, that might not lead to a burst of children
coming into the neighborhood. If they are of a lower standard,
more like the area around us where condominiums are now, you are
going to have a much higher density of children. I 'm not sure
right now if it needs to be addressed to see if Park Orchard could
handle, you know, the influx of children. I would like to
emphasize to, everybody has been talking about, 112th, that is a
21
C C
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 j
street with open ditch, the City is recommending that it be
widened. Widened in it just increases the traffic on it. It's
not an easy area to get out of and, I think, several people have
mentioned that to you, it' s just not an easy area to get out of, [
there's about two ways of getting out and its a little over t[
utilized right now. And there is also the concern that, I
believe, Mr. Thomas raised, `on if these units do, if they are
placed where they are right now, what is there to say they will
not continue on up. I believe that if they get started here it
would easily be determined that more units could be build, because
it would just be another buffer to the single family homes. This
area is single family, believe it should stay the way it is or a
consideration of utilizing more open space, large lots and keeping
it single family, thank you.
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Further {
public testimony on this application.
Ernest Stowe: Yes, I 'm Ernest Stowe: 23625 112th SE Unit G 201,
Kent,_I kind of feel like a thief in the night, I'm the chairman v
of the board of the Valley High Condominum Association. That
land unit area just south of the proposed rezone. Since we are a
high density area we really don't concern ourself with if its
going to be rezoned a high density area per se. The things that
we do concern ourselves with and before I get into that, I
purchased into Valley High prior to its building. So I have seen -Y
it from ground up. I was the original chairman of the board. I
was off the board for a while from burn out. I came back on a
couple of years ago. Unfortunately I haven't lined my pocket like
some of the testimony has been alluded to here tonight. We are
now self governed. I think we have done giant strides. This is a
problem all condo associations run into. Our concern at the '
association level if you recall the video that was shown earlier,
the one twelfth, looking both ways, the area adjacent to Leblanc
Gardens is a laurel hedge and is probably at least 20 feet high.
Where we enter 112th from our driveway, our visibility is very
limited to the north, now. With the proposed widening of the
road, I would anticipate that would have to come out. Probably
that would not bother us at all because it would be much safer. r
All the traffic now with their not putting 236th through where
they enter onto 112th, now this means they are going to be
probably within 100 - 150 feet north of our entry way. We have 80
units, they' ll have 70 units. That's going to throw a lot more
traffic on 112th. Some of them have said that they go north.
Taking them through Park Orchard. I do that sometimes too, just
to get rid of the traffic down on James St. or 240th.
School busses. School busses travel that road also on their way
to and from Park Orchard. In the evenings, nights, its a part
time drag strip also. Because there are no -- The only place to
coming in is 235th, and from there all the way to 232nd, from our
22
1 r �
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
r #AZ-87-5 ,
11 area, the bottom line of the annexation to 232nd is no cross
r streets except 235th. Our area has people who ride Metro. They
f have to walk from 236th down to 240th, James St. to catch a Metro
bus. Here again, we are talking about and as set forth by the
1 planning dept, here, the roadway is substandard, and quoting two
lanes of pavement, narrow, gravel shoulders, and open ditches.
This is not conducive to ,walking. Very dangerous, very dark.
There is one light from James St. to 236th. I think there is one
light about 237th. One overhead, sodium vapor. There have been
alluded to the traffic at 240th and 112th in the mornings. This
morning I waited there, and this was at about 6: 40 in the morning,
i I was first in line, but I still had to wait about 3 or 4 minutes
,... to enter the traffic going, making a right turn. I wasn't even
s - trying to go across traffic, but making a right turn. Coming home
at night, I make a left turn there. I 've had cars pass me on the
shoulder on the right hand side, going East bound. We've got 80
units, Ken Ridge also has an entrance that goes onto 112th. I
don't know how many units that services that particular entrance,
but I would venture a guess, only a guess, you're probably talking
20 to 30 units, maybe even 40 that would use that entrance. The
day care center at 240th and James, 240th and 112th now, been open
a year, year and a half, is generated a lot of peak hour traffic.
People coming in and dropping off their young children. Drop them
off in the morning, pick them up at night. Here again, you are
generating right turns, you are generating left turns, cross
traffic. The Royal first traffic someone alluded to the coming
down 112th, you run directly towards this driveway coming out of
Royal First which is south of 240th. These cars, you really do
play chicken. They have no stop sign over there other than their
good graces and common sense. And they have to go across and turn
left, whereas we only have to turn right. And that is very bad.
Now, we don't have a problem with the annexation or the zoning per
se, the only thing we are concerned about is the traffic. We
would recommend that there be no rezone until the traffic problems
are mitigated, whatever that means. That is, we would like to see
240th and I believe, I believe these are plans to be accomplished,
240 upgraded from 108th, I believe it is to 116th, upgraded to 5
lanes. I 'm not sure what the timing is on that. Also, in line
with the planning commission statement about the substandard 112th
street, we would like to see that upgraded from substandard, to
include walkways, at least one, on one side or the other from
240th at least to 235th. This would give the people who live in
our area and the people who live in the proposed area, a
opportunity to walk safely out of traffic from their homes to
James Street, 240th, and then they could go on down to the
shopping center at Benson Center 240th and Benson.
