HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 06/07/1988 to i. .. . ._
City of Kent
City Council Meeting
- Agenda
6 wow T.
Office of the City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Council Chambers
City of Kent June 7, 1988
Office of the City Clerk 7 :00 p.m.
NOTE: Items on the Consent Calendar are either routine or
have been previously discussed . Any item may be
,,•_, removed by a Councilmember .
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
,. 1. PUBIC COMMUNICATIONS
11� Employee of the Month
Police Department Presentation
Proclamation - Duwamish-Green River Clean Up Day
2 . LIC HEARINGS
Z Le Blanc Annexation Initial Zoning
3 . COI>1SENT CALENDAR
Minutes
R, Bills
Brutsche Street Vacation - Ordinance �9
Workers Compensation Bank Account Authorization
�E! LID 333 - Ordinance a Uv
.' LID 334 - Ordinance 2 .-1��/
�. Mortenson Annexation
Hazardous Waste Z.a4:,ictg Grant
�Y Ordinances--Condemning Easement for Maintenance of Portion
of Mill .Creek Detention Facility
Kingsport Industrial Park Condemnation Ordinance a83
mac. Pay N Pak Sanitary Sewer Extension
-L� Kent Centennial Logo
Kent Centennial Compositon Contract.
--W-' East and West Hill Fire Dept . Properties Site Preparation
_-G-- Architect Services - Fire Department
Regional Water Association
The Lakes - Release of Covenants
,R Curran Law Building
Council Meeting Change of Location
Public Works Reorganization - Equipment Rental
—� i Customer Services Division Reclassification
�j Transfer from Teamsters Bargaining Unit
Salt Air Hills Deannexation Petition
Library Board Appointment
4 . OTHER BUSINESS
Goodwin Professional Center - Appeal
�. Hazardous Waste Treatment & Storage Facilities - Zoning
Code Amendment
..ems East Valley Study - Zoning Code Amendment
East Valley Study - Amendments to Valley Floor Plan Map
Adult Entertainment Establishments - Zoning Code
Amendments
5 . BIDS
,A-' Surplus Property - Scenic Way
,_. ,B! Surplus Property - 102nd Ave SE and SE 240th
Smith Street Improvements - First to Jason
REPORTS
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time,
make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly
heard.
A. Employee of the Month
B. Presentation
Detective Mark Gustafson will present a photographic
display
C. Proclamation - Duwamish-Green River Clean Up Day
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 7, 1988
Category Public Hearing
1. SUBJECT: LE BLANC ANNEXATION INITIAL ZONING - NO. AZ-87-5
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This the second and final hearing to
consider the Hearing Examiner ' s recommended zoning of the
Le Blanc Annexation No . AZ-87-5 . The first hearing was May 3 ,
1988 . The property is approximately 15 acres in size and is
located south of SE 232nd St . and west of 112th Ave. SE. -Th-e'
ac
the att d
3 . EXHIBITS: Minutes of City Council meeting of May 3 , 1988 ,
staff memo, staff report (2) , addendum, minutes (2) , order
extending time (2) , findings and recommendation (2) , request for
reconsideration, order revising conditions ( including revised
findings and recommendation) . Packet contains data regarding
initial zoning as well as SEPA appeal .
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner , February 24 , 1988 as revised
March 23 , 1988
(Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc. )
Zoning of MRG and R1-9 . 6 with two conditions as outlined in the
attached packet.
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
PUBLIC INPUT:
.., Ot'L SE EIEAR IN,G:
66 . _CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves , Councilmember seconds
to adopt/modify the findings of the Hearing Examiner, to concur
with/disagree with the Hearing Examiner ' s recommended zoning
_., with conditions and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the
required ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No . 2A
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 (revised ) .
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 llearing 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 bill 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 J. 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. lie 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 Department ' s
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
p=_riphery, 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
licensing of a topless establishment on Pacific
Highway South. Bob Brown, 2911 S. 252 , stated
that the residents of the area do not want
this type of business there. He submitted a
list of problems caused by a similar establish-
ment in Federal Way. Mark Bradberry, Sharon Hoyt,
and Pete Daigle also spoke in opposition . Erma
Hanson urged the Council to deny Gerald John-
son ' s application for a business license and
submitted a statement containing 130 signatures .
Douglas Smith, Arlie Palmer, Brian Curran, Diana _..
Ishlam, Irene Quinell , and Shirley Easter spoke
against allowing the business to open.
In response to a question from Arlie Palmer,
Police Chief Frederiksen stated that they have
increased patrols in the area and also encouraged
citizens who are aware of any illegal activities to contact them. Dowell said that the uneven
boundaries of the city make it difficult for
police and fire to tell where the city begins
and ends, and encouraged the citizens to con-
sider annexation.
7 -
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLC WORKS
APRIL 28, 1988
TO: MAYOR KELLEHER(�AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON WICKSTROMI 1��
RE: LEBLANC ANNEXATION INITIAL ZONING
Revision of Hearing Examiner Condition #2
The properties within the LeBlanc Annexation area all have frontage
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.
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:
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.
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
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
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 .
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
DECISION: DENIED
-•. STAFF REPRESENTATIVES: James P. Harris, Planning Director
James M. Hansen, Planning Department
Kathy McClung, Planning Department
Greg McCormick, Planning Department
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
Aiok 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.
The site has an interim zoning of R1-20, Single Family Residential , and
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
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.
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.52OA1c of the Kent City Code.
- 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.
Dated this 24th day of February, 1988.
DIANE L. VANDERBEEK
Hearing Examiner
144H-lH
- 3 -
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, 1986 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
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 A110, 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
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 -
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
EIS is required and a threshold determination processed. And, then
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
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
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.
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
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 Dague: 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
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.
Dague: 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. . .
Da ue: 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
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
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?
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
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
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.
_. DaQue: 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
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
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
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
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
rehearing. I also go on record as saying that because the Planning
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
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
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?
Dague: O.k. I will let you know here.
VanDerbeek: Are you talking about the staff report?
„v 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
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.
Dague: One more second, if I may, and then I will be done.
VanDerbeek: All right. You may have as much time as you need
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
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
#AP-88-1
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
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-
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
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
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 -
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
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 -
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
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
final 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.
µ 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
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
right of away.
VanDerbeek: Are you saying that when there is no centerline you are
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
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. )
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
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
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
there was any hydrology tests or soil samples taken would show that
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.
I 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
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
tonight, they have the trees right next to these condominiums and they
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
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
recently but just up a little ways there another day care. So
actually 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
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. . .
VanDerbeek: Is this development within the City of Kent or in King
County?
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
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
dawn, almost to the end of the Valley High project on 112th, had to be
12
Hearing 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
community accepted these projects and this went on. And, they did a
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
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 this 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
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?
..r 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
Downing was one that was brought up and that is an example on how
sometime 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
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
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?
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 -
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
#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
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
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
that street. Fencing, I know within the city that typically within
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
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
they are welcome to pass through if they chose to, I really don't care
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
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
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
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
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
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,
so 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
Hearing 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, 21 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
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
Hearing Examiner Minutes
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
mistake twice on notifying someone. I 've learned just recently about
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
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
property 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
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
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 y
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
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
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
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
investigations 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.
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
impacts 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
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
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
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?