Couple of more things I picked up as we were sitting here. I 'm
not sure what an EIS Nonsignificance is. If I recall correctly,
that means they don't need an EIS.
23
............. .....
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
Vanderbeek: That is correct.
Stowe: I 'm not sure they don't. Maybe they don't need it for
planning, but I would certainly hope they would have an EIS for
the building and the approval of their plans. If I recall
correctly, the things that, I' have addressed here, have a direct
bearing on an EIS.
The tree root systems: The trees are very nice, they are very
old, they have very big root systems. We have many of these
popular trees along the southern border of LeBlanc Gardens
encroaching on our area, significantly. The trunks are planted
within probably .within 6 feet of our fence line. And if you are
familiar with popular root systems, they just really travel
because they are a shallow rooted tree. And we have them
encroaching almost to our foundations in one of our areas. My
guess is when they start their development, they will have to be
removed anyway. So, I guess that is all I have got to say.
Vanderbeek: Alright. Thank you for your time. Further public
testimony on this proposal? There appearing to be no further
public testimony at this time I will hear rebuttal comments first
from the staff, if there are any. There are a couple of
questions, did you get those Mr. McCormick, or did you want me to I
go through those?
McCormick: Fire away.
Vanderbeek: Ok. There is a question with respect to 112th St.
improvements, and whether or not the developer will be expected to
participate in putting in curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. There
was the question about surface water runoff and what improvements
would be required in that regard. There was a question with
respect to where the line is in terms of the . multiple family
recommendations which staff is making versus. the single family.
Then there was the question concerning the need for an EIS.
McCormick: First in regard to the 112th St. improvements. What
is recommended by the staff of the public works dept. is that the
property owners along 112th be required to deed the necessary
property to have a 30-foot half street right of way on the west
side of 112th, have a 30-foot right of way on that side of the
street. At this point there would be no improvements required.
Those come at the point in time when the development plans have
been submitted for review and the Environmental checklist for the
project has been reviewed.
Vanderbeek: The proposal is for 30 feet on the west?
McCormick: On the west side of 112th.
24 -L
C
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
_.1 #AZ-87-5 ,
Vanderbeek: So what eventually, you want a 60 foot right of way?
McCormick: Now, I think that would be what Public Works would
plan on getting in that area, would be a 60 foot right of way.
Vanderbeek: How wide is the right of way there now?
McCormick: It wasn't specified in the staff report, and I don't
know what it is currently. But I would estimate it probably 36 to
40 feet looking at the road way and the ditches that are existing
now.
f Vanderbeek: All right. You still have the opportunity for
further rebuttal at this point. I didn't see it as the addendum
anyway, maybe it is Carol 's. All right, you may continue.
McCormick: The question regarding the requirement of an EIS, at
this point in time it was not felt that the requested zoning was
significant to the point where it required an Environmental Impact
Statement. That doesn't cover any proposed development on the
site which time when the plans are brought in for submittal for
review another environmental check list will be required for that
project and a separate environmental review will take place with
those specific development plans. In terms of storm water runoff,
that is a public works department area, and generally, all I can
tell you is what happens generally in these instances, is that the
public works department requires that each development provide
some kind of volume of on site storm water detention and that is
•_ usually in the form of a holding pond or that sort of thing or
underground vault that is designed to hold a specified amount of
storm water runoff for a specified storm or a specified storm
duration. I 'm sorry, what was the other question that had come
up?
Oh, the boundary line. At this point the staff is recommending
• that the MRG zoning be applied only to the area that we have the
site specific plan for. The LeBlanc zone property also to the
north of this site which is in this area here, the staff is
recommending this area south of this line here approximately be
recommended MRG. Anything north of that line which should
coincide with this line here, be zoned single family residential
R1-9. 6.
Vanderbeek: All right.
McCormick: Ok, a couple of the other concerns, one concerning the
buffer strip, the Kent zoning code had provisions that on any
undeveloped piece of property that contains or has trees six inch
calliper or larger a site specific tree plan is required and that
in cases where it is possible, that as many trees of that size be
25
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 ,
preserved, so prior to any development occurring on this site, a
site specific tree plan will be required and reviewed by the
planning department to see that it is in compliance with that
section of the zoning code.
The traffic generation precedent set for future zoning. The staff
is recommending that part Qf, the area that is designated on the
comprehensive plan as MF 12 be zoned to MRG, 12 units per acre.
This would not be setting a precedent for rezoning property from
single property to multifamily. LeBlanc's came in, it has been
two- and one-half to three years ago now, to approach the City
with the concern to preserving as many trees on the site as
possible when it came time to develop the property. The staff sat
down with the LeBlanc's and felt that in order to accomplish that
goal that the zoning of a multifamily type of development where
you could use a more flexible site design techniques and not have
the subdivision type of development go on there that they could
preserve the maximum number of trees. Of which was a concern of
both the applicant as well as the city. It was agreed upon during
the process of the Comprehensive Plan amendment that the MF 12
would be a reasonable designation for that property. Currently
there are plans for improvement of 240th. I can't say
specifically what those plans are, I am under the impression that
those improvements to 240th are to begin early this year. I
believe the engineering has been done on this project, and I
believe construction is supposed to start in the spring of 1988 .