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
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
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,
(unclear) 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 in 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
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
VanDerbeek: What. . .are you referencing the signatures that were in
the SEPA appeal file.
Daque: 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?
Daque: 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. . .
Daque: Is relevant, o.k.
VanDerbeek: Would be of assistance to me in determining the SEPA
appeal.
Daque: 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
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
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
parties 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
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
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
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
something like that. That's great for whoever lives two or three
miles away but that doesn't the impact here but apparently would
satisfy the legal requirement. Maybe be stuck without (unclear) as
mentioned. But, I guess, you said, the gentleman over here, said that
this 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.
Dague: 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.
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
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
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
REQUEST: An appeal of the Determination of
Nonsignificance for the LeBlanc Annexation
Initial Zoning #ENV-87-101.
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE: LIN BALL/GREG MCCORMICK
I. 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
MRG, 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 R1-201
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.
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.A2a1) 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.
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
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
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
development plan, the impacts can be identified and mitigation
measures established for the identified impacts.
5. The appellants request that an Environmental Impact Study be
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
January 25, 1988
4
I •
CITY OF KENT
71)
planning: .:.
ST
W
I i \ n
a H
122HD 1T SE 222ND e•'t
ST SIS .•
W
W 2 N
�Y.SE '223RD
W ZiH ^ W I Y ^T
4 B SE 22aTN ^ ST < �•0
IS 17 �,� SE
..•. -. r TN ,aAL °•_22 RJ
SE pR
[ a E 2a2_5 TH
SEI2 T �5..
OT
•o y ST t d E STN ► '"
9 l 1 LIM/ SE 2261H SvV1i^_ >
y� �W W
° I SE 226TH ST a ma ,\•\ ^<
R
WW IW Cv ` 'T•.• t
SE nW '• 'Pf <^Lr '
ST I 227TH ST�> _ f�w r•
SE 22STH ST.
SE 221TH i
N I'
SE 229 1,, �0 SE ST 2 N _
..... M, 7M 4 LiT� 29TMa W. I
.J > f W H PL 4y f'P >. •
t I (PN) (PA) H i A•)' yyb SE 230 H \
t Oy f 64'
ro ST
S 231ST SE 2 ST T •\ F SE, �'�� �r SE 231ST .4 PARK RCHA \
01 (Pull W H 230TH� W �ELE NTARY
....-• ] 232ND •I ST < PL. ^O�Jf 232r10T ST or+ SCH L
ST 3 232ND SE 232ND ST SE -•> E232N0 '
'I C ST SE 232146 PL 232ND a. S W k.
•'I S _ > PL
H J`$':r t•.ul: Jy SE 233ROK P f w a
v1 lam• ;Pf,
I s•- 1'r � of N� ►
- YI '' •2• O i STNfi JSIb�, r s[
W O ,Dy aj1 Q 213 TM 234
+ W S 236TN H ?0b 3E 236TN 3T Ay ST Ban
P
" W O
2 2 SE 236TN PL N
m 0 •~H SE 237TH ST i^/ WObr
d t f r�P (� Neserv0.•
' 11 �. N (Pull ° E23STH m An„epcii
m o
,... L.
®�• W (PYl) SE 279TH Sr lA Yt
' s
ST � Yt
D N
i _P1 a ,18 17 >
ST w < SE 140TH ST
9 xRST HST PPO-Onr-it EAST HILL
rK ELEMENTARY
_ ; SCHOOL
1O S 242N00 .
ST N
S 243RD
ST 1 F q
0
H I SE 244TH � i ST
W � N
GO
C W < O > F N
• 'H
1 =a aiIHis"
PL
i44TH ST iE H 243TN m
x N
H > t
t
APPLICATION LeBlanc SEPA Appeal LEGEND .
NUMBER--#AP-88-1 DATE--February 3, 1988,
application site 1zm
REQUEST--SEPA Appeal
_._ VICINTY MAP city limits — --
Scale== 1":1,000'
1
CITY OF KENT
:planning : ::
� 2.72 0 ��?3
p n
C °
S.E. 233
.. � .z � �pV�� •-tea...-if
u
• � lj n � V
S.E. 233TH ST.
2
ID
'� � 3•E. � 233T1
- - - -
t T f CIO
APPLICATION NAME LeBlanc SEPA Appeal LEGEND -
NUMBER--#AP-88_1 DATE--February 3, 1988 application site I 1
REQUEST--SEPA Appeal toning 6oundafy,
TOPO/ZONING city limits ""
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 .
D ANE 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*ANEL. 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
REQUEST: 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 24, 1988
March 23 , 1988 revised conditions
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
Findings and Recommendation
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
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
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
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.
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
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 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
#kAZ-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
Examiner for initial zoning on the LeBlanc Annexation area is that the
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 ad-iacent to 112th Avenue SE shall deed to
the City of Kent sufficient property for street purposes such
that 30 feet of rictht of way exists as measured from the
4
Findings and Recommendation
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
north/south centerline of the southeast quarter of Section 17 ,
Township 22 , Range 5 W.M.
Dated this 23rd day of March, 1988.
ti
4DNE LVAINDERBEEK, HEARING EXAMINER
-•. Request for Reconsideration
Any party of record who feels the decision of the Examiner is based on
error of procedure, fact or judgment, or the discovery of new evidence
may file a written request for reconsideration with the Hearing
Examiner no later than 14 days of the date of the decision.
Reconsideration requests should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner,
220 S. Fourth Avenue, Kent, WA 98032 .
Notice of Right to Appeal
The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written appeal
to Council is filed by a party of record within 14 days of the
decision. The appeal must be filed with the City Clerk and state the
basis of appeal which may be errors of fact, procedural errors,
omissions from the record, errors in interpretations of the
Comprehensive Plan or new evidence. See Ordinance #2233 and
Resolution #896 for specific information.
- 5
CITY OF
March 9 , 1988
1H-n�
Ms. Diane L. VanDerbeek
Suite 312 Key Bank Building
10655 NE Fourth Street
Bellevue, WA 98004
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,
Kathy McClung
Senior Planner
KM:ch
cc: Public Works Department
s■ ■ L'�l
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
Findings and Recommendation
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
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
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
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.
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
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 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
Examiner for initial zoning on the LeBlanc Annexation area is that the
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.
4
Findings and Recommendation
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 ,
Dated this 24th day of February, 1988 .
DIANE VANDERBEEK, HEARING EXAMINER
Request for Reconsideration '
Any party of record who feels the decision of the Examiner is based on
error of procedure, fact or judgment, or the discovery of new evidence
may file a written request for reconsideration with the Hearing
Examiner no later than 14 days of the date of the decision.
Reconsideration requests should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner,
220 S. Fourth Avenue, Kent, WA 98032 .
Notice of Right to Appeal
The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written appeal
to Council is filed by a party of record within 14 days of the
decision. The appeal must be filed with the City Clerk and state the
basis of appeal which may be errors of fact, procedural errors,
omissions from the record, errors in interpretations of the
Comprehensive Plan or new evidence. See Ordinance #2233 and
Resolution #896 for specific information.
5
CITY OF KENT
planning
U Li
-,
Single Family
0
Le5lanc Property ' ❑
In.
Kent City Limits �3
• S nngIe��
Family
Multifamily \ I;W�--- ---�lt
. I t
fo
N
r n�
I �.1
"•-I' — S.E. 240th Street
I, II 7
APPLICATION Name LE BLANC GARDENS LEGEND :
- Number Date 12n8 84 application site
Request COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE toning boundary unuun
city limits
SCALE = r':200'
CITY OF KENT
planningLi
Li
; ,
_ p
232 1D fl
Lr�. a Oi i
60Qs G
F +1�
b S.C. 233 '
J fl
-
_. Jr
l.E. 233TM !T.
U
l
MM Gar dell De sit / � s C
` f
235Ti
n T }
r
L_ I
P �!
HEARING EXAMINER 'S RECOMMENDAT
APPLICATION Name_ lv Ri ANr 1ECEN0 :
Number— Az-R7-3 Oale —11/a/a7 application silo �■
Request XAT ON ZONING toning Uoundary._—.—
TOPO/ZONING city limits i 'I
SCALE = I°:200-
CITY OF KENT
OFFICE OF THE
LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
IN RE THE MATTER OF )
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 .
I k)Vl-
DIANEl.L. VANDERBEEK
HEARING EXAMINER
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES
December 16, 1987
The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to
order by the presiding officer, Diane L. VanDerbeek, Hearing
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
r.... 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 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 1940 's. The site has several species of trees
which are unique to the Puget Sound region. In addition to the
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 'ru'ral 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,
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,
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
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.
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.
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
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 in .site 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
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.
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
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
Hearing 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 wjiat 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.
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" Kreager: 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.
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.
Kreacter: 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
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
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 ,
way around the site. The, where are we, on the north side of the
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
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
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,
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
#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 projp-ct to plan. It's seldom, if ever,
that an architect/planner gets this beautiful piece of ground to
work with.
VanDerbeek: Thank you. Further presentation on behalf of the
applicant or not. All right. At this time I will hear the public
testimony with respect to this matter. All right. Sir, why don't
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
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
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 tb 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
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
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.
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 right 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
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 acpogs 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
density.' Even though, you know, on pictures and everything it
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
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,
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 not. 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.
VanDerbeek: Thank you for your testimony. Further public
testimony?
Jeff Garrett: I 'm Jeff Garrett and I live at 23512 110th Place SE. _.
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.
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
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
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
natural setting and you want to preserve this by putting in
condominiums, it's a little, bit beyond me. It's a form of double
speak, I believe. Speaking of the water problems here, I noticed
in the staff report, there were things that their wasn't any flood
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
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
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 '
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
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
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.
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
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
area, the bottom line of the annexation to 232nd is no cross
streets except 235th. Our area has people who ride Metro. They
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
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 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
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, V 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
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
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#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.
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
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
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.
Vanderbeek: Well, would you please find out, I am going to leave
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
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
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
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 Kreager: A few very brief comments. Most of the comments
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Hearing closed at 10: 00 a.m.
28
KENT PLANNING AGENCY
ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT
FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 1987
FILE NO: #AZ-87-5 LEBLANC ANNEXATION
APPLICANT: CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
REQUEST: 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 . 61
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
KENT PLANNING AGENCY
STAFF REPORT
_... FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 1987
FILE NO: #AZ-87-5 LEBLANC ANNEXATION
APPLICANT: CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
REQUEST: The requesp 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 . 61
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. Zoning
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 _..
Staff Report
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
Planning Department Comment:
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.
Planning 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
i. 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
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
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
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
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 '
C. Sicinificant 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 SF6, Single Family
Residential, 5 to 6 units per acre.
B. The property is currently under an interim zoning designation
of R1-201 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
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:
1
if
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
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 PLA14NING DEPARTMENT
n 1 nn(
1
CITY OF KENT
planning . .
L1 Li ar
v
� 232 0
/ J
tz�, o
L
41 u 3
... pp
10
S.E. 235TH ST.
17. I
s
f
1 ��f
i
Q
a
-------------
I I O
}
APPLICATION Name ie AiANr LEGEND :
------------
Number A7-97-3 He — 1119M application site I
ReIIUB$I—ANNEXATION ZONING toning bouudaf?—:—. -
-• TOPO/ZONING city limits
SCALE = I°:200
CITY OF I ENT
:`,� •` planning . .
W � ST
Y N Q LS
j 222110 ST q 222ND rt
J sr SIS
N
Z> ^JW$ Y T
7 8 3E 224TH ST o i a0 `_,J ey =<NE
18 17 SE 224TH 7 a, se '223AU
PLPL
4 ~ St
2251H N m224TH SE 225TH •
ST < i• E LITH H N
m
1\I� 1 y crMi SE2Ylt= FF
/ SE 226TH >
ST m m" . ^ .'+. W ....
s•r <
S 228TH T ~ <N SE e N Nf V 2
ST 1 2 227TN Sr2> \ rti W I
I SE 228TH 3T< SE 228TH N
N I .1
$E 729T v 70 729T I
W I W PL H qy4 L4,Sy 229THp W
NT In •
J i I (Pvq (P91) N j l'r �5� SE 230 H
< o° q s�'
e S 231S7 SE 231ST I1\` = SE l lq' q� SE 23 2315T PARK RCHA
p F,7)5T LI Y~i 230TK .SAS 57 =,� a ELE MTARY ....
S 232ND I ST < 2 PL' N '7f 232ND ST ^W SCH L
S. 11 S 232ND SE 232ND ST W SE -< E232ND
$T SE 2321,10 >L N 232ND = S W At
I i _ `•
> PL O
A E 233R
� ^ m J 6
JD< n r .�•. t
•�.r o spa. SS
..�'1 �•�..1 f f s,� 1,t. `Pin N� F
j
• � „I •- Y? ,54. = 1 6rNm i �ibgV r SE ^
O 235 TH 23,
N ^ e S 236TH SE 236TH ST AV 51 B01
w > \ NySo y
(PH) < 3T
W
SE 236TH PL N O
m < 'yy���N SE 23)TH ST >^{/ Y�•� 11 W016/
FIN:}t.l� 2 /� 1Iepu[ * ...
=-r� T..
N> m'`o ~••\ E 238TH m hh
(Pvt) SE 239TH ST 0 ( y-eL. r `
W srryry _ o Nit PL — NST $ 17 i SE JGTH ST
N
' � i Prtl U.v"q EAST HILL
S 2415T ST a ra ELEMENTARY
C
0 SCHOOL
ST N
S 243RD
3T ti N
0
H Y, N ! SE 244TH a Sr__
W
W I Q N
< O W F N
W > q
> _ — < O J
N
P
N
u=- W S 246TH
1 m i PL
_ = N
F
W W
a m < S 248TH ST SE N 240TH ST
N
b I >
P > <
APPLICATION Name-Le, Elanr LEGEND :
Number Z-S"7-3 Dale Novem ber y,1gf3 . application silo »
Request AnnfAA; byl oni"L
ViGini� Map city limits - - -
SCALE
CONSENT CALENDAR
3 . City Council Action:Councilmember w Wn� moves, Councilmember �J
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through X be app�ved.
Discussion
Action
e3A. Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
.. May 17, 1988
3B. Approval of Bills .
Approval of payment of the bills received through June 7, 1988
after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at
8 : 30 a.m. on June 15, 1988 .