I 'm not sure specifically what those improvements are, I know
however, it will be improved to a four lane facility with a
continuous left turn lane. As far as traffic signals, I'm not
sure what is proposed for traffic signals on 240th.
As far as development impacting the city's transportation system,
it is not only development that occurs within the city, but -�
development occurs in close proximity of the city that is going to
have an impact on traffic. As been testified, tonight, there is a
significant problem on 240th which results from the numerous sub-
divisions going on in the county that are east and out 240th from
anywhere from a mile to 3 or 4 miles out of town. Those sub-
divisions in conjunction with what is happening in the city are
impacting the system. I don't think you can point the finger to
what is happening in the city is creating the traffic problems
that are solely the cause of the traffic problems on the East
Hill. Royal Firs does have a driveway that comes out on 112th,
however that is not their only access out onto 240th. They have
another one further west, so you don't have the entire development
all the traffic funneling out of one driveway. There is another c
access onto 240th west of 112th. That all the rebuttal comments I
have unless Ms. McClung has some as well.
Vanderbeek: I have a question. What is the zoning to the west of
the site?
26
J
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 ,
( McCormick: The zoning to the west is the Park Orchard area. That
is King Co. , and I believe it is suburban residential, but I 'm not
sure what density.
i
Vanderbeek: Well, would you please find out, I am going to leave
-J the record open for you to, find out the density of the zoning to
the west of the site and also that the permitted density on the
site prior to the annexation under King Co. zoning. I want to
know the minimum lot sizes, and the number of home units per acre
permitted under the existing zoning. Ms. McClung, do you have
some rebuttal comments? `
McClung: Yes, I do. There were a few things that Greg didn't
cover and I want to add them. On the issue of where 112th meets
240th, my memory may not be correct, and I invite any interested
citizen to call our office and verify this after Friday. I will
check with the Engineering Department, but I believe that the
Royal Firs development was required to pay into a traffic light
for that intersection. And I could check on the time plan for
that particular traffic light. Just because it came up tonight I
thought it might be good to bring it up again. Also it was
brought up that this project affects county residents. That is
true, but I wanted to bring out that. it is the city who has the
utilities in that county area. We service that area with water
and sewer and maintain those systems. So any problem that we
w.. create here as far as utilities goes, is our own problem. There
was also a question about the school district and I just wanted to
let people know that the school district is notified whenever a
development comes in through the environment review. They get a
copy of the site plans and they do let us know when they feel a
project is significantly impacting the school district. As far as
the EIS issue is concerned, at the time this goes through a
development review should this rezone be approved, a whole new
environmental review will be done. At that time the property will
be posted and we will welcome any public input at that time.
Lastly, because this came up since the staff report has been
written on another project. I would like to suggest adding
another condition should the zoning be approved as recommended
that if there is a significant change to the plans as shown, that
` they be brought back to the Hearing Examiner for a public hearing.
Vanderbeek: How do you define a significant change in the site
plan?
McClung: In this particular case, I don't think the density is as
much an issue as the scale of the project. It has been
represented tonight as basically one and two story buildings. If
the height of the buildings were changed, I would consider that a
significant change. It's been represented with a 30 foot buffer
around the site. If that were to change or if the trees were to
27
C C
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
.. I
be removed through the development process. Those types of
things.
Vanderbeek: All right. Thank you for your comments. Is there
any rebuttal comments from the applicant or the applicant's
representative?
Bill Kreaaer: A few very brief comments. Most of the comments I
this evening have to do with the very real concerns over traffic
and utilities. The project as it proceeds through the process
will be responding in complete compliance with all the standards
of the city of Kent. And those will be focused, obviously, upon I
the specific needs of traffic and utility loads the project will
engender. In addition, having to do with the value of the
property, I am not going to get into the sociological definition I
of condominium and the rest of that. The floor price on these
homes is anticipated at this point being between a low of 85 and a
high of 110, 000 dollars. So, these truck drivers may make a lot
of money, and we can't control that. But I would suspect that the I
same kind of people who live in the surrounding community will be
becoming the neighbors in the new project.
Vanderbeek: All right. Thank you for your - comments. At this
time I will leave the record open for the submission of additional
evidence by the city. Specifically, I want to know the density to
the west of site, how that entire area is zoned, along the entire
frontage of the site, if it is zoned differently, the area located
in King Co. I want to know the minimum lot size permitted under
that county zoning. I want to know the number of units per acre
under the county zoning. I am also interested in determining the
number of units per acre permitted on the actual site prior to its
annexation into the City of Kent. And I want the historical 6
county zoning designation and the minimum lot size on the site
prior to its annexation. I would invite either the city or the
applicant or both to submit that information to me in writing.
Can that be done within one week? All right. I will set December
23 , at 5: 00 pm, as the deadline. I would assume that city L
employees only get Christmas Day and New Year's Day off, right?