Approval of checks issued for vouchers :
Date Check Numbers Amount
4/29 - 5/12 60281 - 60284
60761 - 60789 $ 69 , 521.42
5/16 60794 - 61286 1, 253 , 120.00
5/13 - 5/26 60790 - 60793
61294 - 61320 250. 260. 16
6/1 61325 - 61693 743 , 997 . 16
$2 , 316 , 898 .74
Approval of checks issued for payroll :
Date Check Numbers Amount
5/20/88 104321 - 104937 $ 599,066 . 84
Council Agenda
Item No. 3 A-B
Kent, Washington
May 17, 1988
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7 :00
p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem/Council President White. Present: Councilmembers
Biteman, Dowell, Houser, Johnson, Mann, and Woods, City Administrator
McFall , City Attorney Driscoll, Planning Director Harris and Public
Works Director Wickstrom. Mayor Kelleher was not in attendance.
Also present: Police Chief Frederiksen and Personnel Director Webby.
Approximately 40 people were at the meeting.
PRESENTATIONS Oath of Office - Police Officers. Chief
Frederiksen introduced the following new Police
Officers : Patricia Marie King, Harry H. Hansen,
Marvin Wilson and Karl E. Calhoun. The City
Clerk issued the oath of office and the officers
were welcomed to the City by Council and staff.
Chief Frederiksen also introduced Jon Quakenbush
who has recently been promoted to Sergeant.
K-9 Thor. Chief Frederiksen introduced Police
Officer Ron Price and K-9 Thor and noted that
Thor had been seriously injured on April 13
during the attempted apprehension of a flee-
ing suspect. Frederiksen noted that Officer
Price and Thor have assisted in 41 felony
,..,, arrests , 22 misdemeanor arrests and 12 evi-
dence finds . He stated that Officer Mike
Painter and Jude have equally impressive
statistics. Frederiksen presented a plaque
to Officer Price in appreciation of the risks
taken by the K-9 handlers and their dogs.
Planning Department Award. Mayor Pro Tem White
announced that the Kent Planning Department
has received a Merit Award from the American
Planning Association and Planning Association
of Washington for their Report on Multi-Family
Density. The award was presented to Dan
Stroh of the Planning Department.
PROCLAMATION Take Pride in America Month. Mayor Pro Tem
White read a proclamation declaring the month
of May 1988 as "Take Pride in America Month"
in the City of Kent.
,.... CONSENT CALENDAR WOODS MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A
through G be approved. Houser seconded and
the motion carried.
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3A)
Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes
of the regular Council meeting of May 3, 1988.
- 1 -
May 17, 1988
HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3D)
SANITATION Yahn Residential Water Main Extension. ACCEP-
TANCE of the bill of sale and warranty agree-
ment for continuous operation and maintenance
of approximately 140 feet of water main exten-
sion constructed in the vicinity of 906 Canyon
Drive and release of the cash bond after expir-
ation of the one year maintenance period.
STORM DRAINAGE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3E)
Central Avenue Storm Drainage Improvement.
ACCEPT as complete the contract with Scoccolo
Construction for the Central Avenue Storm
Drainage Improvement Project and release of
the retainage after receipt of the necessary
releases from the State.
WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3C)
LID 316 - 94th Avenue Water Main. ADOPTION
of Resolution 1169 authorizing the segregation
of the assessment of a parcel involved in LID
316, the 94th Avenue water main, as approved
by the Council at its regular meeting on May 3 ,
1988.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3F)
Green River Pipeline No. 5. AUTHORIZATION for
the Mayor to sign an extension of the agree-
ment with the City of Tacoma for their Green
River Pipeline No. 5 project extending the
date of delivery of water to 1993 , as approved
by the Public Works Committee.
SEWER LID 334 - Derbyshire No. 7 Sanitary Sewers.
This date has been set for the public hearing
on the formation of LID 334 - Derbyshire No. 7 -
Sanitary Sewer Improvements . The City Clerk
has given the proper legal notice'. Public
Works Director Wickstrom explained that this -
proposed LID had been initiated by petition
of the residents due to a failing septic
system. The project consists of installa-
tion of 8-inch sanitary sewers , 6-inch side
sewer and related appurtenances as follows:
ON FROM TO +'
121st Ave. S.E. S.E. 276th St. Cul de Sac, north of
S.E. 276th St.
122nd Ave. S.E. S.E. 274th St. S.E. 276th St.
S.E. 276th St. 120th Ave. S.E. 122nd Ave. S.E.
Easement S.E. 276th St/122nd Existing manhole
between lots 6&7 Ave S.E. Intersec- approximately 135'
tion southeasterly
- 2 -
May 17, 1988
SEWER The estimated cost is $135, 200 and 26 resi-
dential lots are involved, therefore each lot
would be assessed $5,200.
It was determined that the area was outside
the city limits, that the Health Department
has identified failing septic systems within
the development and that 22 of the 26 property
owners had signed the petition requesting the
LID.
Mayor Pro Tem White declared the public hearing
open. Werner Gersdorf, Assessment No. 18,
asked if the City' s improvement to the water
system could be done at the same time, in
order to use the same trenches . Wickstrom
explained that separate trenches are required
for sewer and water lines, but that the City
would share in the restoration of the streets .
August Reyes questioned the order of events
in the formation of an LID and Wickstrom
explained that protests must be filed in writ-
ing, and could be filed up to 30 days after
the passage of an ordinance providing for the
formation of an LID. In this case, the earliest
date for passage of such as ordinance would
be June 7, 1988. Protests from owners of 60%
of the property would cause the project to be
restrained. He also noted that assessment
payments were spread over a ten-year period.
It was further determined that the Health
Department could order the improvements and
Sid Forman of the Health Department noted that
two properties had already experienced septic
tank failure and those would be required to
connect to a new system immediately upon its
completion. He pointed out that pumping of
the existing septic tanks required a licensed
sludge hauler which would cost about $150. He
recommended that the proposed sewer project
be approved for this area. Edmond Thomas
stated that this question came up about ten
years ago before the houses were built and
that run off water was a problem. Wickstrom
explained that this proposed project came
about at the request of property owners who
were having septic system failures . Bob Wise
stated that the matter had been fully discussed
with the Public Works Department and that the
property owners were in favor. Tom Prince
stated that he could make his own connection
to the main line for about $350 and stated
3 -
May 17, 1988
SEWER that a health hazard existed and
the project was necessary. Millard Battles
stated that although his property was not
experiencing problems, he favored the project,
noting that it was needed and the cost was
reasonable. Lillian Stoll stated that sewers
were needed also on 118th S.E. and property
owners there would like to share in this pro-
ject. It was determined that two such LIDs
could be done at the same time, thus saving
money with the contractor, but that a separate
petition for an LID would be required.
After all who wished to speak had done so,
Council President White noted that if more
information was required, that Wickstrom would
be available. JOHNSON MOVED to close the
hearing and to direct the City Attorney to
prepare the ordinance to create LID 334.
Woods seconded and the motion carried.
TRAFFIC CONTROL LID 333 - Traffic Signal - 72nd Avenue S.E.
This date has been set for the public hear-
ing on the formation of LID 333 for a traffic
signal at 72nd Avenue S.E. The City Clerk has
given the proper legal notice. The Public
Works Director noted that the City had received
a petition for this LID "in October 1987 and
that subsequent contact with property owners
indicated sufficient support. He noted that
the cost is estimated to be $130, 000 and
would be funded 100% by the LID. Wickstrom
stated that there is heavy traffic on S. 180th
and that developers feel that the lack of a
signal at the intersection is discouraging
prospective tenants.
Council President White opened the public hear-
ing. There were no comments from the audience
and BITEMAN MOVED to close the public hearing.
Woods seconded and the motion carried.
JOHNSON MOVED that the City Attorney be directed
to prepare the ordinance creating LID 333 .
Woods seconded. Motion carried.
PRELIMINARY PLAT Josey Glenn Preliminary Subdivision No. SU-88-1 .
This public meeting will consider the Hearing
Examiner ' s recommendation of conditional
approval of this nine lot single family resi-
dential preliminary plat. The site is 2 . 4
4 -
May 17, 1988
PRELIMINARY PLAT acres in size and is located on the southeast
corner of S.E. 232nd and 112th Avenue S.E.
Upon Johnson' s question, Wickstrom noted that
the entire length of 232nd would be improved.
WOODS MOVED to adopt the findings of the Hear-
ing Examiner and to agree with the Hearing
Examiner ' s recommendation of conditional
approval. Houser seconded and the motion
carried.
FINAL PLAT Sanctuary No. 3 Final Plat No. SU-87-2. This
public meeting will consider the final plat
map for a two lot residential subdivision.
The site is 2. 4 acres in size and is located
at 4815 South 216th. The preliminary plat was
conditionally approved on October 6 , 1987 .
All conditions recommended by the Hearing Exa-
miner have been made or bonded for. WOODS
MOVED to approve Sanctuary No. 3 Final Plat No.
SU-87-2 . Houser seconded and the motion
carried.
-- PROPERTY ACQUISITION Curran Building. Johnson noted that acquisition
of the Curran building had been discussed by
the Operations Committee but that no decision
had been made. He MOVED to authorize the City
Administrator to negotiate for the lease or
purchase of the building to temporarily solve
space problems in City Hall . White seconded.
McFall stated that Administration is continu-
ing to pursue a long-term solution to the
space problems. Johnson noted that solutions
-- could take as long as two years , and that the
Curran building could be used in the interim.
Houser stated that rather than acquiring
different locations, she felt the money
should go into one building which could
adequately handle the space needs. Johnson
modified his motion to authorize the City
Administrator to explore the possibility of
leasing the Curran building and to report
to the Operations Committee at their next
meeting. The motion carried.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS City Council Chambers Remodel. The Operations
REMODEL Committee reviewed revised schematic drawings
along with revised cost estimates at its meet-
ing on May 16 . Jackson Carter of Arai/Jackson,
Architects , showed the plan for the revised
remodeling of the Council Chambers . It was
5 -
May 17, 1988
COUVCIL CHAMBERS determined for White that the $8, 586 listed
REMODEL for furnishings would include the dias and
the fixed seats. HOUSER MOVED that the sche-
matic drawings of the Cuoncil Chambers Remodel
project be approved and the project proceed
to design phase. Woods seconded. McFall
noted for Johnson that the total estimate of
$67, 060 did not include the sound system. The
system is estimated to cost between $10, 000
and $15, 000, and can be included within the
budget for this project. Upon Woods ' ques-
tion, McFall noted that the video capability
was included, so that material could immedi-
ately be shown for various meetings and hear-
ings. The City could probably negotiate later
with the TV franchise holder to supply some
of the material for video taping of Council
meetings. Woods complimented the Committee
for a good compromise in this flexible pro-
posal . Biteman noted that he favored the pro-
ject and noted especially the need for a new
sound system.
Dowell noted the number of expenditures this
year which were not anticipated, including
$500, 000 park expense near Lake Fenwick, added
expense at the golf clubhouse, for which con-
tingency funds had been utilized. Taxes have
been increased to fund public works projects , "
and since this remodel is not on the priority
list for this year, he suggested that this
project could be postponed to a later date.
Johnson stated that the sound system was the
major problem and he favored approving that
portion of the project only. Houser noted
that the funds had been set aside for more
than a year, that the current sound system
was not in compliance with the code, that the
carpet needed to be replaced, that these rooms
were used for many meetings and the best
utilization of space needed to be addressed.
Mann asked if the sound system should be included
in the motion. Biteman offered that as a
friendly amendment which was accepted by Houser
and Woods. Upon White ' s question, it was
determined that about $5, 000 had already been
spent on this project. He noted that with
that figure and the sound system added to the
6 -
May 17, 1988
COUNCIL CHAMBERS estimated $67, 060, the completed project could
REMODEL cost as much as $87, 000. He spoke in favor
of the sound system but questioned the timing
in spending this amount which is not high on
the City ' s priority list. He noted that the
City had other economic issues to address,
pointing out the local unemployment and the
numbers of people utilizing the local food
bank. Biteman called for the question and
the motion carried with Dowell, Johnson and
White opposing.
ROLES IN CITY Roles in City Government. Johnson asked Coun-
GOVERNMENP cil President White to schedule a meeting to
continue the discussion started with
Lyle Sumak on roles in City
government. There were no objections and
White indicated that he would set up such a
meeting.
POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3G)
Drinking Driver Task Force Donation. ACKNOW-
LEDGEMENT of donations to the Task Force
in the amount of $220 from Kent Valley Youth
Services and Warren Secord Automotive Centers .
BUSINESS LICENSE Adult Entertainment Businesses. The City
Attorney has prepared Ordinance 2778 regard-
ing the establishment of regulatory standards
for businesses, managers and employees that
provide adult entertainment in the City of
Kent. This ordinance was recommended for
approval by the Public Safety Committee at
its meeting on May 10, 1988 after the receipt
of input and testimony regarding such estab-
lishments .
McFall noted that this ordinance had been pre-
pared upon the direction of the Council based
upon information gathered at the Council meet-
ing of May 3. A proposal had been made to
open a business within the city where topless
dancing would be permitted. This establish-
ment would not serve alcoholic beverages and
would therefore not come under the rules of
the State Liquor Control Board. The Planning
Commission is working on amending the zoning
code to regulate the locations which would
permit this type of adult entertainment.
7 -
May 17, 1988
BUSINESS LICENSE McFall noted that Police Chief Frederiksen
and Deputy Chief Plancich of Bothell would
give some historical information as to the
impact these kinds of establishments have.
Chief Frederiksen noted that the City had
revoked the business license of the Roadside
Tavern in 1981 after conducting an undercover
investigation. For the last five years of
the operation the Police Department had dealt
with drugs, prostitution, one stabbing and
two shootings, resulting in a death. He recom-
mead-ad that the City adopt the ordinance as
presented. Deputy Chief Plancich stated that
a business opened in Bothell, which served no
liquor and soon after opening featured topless
dancing. Patrons were supposed to be 18 or
older, but underage patrons as well as dancers
were discovered on the premises. The Bothell
police made arrests dealing with alcohol, pro-
stitution, drugs and assaults. The City passed
a regulatory ordinance and within five months
the business closed. Plancich pointed out
that Kent had a chance to avoid all these prob-
lems by passing this proposed ordinance before
such a business opened h,=_re. Biteman expressed
appreciation to Plancich for his input tonight as well as at the Public Safety Committee
meeting. City Attorney Driscoll offered for
the record, a verbatim transcript from the
City Clerk ' s office of the testimony provided
at the May 3 , 1988 Council meeting, giving the
views of the public as to their perception
of the negative secondary impacts of such an -
establishment. BITEMAN MOVED to file the
transcript as a part of the record. Houser
seconded and the motion carried.