No extra time off? All right. That being the case, I think that
the 14 days for the commencement of my decision would start on the 4
24th. Unless there is some objection to that from the city. All
right. So that appears to conclude the hearing with respect to
this matter.
_L
Hearing closed at 10: 00 a.m.
28
J KENT PLANNING AGENCY
r ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT
J FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 1987
FILE NO: #AZ-87-5 LEBLANC ANNEXATION
J „ APPLICANT: CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
REOUEST: The request is to set the initial zoning on
approximately 15 acres of land.
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE: GREG MCCORMICK
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: The LeBlanc Garden area - MRG, Garden Density
Multifamily Residential
The remainder of the annexed area - R1-9 . 6,
Single Family Residential, minimum lot size of
9 , 600 square feet.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
During the couse- of the environmental review for the LeBlanc annexation
zoning, some additional comments were received from the Kent Public
Works Department concerning the transportation system in the area of
the LeBlanc annexation area.
The annexation area is bordered to the east by 112th Avenue SE which is
classified as a residential collector. The street has a public right-
of-way widthof 40 feet while the actual paving is approximatley 22
feet. One Hundred Twelfth is considered a substandard roadway with two
lanes of pavement, narrow gravel shoulders and open ditches.
The Public Works Department is recommending that the following
condition be applied to the aproval of the initial zoning of the
property:
1. The owners of property adjacent to 112th Avenue SE shall deed to
the City of Kent, sufficient property for street purposes such
that 30 feet of right of way exists as measured from the
north/south centerline of the southeast quarter of Section 17,
Township 22, Range 5, W.M.
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
December 11, 1987
_ ., 1
<
jKENT PLANNING AGENCY
STAFF REPORT
IJ FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 1987
FILE NO: #AZ-87-5 LEBLANC ANNEXATION
T APPLICANT: CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JREOUEST: The requesP is to set the initial zoning on
approximately 15 acres of land.
,..� STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE: GREG MCCORMICK
STAFF
4 -- RECOMMENDATION: The LeBlanc Garden area - MRG, Garden Density
Multifamily Residential
The remainder of the annexed area - R1-9 . 6,
Single Family Residential, minimum lot size of
9, 600 square feet.
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Description of the Proposal
The LeBlanc annexation ( annexed in June 1987 ,
Ordinance #2727) is composed of approximately 15 acres.
Staff recommends that the area known as the LeBlanc Gardens
which is approximately 5. 85 acres in size be zoned MRG,
Garden Density Multifamily Residential, with a maximum
density of 12 units per acre. The remainder of the annexation
area or 9 . 15 acres, is recommended to be zoned R1-9. 6, Single
Family Residential.
All newly annexed land is given an interim zoning designation
of R1-20, Single Family Residential, minimum lot size of
20, 000 square feet. This interim zoning remains in effect
until the Hearing Examiner and City Council establish the
initial zoning for the newly annexed area.
` B. Location
The LeBlanc annexation area is located south of SE 232nd
- Street, east of 112th Avenue SE (see attached vicinity map) .
C. Size of Property
The annexation area is approximately 15 acres in size.
1
Staff Report
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 +
D. Zonina
The property is currently zoned R1-20, Single Family
Residential. Prior to annexation, the property was zoned SR,
Suburban Residential, under King County zoning.
E. Comprehensive Plan
The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive Land
Use Plan in 1969 . This Plan, updated in 1971 and 1977,
addresses a broad range of land use , considerations. The
goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan
represent an expression of community intentions and
aspirations concerning the future of Kent and the area within
the Sphere of Interest. The Comprehensive Plan is used by
the Mayor, City Council, City Administrator, Planning
Commission, Hearing Examiner and City departments to guide
growth, development, and spending decisions. Residents, land
developers, business representatives and others may refer to
the plan as a statement of the City' s intentions concerning
future development.
The City of Kent has also adopted a number of subarea plans
that address specific concerns of certain areas of the City.
Like the City-wide Plan, the subarea plans serve as policy
guides for future land use in the City of Kent. The area `
under consideration in this instance is covered by the East
Hill Plan.
The East Hill Plan Map designates the LeBlanc Gardens area as
MF12, Multifamily, 7 to 12 units per acre, the remainder of
the annexation area is designated as SF6, Single Family
Residential, 4 to 6 units per acre.
CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT - OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: INSURE THE PRESERVATION OF LAND FOR A VARIETY
OF OPEN SPACE USES WITHIN THE CITY OF KENT.
GOAL 1: ENCOURAGE OPEN SPACE THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
Objective 2 : Encourage private development of open
space.
Policy 2 : Promote the incorporation of open
space/natural elements on existing
developments. `
2
� C C
Staff Report
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
Planning_Department Comment:
i
The area in the southern portion of the newly annexed area is
known as the LeBlanc Gardens. The LeBlanc family has owned
the subject property for over forty years. The family
developed the site as a botanical garden in the early 1940' s
by planting several groves of trees unique to the Puget Sound
region. Several years ago this site gained national
attention in Sunset magazine for its garden and landscaping.
Limiting the residential density on this site would make it
possible to preserve as much of this unique site as possible.
The northern part of this annexation is single family
residential on large lots except for the northern most parcel
which is developed with a church. The zoning for this
section of the annexation area reflects the implementation of
the Comprehensive Plan Map for this area. The recommended
zoning of R1-9. 6, Single Family Residential , will stay in
character with the surrounding residential neighborhoods.
EAST HILL PLAN
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: ENHANCE, THROUGH GOOD DESIGN, THE AESTHETIC
QUALITIES OF THE NATURAL AND MANMADE ENVIRONMENT TO PROMOTE
THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY.
GOAL 2 : Development that will preserve, maintain and enhance
East Hill ' s natural and manmade environments.
objective 1: Preserve those natural features which
contribute to the aesthetic quality and
rural feeling that exist on the East Hill,
i.e. , streams, lakes, significant views,
tall evergreen trees , woodlands and
pastures.
Policy 1: Consideration shall be given to the
integration of natural features such as
streams, lakes , views, woodlands, and
pastures into the design of residential and
commercial development.
Planninc{ Department Comment
The recommended zoning designation for the southern portion
of the annexation area would allow for clustering the
dwelling units on the site. This would encourage innovative
site planning to integrate as many of the groves of trees
into future developments as possible. This area would also
3
Staff Report
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 '
act as a buffer between higher density multifamily
developments to the south (201 units per acre) and large lot
single family residential to the north.
II. HISTORY
A. Site History
This area was annexed into the City in April 1978 . The
northern most area of this annexation site is developed with
a church. The central section of the area is developed with
single family dwellings on lots ranging in size from .96 to
1. 31 acres.
The southern parcel of the area is known as LeBlanc Gardens.
The LeBlanc family developed this site as a botanical garden
in the early 1940 ' s . There are several species of trees on
the site which are unique to the Puget Sound area. In
addition to the trees on the site, several native shrubs and
flowers are interspersed making this site a special natural
area worthy of preservation. Several years ago, Sunset
Magazine did a feature story of the LeBlanc Gardens giving
the site national exposure.
A preliminary site plan, submitted on December 4 , 1987 , for
the LeBlanc Gardens area addresses the conservation of the
unique vegetation that exists on the site. The plan for
LeBlanc condominiums contemplate development of the 5. 85 acre
site with 70 condominium units which results in a density of
11.97 units per acre.
Staff feels that the MRG, Garden Density Multifamily
Residential , maximum of 12 units per acre, zoning will allow
greater flexibility in site design resulting in a larger
amount of the site's vegetation being preserved. It is
understood that the preliminary plan that was submitted is
conceptual at this stage. However, staff recommends that if
there is a substantial change from the preliminary site plan
on file in the Planning Department, that the plan should be
brought back before the Hearing Examiner for review.
B. Area History
The East Hill area of Kent was first settled in the early
1900 ' s . Since that time commercial and residential
development have grown steadily.
The property in this area is a mixture of multifamily and
single family residential and community facilities in the
form of a church and Park Orchard Elementary School just
north of the annexation site.
4
Staff Report
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 ,
I The LeBlanc Family has owned the gardens area for nearly
fifty years. Part of the original homestead was sold for the
Park Orchard subdivision adjacent to the east of the site.
III. LAND USE r
Land uses adjacent to the annexation area includes single family
- and multifamily developments and community facilities. Park
Orchard subdivision lies to the west and Eastridge subdivision is
to the northeast. These areas provide a majority of the single
,.w family development in the area. In addition, there are a number
of smaller plats and large lots that have been developed for
single family residential use.
Land to the south has been developed with multifamily uses
including King's Place and Kenton Ridge apartments which are
developed at a density of approximately 20 units per acre.
Commercial uses exist to the south and west of the property. The
core of this commercial area is the intersection of
104th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street. _
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
A. Significant Physical Features
1. Topography and Hydrology
The area's topography is generally flat with a slight
east to west slope. The slope is approximately zero to
three percent.
2 . Vegetation
As pointed out in earlier sections of this report, the
- site known as LeBlanc Gardens has significant
vegetation. This area has been developed as a botanical
garden which includes several species of trees that are
unique to this region. Some of the trees are considered
rare. Some of the unique species on the site are
Catalpa trees, Sequoia Redwoods, Norway and Colorado
Blue Spruce, Spanish Fir, Copper Beach, White and Red
Oak, Japanese Larch, Magnolia, and Japanese Black Pine.
The parcels to the north of the garden area have some
native evergreen and deciduous trees located on them.
5
Staff Report V.
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 '
C. Significant Social Features
1. Street System
The subject site has access to 112th Avenue SE which is
classified as a residential collector. Southeast 236th
Street terminates, at the west property line of LeBlanc
Gardens. The preliminary site plan does not contemplate
that SE 236th will continue through the property to
connect with 112th Avenue SE. Such an extension would
radically alter the site plan and would likely lead to
destruction of significant numbers of rare plant species
identified on the site.
2 . Water System
Most of this area is served by City of Kent water.
There are existing water lines in 112th Avenue SE,
SE 232nd and SE 236th Streets. Water mains will have to
be extended or upgraded where development occurs if
inadequacies exist or water line are nonexistent.