Driscoll noted that the proposed ordinance is
patterned substantially after King County ' s
ordinance, which has been declared constitu-
tional by the Washington Supreme Court. She
summarized the ordinance as follows :
This ordinance regulates adult entertainment by requiring the business owner,
managers of the business, and employees to obtain a license in businesses
where adult entertainment will be provided and where alcohol is not served.
The ordinance sets out certain standards of conduct. it prohibits employees
or entertainers, whether clothed or unclothed, on or off a stage, from certain
sexual acts or the imitation of such, from touching certain body parts, and •-
from displaying certain body parts. Some exceptions are applied to these
standards:
8 -
May 17, 1988
BUSINESS LICENSE 1. The display of certain body parts can occur when the individual is on a
stage that is 18 inches off the floor and 6 feet from the nearest patron.
2. Certain constitutionally protected expressions must be allowed:
A. Non-obscene dramatic works; or
B. Activities that are for a scientific or educational purpose; or
C. Non-obscene expressions or dance.
Business owners are required to obtain a license which will not be issued
until the application is reviewed by all appropriate departments of the City
and all required information is provided. Managers and entertainers must have
a license before working for the establishment.
Admission to the establishment is limited to those individuals 18 years of age
or older. No entertainer may be younger than 18 years of age. A licensed
manager must be on the premises at all times that the entertainment is
occurring.
Substantial penalties are available through this ordinance. The licenses may
be revoked or suspended for violations of any provision of the ordinance. In
addition, the business may be declared a public nuisance if the ordinance or
any law of the City or State of Washington is violated. Upon conviction of a
violation of this ordinance, a person may be punished by a fine not to exceed
$5,000 or imprisonment for a period not to exceed 12 months or by both such
fine or imprisonment. The City may also seek other legal relief that may be
available to it to enjoin any practices that would be a violation of this
business license ordinance.
BITEMAN MOVED to approve Ordinance 2778 regard-
ing the establishment of regulatory standards
for business, managers and employees that pro-
vide adult entertainment in the City of Kent.
Houser seconded and the motion carried.
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of
the bills received through May 23 , 1988 after
auditing by the Operations Committee at its
meeting at 8 : 30 a.m. on June 1 , 1988.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
4/13 — 4/29/88 59837 — 59843
60244 — 602BO $258.560.09
5/2/88 60285 — 60760 573,216.61
$831.776.70
Approval of checks issued foc payroll:
F Date Check Numbers Amount
5/5/88 103714 — 104320 $608,790.22
- 9 -
May 17, 1988
REPORTS Council President. Council President White
noted that the Council will meet with the
Board of Directors of the Federal Way School
District at 7 : 00 p.m. on May 24 at City Hall
to become better acquainted and share goals
and objectives .
White noted that he has just returned from a
National League of Cities meeting in Washington
D.C. and that he will report on it at the
next Council meeting.
White announced that anyone who is interested
in serving on the King County 2000 Committee
should contact him for an application.
Public Works Committee. Johnson noted that
the committee would meet next Tuesday at 4 : 00
p.m. in the Engineering Building Conference
Room.
Parks Committee. Dowell noted that the com-
mittee would meet on May 25 at 4 : 00 p.m. in
the Courtroom. Upon White ' s question, Dowell
said that the committee would consider the
matter of naming the pond on W. Meeker at its
next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT WOODS MOVED to adjourn at 8: 45 p.m. Johnson
seconded and the motion carried.
Marie Jeq ea; VCMC
City Clerk
10 -
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 7, 1988
41 Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: BRUTSCHE STREET VACATION ORDINANCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Ordinance No. 1311 ( vacating
portions of North 2nd Ave . , North 3rd Ave. and two adjacent
_. alleys upon the request of Leo and Norma Brutsche .
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
-- 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Council at its April 19 1988
(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
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, relating to the vacation of streets
and alleys, vacating a portion of North Second
Avenue, North Third Avenue, and two adjacent
alleys within the city limits of the City of
Kent.
WHEREAS, proper application was filed by Leo and Norma
Brutsche for the vacation of a portion of public streets and
alleys of the City of Kent; and
WHEREAS, the Kent City Council, by resolution, fixed a
time when said petition would be heard and said hearing was held,
on proper notice, on April 19, 1988, at the hour 7 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of the City Hall of the City of Kent, Washington;
and
WHEREAS, the Kent Planning Director processed said
petition and secured technical facts pertinent to the question of
said vacation which includes a sketch of the proposed vacation
and, also, written approval or rejection thereof by the Public
Works Department of. the City of Kent; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department and Planning
Director recommend approving the vacation subject to certain
conditions of compensation to the City of 1-1/2 the appraised
value of the property as a Class C street; and
WHEREAS, at the hearing the petitioner presented
information that the streets and alleys had never been developed
and that other portions of the same streets and alleys had been
vacated without the requirement of compensation; and
WHEREAS, Kent City Ordinance 2333 provides that
compensation may be required by the Council based upon
administrative costs to the City; and
WHEREAS, it appears that the granting of the petition
would not be a menace or inconvenience to the traveling public or
to any ether person using the streets or alleys of the City of
Kent, Washington; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determined that the streets and
alleys should be vacated upon compensation to the City for out of
pocket expenses and directed the preparation of an ordinance
vacating the portion of said street upon receipt of the required
compensation; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that its out of pocket
expenses are $92.00; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has paid $92.00 to the City; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KFNT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That portion of North Second Avenue, North
Third Avenue, and two adjacent alleys within the city limits of
the City of Kent, Washington, and more fully described as set
forth in Exhibit A, incorporated herein by this reference, is
hereby vacated.
Section 2. No vested right shall be affected by the
provisions of this ordinance.
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 KELLEHFR, MAYOR
2 -
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED the day of , 1988.
APPROVED the day of , 1988.
PUBLISHED the day of , 1988.
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
5730-190
3 -
Exhibit A
Legal Description
City of Kent, County of King, State of Washington:
That portion of the alley in Block 1, Ramsey's Addition as
recorded in Volume 16 of Plats, Page 89, records of King County,
Washington, lying northerly of the south line of the CMS&P right
of way;
and
That portion of North Third Avenue between Block 1 and Block 2,
Ramsey's Addition, as recorded in Volume 16 of Plats, page 89,
records of King County, Washington, lying northerly of the
southerly line of the CMS&P right of way;
and
That portion of the alley in Block 2, Ramsey's Addition as
recorded in Volume 16 of Plats, page 89, records of King County,
Washington, lying northerly of the southerly line of the CMS&P
right of way;
and
North Second Avenue between Blocks 2 and 3, Ramsey's Addition, .as
recorded in Volume 16 of Plats, page 89, records of King County,
Washington.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 7, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
rM V/
1. SUBJECT: WORKERS COMPENSATION BANK ACCOUNT AUTHORIZATION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The City of Kent pays approximately
$95,000 a year in worke o compensation claims . These claims range
from small amounts for prescriptions to large amounts for medical
and hospital bills . Scott Wetzel, the City' s claims provider,
processes approximately 30 to 40 claims per month. Following
discussions with Scott Wetzel, it was determined that they could
actually write the checks forwarding them to the recipients and
charge a special City bank account which would be replenished
upon auditing of the claims by the City. This process of a
separate bank account has been established at the City' s bank.