3 . Sanitary Sewer System
The City' s sanitary sewer system serves portions of the
newly annexed area. Lines exist along SE 232nd Street
ending 280 plus/minus feet east of 110th Place SE and at
the easterly end of 109th Avenue SE (SE 236th Street) .
Main line extensions will be required in accordance with
the Comprehensive Sewerage Plan as development occurs in
this area.
4 . Storm Water System
Storm drainage requirements will be determined at the
time of development. -�
5. LID' s
There are no existing or proposed LIDs for these
properties at this time.
VI. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
The Planning Department has reviewed this proposed zoning in
relation to the Comprehensive Plan, current zoning, land use,
street system, flood control problems and comments from other
departments and agencies and finds that: _
6 `�
Staff Report
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 ,
A. The Comprehensive Plan Map designates the LeBlanc Gardens
area as MF12 , Multifamily, 7 to 12 units per acre, the
remainder of the property is designated SF61 Single Family
Residential, 5 to 6 units per acre.
B. The property is currently under an interim zoning designation
of R1-20 , Single Family Residential . This interim
designation is given to all land annexed into the City until
such time as the initial zoning designations are determined.
C. Land uses adjacent to the annexation area include; south--
multifamily residential (approximately 20 units per acre) ;
north--single family residential, Park Orchard Elementary
School; west--single family residential; and east--single
family residential and vacant land.
D. The annexation area has access to 112th Avenue SE which is
classified as a residential collector. The site is bordered
to the north by SE 232nd Street. Southeast 236th Street
terminates at the west property line of LeBlanc Gardens.
E. There are no apparent flood control problems on the site.
F. The City has recently adopted amendments to the Zoning Code
which included standards and criteria to be used by the
Hearing Examiner and City Council to evaluate a request for
- rezone (Section 15 . 09 . 050 A3) . Staff feels it is appropriate
to use these criteria when establishing the initial zoning
for newly annexed land. The initial zoning should only be
established if the City Council determines that the zoning is
consistent with the following standards and criteria.
1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
2 . The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the
-- site would be compatible with development in the
vicinity.
3 . The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the
transportation system in the vicinity of the property
with significant adverse impacts which cannot be
mitigated.
4. Circumstances have changed substantially since the
establishment of the current zoning district to warrant
the proposed rezone.
5. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the
health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of
the City of Kent.
7
c c
Staff Report
LeBlanc Annexation -�
#AZ-87-5 '
The Planning Department has reviewed this application in
relation to the Comprehensive Plan, present zoning, land use,
street system, flood control problems and comments from other
departments and finds that:
A. The Comprehensive Plan Map designates the LeBlanc
Gardens area as MF12 , Multifamily Residential, 7 to 12
units per acre; the remainder of the area is designated
SF6, Single Family Residential, 4 to 6 units per acre.
The recommended zoning would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
B. The annexation area is bordered on the south by
multifamily development, to the north, east and west is
predominately single family residential. The area
recommended to be zoned MRG will act as a transition
from the higher density (23 units per acre) multifamily
to the south and the single family area to the north.
C. The annexation area is bordered on the west by
112th Avenue SE which is classified as a residential
collector. The necessity of street improvements will be
determined at the time of environmental review and
development plan review. It is anticipated that all of
the traffic impacts will be able to be mitigated.
D. This area was zoned SR, Suburban Residential under King
County prior to annexation. The staff's position is -"
that if an MRG designation is given to the LeBlanc
Gardens area, the increased flexibility in site design
will result in a greater number of the unique tree '1
species being preserved. The zoning recommended for the
balance of the area is comparable to the King County
designation prior to annexation.
E. The recommended zoning would not appear to adversely
affect the health, safety and general welfare of the
citizens of Kent.
VII. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Staff recommends to the Hearing Examiner the following:
A. The LeBlanc Gardens area be designated MRG, Garden Density
Multifamily Residential, 12 units per acre.
B. The remainder of the annexation area be designated R1-9 . 6,
Single Family Residential, minimum lot size of 9, 600 square
feet.
8
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OCUENT
.J planning . .
Li
2.32 10 {1�
c�
rb
� N
O i r
V
h
cj
•�. .1 I Q, \ 1 1� 3.E. 233
Oz _ t •�o� �;
vo s °VJ30 �
J
3.E. 233TH 3T.
r_
r
�i-1
((``.����/�.J� s C
3.E. (,.;i l f
1 233T1
4
„
nm
m i
r 0 to o <^\/\
H
o ( O'
.r —�IL }
J
�1 f.
APPLICATION Name. Le RiANr LEGEND
Numbor_nz_A,_R Oale _11/4(R7 appliealion silo ■,
IIBI�IIe$� ANNEXATION ZONING toning boundary.-..:.
TOPO/ZONING clly limils 1
SCALE = I°:zool
-�l CITY v RENT
planning . .
w �
• m O W \\ „
m H I'3
222H0 ST f SE 222ND \ r1
p ST
w I W \ W El
> I �- 0 SE 223RD
n a o f Zvi iS Z^w z • "t
7 8 SE 224TH ST
IB 17 SE 22 4TH23RQ
u I r•P PL P w i SE ` PL `
4 O� SE 2251H m <324TH R SE 2257H
Sl W
< E STH w H
E PL N ^vl >
S PL i^ ^> ^ < I N
��.• SE 226TH xi t'
_ ST m ma ^< W� . W
S 228TH I T a �m SE nP \ ff < r
1 ST I ^ 227TH Sr 2 V _�fy V ,
SE 228TH ST SE 228TH
SE 229T W �O SE ST
1 I H
W W / \9 Lf 7 229TH2
PL W I
J < I (PH) (PHI . j
Q�,11'Y ��S SE 230 H
< ;ph 56
I- SE 231ST 1\ Z SE 1'r Qv' ST \
m S 231ST F 1, SE 231ST PARK RCHA
°1 I (PH)ST \ w rt 230TH\ w < ELE NTARY
ST > o PL. �o� 3 Sr �,'^ NSCH l
S 232ND < f 232ND ST oW
ST S 232ND SE 232ND Si H SE ^< E232NO '
•( ST 3E 2]2NC vl 232ND Z S W h
a
j�''� SA SE 233RDC 0'fi^
�!
10
STNf L �M1j`rQ]. I• 5C
m O C 235 TM 231
W S 236TH N io SE 236TH ST Ay ST awe
P \� 1��(PH) ST
W O
,Z•, w a Fv, SE 236TH PL n w
m u SE 237TH ST i W016r -
d < �YO�OSG� Nrserva•
T...,-> l
E 238TNL O^ ZSE 239TH ST o /y ram/•ST
2 Z
t �r 8 11 i SE OTH Sr <
W
m PPa oa
S 241ST ST W tN EAST HILL
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
S 2 �
y
ST m
S 243RD
0
SE 244TH .. i I
ST
W m r
< W F W
O
N
m
P
m
� W S 246TH "-tl
s a PL
I Z q
w m i S 248TH ST SE P 248TH ST
I N
P > I >
J-
.vJ r\ F
APPLICATION Name I p 'Klan LEGEND :
Number AZ-8'7-3 Date Novo► ixy- y�1g87 . application site
fiequeSlAnneYn�-inH Zn„;y,,.
viGini+� Map city limits — — —
•2
Kent City Council Meeting
- Date August 16, 1988
Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: GRADE AND FILL CONTRACT FOR THE WEST HILL FIRE STATION
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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.
3 . EXHIBITS: Executive summary, bid summary tabulations and
recommendation will be distributed at the meeting
M 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Fire Administration, Project Team and Architect
(Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Alreadv dedicated Public Safety Bonds
` 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION(:
Councilmember �� L' moves, Councilmember �`��'� seconds
thaw, the bid be awarded to —t-c) ri r""� Gf fn(.1 Thin Vthe� amountof ~` t�'7 ? and that 6e Mayor be authorized to sign
the contract.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 5A
Kent City Council Meeting
K y 9
Date August 16, 1988
Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: 1987 WATER MAIN REPLACF,MENT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening is scheduled for August 12 .
The Director of Public Works will present a summary of the bids
received and make a recommendation as to award.
r
3 . EXHIBITS•
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ � � ` ►l�l;"�
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember ) moves, Councilmember seconds
to approve the recommendation of the Public Works Director as to
_. award of the 1987 Water Main Replacement project
to at $ _3� .3 �P � .
' DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 5B
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT
Y
t
B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
!e
- C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
i�
D. PLANNING COMMITTEE ray;
E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTAr
F. PARKS COMMITTEEr -
_ .
rA
G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES
July 15, 1988 AUG 11 i9$8D
•••• COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Christi Houser CITY OF KENT
Paul Mann CITY CLERK
Steve Dowell
STAFF PRESENT: Brent McFall �(
Tony McCarthy
Mike Webby
Sandra Driscoll
Ron Spang
Bill Williamson
May Miller
Tom Vetsch
Priscilla Shea
OTHERS PRESENT: Dick King, Shearson Lehman and Hutton
Leona Orr, Citizen
Laurel Young, Kent Librarian
APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS
•.,., All claims for the period ending July 15, 1988, in the amount of $1 ,295,017.05
were approved for payment.
ARCHITECT SERVICES FOR THE LIBRARY PROJECT
City Administrator Brent McFall told the Committee that the firm of Henry
Klein and Associates had been recommended to be the architects for the new
library. He told the committee that their architectural services would be
8.65% of the construction cost, which is anticipated to be approximately
$1 ,870,000 for a total of architectural bid of approximately $161 ,000. He
noted that this amount could change slightly as change orders are processed on
the library. He felt like the amount was an appropriate percentage rate and
that this architectural firm would do a good job for the city. He asked that
the item be placed on the consent calendar for the July 19 meeting and it was
so approved, unanimously.
GOLF COURSE BOND ISSUE
Finance Director Tony McCarthy explained that Dick King and his firm, Shearson
Lehman and Hutton, had worked on the golf course project for almost two years
assisting the City at various stages of the project, determining its
feasibility. The present request from the Committee was to approve the sale
Operations Committee Minutes
July 15, 1988
Page 2
of the bond issue to Shearson Lehman and Hutton, who had been in the market
that week with its marketing effort.