This account is authorized to have up to $2,000 to avoid the
possibility of a check being processed for payment and funds not
being in the account . Request is for approval of this bank
account authorization.
3 . EXHIBITS: Minutes of Operations Committee
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and the Operations Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc . )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3D
Operations Committee Minutes
May 16, 1988
Page 2
though not included in the $67,000 budget, would be done in conjunction with
the improvements to the Council Chambers; and that any video enhancements
would be negotiated as a part of the upcoming negotiation on the cable TV
franchise for Kent.
Following this discussion, Council member Mann made a motion to accept the
proposal with one change, that being the City Clerk's staff position be
exchanged with those of the department head staff. This item was approved on
a 2 to 0 vote and recommended for a discussion at the Council meeting of
May 17. The architect noted that he could provide revised drawings for that
meeting.
WORKERS COMPENSATION CLEARING ACCOUNT AUTHORIZATION
Finance Director, McCarthy told the committee that the State Auditor's Office
had discovered in reviewing the City's Workers Compensation Clearing Account
that the staff had not obtained a formal approval from the Council in setting
up this clearing account. The item had been discussed with the committee
approximately two years ago and the initial account was established with a
zero balance. The process calls for Scott Wetzel , the City's Claims
Administrator, to prepare the checks and forward them to the City for approval
by the City's Personnel Department. Following their approval , a check is
issued from the City's main account to reimburse the claims account for the
total amount of the checks. To avoid the possibility or an overdraft it was
decided that the clearing account, which processes claims totaling
approximately $90,000 per year needed an established balance, currently
$2,000. The committee saw no problem with this practice and recommended that
the authorization be shown on the Consent Calendar at an upcoming Council
meeting.
WCIA 1988/1989 EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Assistant City Administrator, Mike Webby explained to the committee that the
68 member Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) had met last week both
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 7, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. S JECT' LID 333
L)
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. - creating
LID 333, 72nd Ave . So. and So. 180th St. traffic signal .
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Committee and Council
(Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc . )
Earlier hearing on May 17, 1988
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION'
Council Agenda
Item No. 3E
A
I
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ordering the installation of a
traffic signal at the intersection of 72nd Avenue
South and South 180th Street within the City, all in
accordance with Resolution No. 1166 of the City
Council; establishing Local Improvement District No.
333 and ordering the carrying out of zhe proposed
improvement; providing that payment for the
improvement be made by special assessments upon the
property in the District, payable by the mode of
"payment by bonds"; and providing for the issuance
and sale of local improvement district warrants
redeemable in cash or other short-term financing and
local improvement district bonds.
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 1166 adopted April 19, 1988, the
City Council declared its intention to order the installation of
a traffic signal at the intersection of 72nd Avenue South and
South 180th Street within the City, and fixed May 17, 1988, at
7:00 p.m. , local time, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall
as the time and place for hearing all matters relating to the
proposed improvement and all objections thereto and for
determining the method of payment for the improvement; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works caused an estimate to
be made of the cost and expense of the proposed improvement and
certified that estimate to the City Council, together with all
papers and information in his possession touching the proposed
improvement, a description of the boundaries of the proposed
local improvement district and a statement of what portion of
the cost and expense of the improvement should be borne by the
property within the proposed district; and
WHEREAS, that estimate is accompanied by a diagram of the
proposed improvement showing thereon the lots, tracts, parcels
of land, and other property which will be specially benefited by
the proposed improvement and the estimated cost and expense
thereof to be borne by each lot, tract and parcel of land or
other property; and
1
WHEREAS, due notice of the above hearing was given in the
manner provided by law, and the hearing was held by the City
Council on the date and at the time above mentioned, and no
objections to the proposed improvement were received and all
persons appearing at such hearing and wishing to be heard were
heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined it to be in the
best interests of the City that the improvement as hereinafter
described be carried out and that a local improvement district
be created in connection therewith; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN as follows:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Kent,
Washington (the "City") , orders the installation of a traffic
signal at the intersection of 72nd Avenue South and South 180th -
Street within the 'City.
All of the foregoing shall be in accordance with the plans
and specifications therefor prepared by the Director of Public
Works of the City and may be modified by the City Council as _
long as such modification does not affect the purpose of the
improvement.
Section 2. There is created and established a local
improvement district to be called Local Improvement District No.
333 of the City of Kent, Washington (the "District") , the
boundaries or territorial extent of which District is more
particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this
reference incorporated herein.
Section 3. The total estimated cost and expense of the
improvement is declared to be $130,000. The entire cost and
expense shall be borne by and assessed against the property
specially benefited by such improvement included in the District
2 -
r
7
which embraces as nearly as practicable all property specially
benefited by such improvement.
Section 4. In accordance with the provisions of RCW
35.44.047, the City may use any method or combination of methods
to compute assessments which may be deemed to reflect fairly the
special benefits to the properties being assessed.
Section 5. Local improvement district warrants may be
issued in payment of the cost and expense of the improvement
herein ordered to be assessed, such warrants to be paid out of
the Local Improvement Fund, District No. 333, hereinafter
created and referred to as the Local Improvement Fund, and,
until the bonds referred to in this section are issued and
delivered to the purchaser thereof, to bear interest from the
date thereof at a rate to be established hereafter by the City
Finance Director or his designee, as issuing officer, and to be
redeemed in cash and/or by local improvement district bonds
herein authorized to be issued, such interest-bearing warrants
to be hereafter referred to as "revenue warrants." In the
alternative, the City hereafter may provide by ordinance for the
issuance of other short-term obligations pursuant to Chapter
39.50 RCW.
The City is authorized to issue local improvement district
bonds for the District which shall bear interest at a rate and
be payable on or before a date to be hereafter fixed by
ordinance. The bonds shall be issued in exchange for and/or in
redemption of any and all revenue warrants issued hereunder or
other short-term obligations hereafter authorized and not
redeemed in cash within twenty days after the expiration of the
thirty-day period for the cash payment without interest of
assessments on the assessment roll for the District. The bonds
shall be redeemed by the collection of special assessments to be
levied and assessed against the property within the District,
3 -
i
payable in annual installments, with interest at a rate to be
hereafter fixed by ordinance under the mode of "payment by
bonds, " as defined by law and the ordinances of the City. The
exact form, amount, date, interest rate and denominations of
such bonds hereafter shall be fixed by ordinance of the City
Council. Such bonds shall be sold in such manner as the City
Council hereafter shall determine.
Section 6. In all cases where the work necessary to be
done in connection with the making of such improvement is
carried out pursuant to contract upon competitive bids (and the
City shall have and reserves the right to reject any and all
bids), the call for bids shall include a statement that payment
for such work will be made in cash warrants drawn upon the Local
Improvement Fund.
Section 7. The Local Improvement Fund for the District is
created and established in the office of the Finance Director.