The Finance Director explained that the average interest rate on the bond
issue would be about 8.25 with a gross underwriting spread of 2.4 percent.
The larger than normal underwriting spread was related to the fact that the
firm had spent a substantial amount of time in helping the City develop the
project and the fact that the project was a bit unusual , being a revenue bond
for a golf course. The average interest rate was also slightly higher because
of the perceived risk in the investor community requiring a slightly higher
rate for this type of a bond issue. Dick King provided some additional
information on how these amounts were calculated and some comparisons of other
cities. The Committee approved the item be placed on the consent calendar by
unanimous vote.
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM PROCESS
Assistant City Attorney, Bill Williamson, explained the process to the
Committee for creating the power of initiative and referendum. These powers
could be put on the ballot based on a vote of the council or a 15 percent
petition from the community. This process had been initially requested by
Leona Orr so that the proposed ballot issue related to density could be placed
on the ballot. Bill went over the fact that some staff time and cost would be
involved in establishing this process because many items might not be
applicable for the initiative and referendum process and some legal research
might have to be done, in addition to the cost of the ballot issue itself. He
noted that only legislative acts are subject to the initiative process and
that judicial or administration actions are not subject to the process. There
would be, thus, an exemption for such things as Hearing Examiner rulings, LID
ordinances, budget and personnel matters. The Committee asked for some
additional work from the staff on exact amount of staff time and the
associated cost of establishing such procedure plus the exact requirement on
the vote of the council required to put the item on the ballot.
Operations Committee Minutes
July 15, 1988
Page 3
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCEDURES
City Administrator McFall explained to the Committee that State Legislation
that allowed publishing ordinances by summary which allowed the City to save
approximately $3,000 based on ordinances of one Council meeting also required
some additional information be adopted by City resolution. The resolution
should include that the proper notification be given of upcoming Council
.., meetings and that the preliminary agenda be posted in the Clerk's Office.
City Administrator saw these as adopting the existing City practices but noted
that the State Law required a resolution on the subject. The Committee
approved the item for inclusion on the consent calendar.
BUDGET PRESENTATIONS
Budget presentations were made on the following departments: Council
Administration, Personnel , Law, Information Services and the Library. Each
department noted the various activities that were affecting their operation.
Sandra noted that substantial amount of time had been spend in the civil area
related to solid waste, hazardous waste, transportation, personnel issues,
foreclosures and condemnation. She also noted that in the criminal area there
had been an 68 percent increase in the number of citations and that on a four
day period, in the recent month, all three of her Assistant City Attorneys
were tied up in court.
With respect to the library budget, the Head Librarian noted that circulation
was up approximately 8 percent from last year. The children 's programs which
occur every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday in the summer were
attracting a very large crowd, a 150 at the last program. She also noted that
substantial circulation by phone was up 36 percent from the previous years.
She commended the City staff on the new phone system, on the maintenance work,
particular that of Frank Klingebiel and Ruby Scarborough and noted that the
grounds were good shape and that comments had been received from the library
patrons. She is also pleased with the City ' s Word Processing and the help
Operations Committee Minutes
July 15, 1988
Page 4
received from the Finance Department. As a part of the discussion, it was
noted that the Kent Library was number two or three in the total King County
Library District in circulation. Brent noted that much of the work in '89
would be in contemplation to the move to the new library in 1990. The new
library will be the biggest in the system until a new library is built in
Bellevue.
With respect to the Information Services budget, Ron Spang reviewed the many
activities that had been accomplished in the last couple of years including
new facilities, the new systems for general government, office and public
sysr�`+ 5
safety,, improvements in word processing and the new phone system. Following
his presentation, there was some discussion about holding an open house and
about making sure that the City was not spending too much of its resources in
providing information to other cities unless there was certain amount of
reciprocity. Also discussed was the possibility of providing electronic mail
system for the City Council .
With respect to the Personnel Risk Management proposal , Mike Webby explained
his operation. The Council felt very comfortable with the work in this area.
City Administrator McFall combined the Council , Mayor, Administration
presentation, noting that as activity has increased in all the other
departments, that activity is magnified as dealt with by the Council , Mayor
and Administrator. Problems of growth, citizen involvement, promoting a sound
management team, helping encourage community identity were areas of planned ~
expansion. In addition to Brent's presentation, Nancy Woo talked a little bit
about the Community Information and Events process in noting that the work
load on one person had doubled with the departure of Nancy Leahy but that
effort had been proceeding in the continuation of publishing City Line. She
noted a substantial increase in revenue generated by Saturday Market and the
emphasis to hold grand openings and dedications at a number of the City's new
facilities. She requested that an additional sound system be provided and
Operations Committee Minutes
- July 15, 1988
Page 5
that do some umbrellas be replaced, establish a portable microphone system and
look at some permanent restrooms at Saturday Market site. In Council
discussion of the Community Events, the possibility of a community band was
brought up and it was felt that the City could increase it's ability to
encourage community events. Particularly events like the Centennial
Celebration which will be in the planning stages for 1989 and 90. Also
discussed was the possibility of a a revamping of the Burlington Northern
Station.
66F-OlF