The proceeds from the sale of revenue warrants or other -
short-term obligations drawn against the fund which may be
issued and sold by the City and the collections of special
assessments, interest and penalties thereon shall be deposited
in the Local Improvement Fund. Cash warrants to the contractor
or contractors in payment for the work to be done by them in
connection with the improvement and cash warrants in payment for _..
all other items of expense in connection with the improvement
shall be issued against the Local Improvement Fund.
Section 8. Within fifteen (15) days of the passage of this
ordinance there shall be filed with the City Finance Director
the title of the improvement and District number, a copy of the
diagram or print showing the boundaries of the District and the
preliminary assessment roll or abstract of such roll showing
thereon the lots, tracts and parcels of land that will be
specially benefited thereby and the estimated cost and expense
4 -
i
of such improvement to be borne by each lot, tract or parcel of
land. The City Finance Director immediately shall post the
proposed assessment roll upon his index of local improvement
assessments against the properties affected by the local
improvement.
Section 9 . This ordinance shall take effect and be in
force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and
publication as provided by law.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
PREPARED BY:
FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN
By T` 0
Passed the _ day of 1988.
Approved the day of 1988.
Published the day of 1988.
I certify 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
365 Jk
5 -
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 7, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: LID 334
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. 9131 creating
LID 334, Derbyshire No. 7 sanitary sewer .
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
.-• 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Council and Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc . )
Previously heard on May 17, 1988 .
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3F
J
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ordering the installation of
sanitary sewers, side sewers and necessary
appurtenances on 121st Avenue S.E. , 122nd Avenue S.E.
and S.E. 276th Street outside the City, all in
accordance with Resolution No. 1167 of the City
Council; establishing Local Improvement District No.
334 and ordering the carrying out of the proposed
improvement; providing that payment for the
improvement be made by special assessments upon the
property in the District, payable by the mode of
"payment by bonds" ; and providing for the issuance
and sale of local improvement district warrants
redeemable in cash or other short-term financing and
local improvement district bonds.
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 1167 adopted April 19, 1988, the
City Council declared its intention to order the installation of
sanitary sewers, side sewers and necessary appurtenances on
121st Avenue S.E. , 122nd Avenue S.E. and S.E. 276th Street
outside the City, and fixed May 17, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. , local
time, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall as the time and
place for hearing all matters relating to the proposed
improvement and all objections thereto and for determining the
method of payment for the improvement; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works caused an estimate to
be made of the cost and expense of the proposed improvement and
certified that estimate to the City Council, together with all
papers and information in his possession touching the proposed
improvement, a description of the boundaries of the proposed
local improvement district and a statement of what portion of
the cost and expense of the improvement should be borne by the
property within the proposed district; and
WHEREAS, that estimate is accompanied by a diagram of the
proposed improvement showing thereon the lots, tracts, parcels
of land, and other property which will be specially benefited by
the proposed improvement and the estimated cost and expense
thereof to be borne by each lot, tract and parcel of land or
other property; and
WHEREAS, due notice of the above hearing was given in the -
manner provided by law, and the hearing was held by the City
Council on the date and at the time above mentioned, and no
objections to the proposed improvement were received and all
persons appearing at such hearing and wishing to be heard were
heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined it to be in the
best interests of the City that the improvement as hereinafter
described be carried out and that a local improvement district
be created in connection therewith; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN as follows:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Kent,
Washington (the "City") , orders the installation of 8" sanitary
sewers, 6" side sewers and related appurtenances as follows:
ON FROM TO
121st Ave. SE SE 276th St. Cul-de-Sac
North of SE 276th St.
122nd Ave. SE SE 274th St. SE 276th St.
SE 276th St. 120th Ave. SE 122nd Ave. SE
Easement between SE 276th St./122nd Existing manhole
Lots 6 and 7 Ave. SE' Intersection approximately
135' Southeasterly
All of the foregoing shall be in accordance with the plans
and specifications therefor prepared by the Director of Public
Works of the City and may be modified by the City Council as
long as such modification does not affect the purpose of the
improvement.
Section 2. There is created and established a local
improvement district to be called Local Improvement District No.
334 of the City of Kent, Washington (the "District") , the
- 2 -
r
l
boundaries or territorial extent of which District is more
particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this
reference incorporated herein.
Section 3. The total estimated cost and expense of the
improvement is declared to be $135,200. The entire cost and
expense shall be borne by and assessed against the property
specially benefited by such improvement included in the District
which embraces as nearly as practicable all property specially
benefited by such improvement.
Section 4. In accordance with the provisions of RCW
35.44.047, the City may use any method or combination of methods
to compute assessments which may be deemed to reflect fairly the
_... special benefits to the properties being assessed.
Section 5. Local improvement district warrants may be
issued in payment of the cost and expense of the improvement
herein ordered to be assessed, such warrants to be paid out of
the Local Improvement Fund, District No. 334, hereinafter
created and referred to as the Local Improvement Fund, and,
until the bonds referred to in this section are issued and
delivered to the purchaser thereof, to bear interest from the
date thereof at a rate to be established hereafter by the City
Finance Director or his designee, as issuing officer, and to be
redeemed in cash and/or by local improvement district bonds
herein authorized to be issued, such interest-bearing warrants
to be hereafter referred to as "revenue warrants." In the
" alternative, the City hereafter may provide by ordinance for the
issuance of other short-term obligations pursuant to Chapter
•» 39.50 RCW.
The City is authorized to issue local improvement district
•" bonds for the District which shall bear interest at a rate and
be payable on or before a date to be hereafter fixed by
- ordinance. The bonds shall be issued in exchange for and/or in
3 -
redemption of any and all revenue warrants issued hereunder or
other short-term obligations hereafter authorized and not
redeemed in cash within twenty days after the expiration of the
thirty-day period for the cash payment without interest of
assessments on the assessment roll for the District. The bonds
shall be redeemed by the collection of special assessments to be
levied and assessed against the property within the District,
payable in annual installments, with interest at a rate to be
hereafter fixed by ordinance under the mode of "payment by
bonds," as defined by law and the ordinances of the City. The
exact form, amount, date, interest rate and denominations of
such bonds hereafter shall be fixed by ordinance of the City
Council. Such bonds shall be sold in such manner as the City
Council hereafter shall determine.
Section 6. In all cases where the work necessary to be -
done in connection with the making of such improvement is
carried out pursuant to contract upon competitive bids (and the
City shall have and reserves the right to reject any and all
bids) , the call for bids shall include a statement that payment
for such work will be made in cash warrants drawn upon the Local
Improvement Fund.
Section 7. The Local Improvement Fund for the District is
created and established in the office of the Finance Director.
The proceeds from the sale of revenue warrants or other
short-term obligations drawn against the fund which may be
issued and sold by the City and the collections of special
assessments, interest and penalties thereon shall be deposited
in the Local Improvement Fund. Cash warrants to the contractor -
or contractors in payment for the work to be done by them in
connection with the improvement and cash warrants in payment for
all other items of expense in connection with the improvement
shall be issued against the Local Improvement Fund.
4 -
1
Section 8. Within fifteen (15) days of the passage of this
ordinance there shall be filed with the City Finance Director
the title of the improvement and District number, a copy of the
diagram or print showing the boundaries of the District and the
preliminary assessment roll or abstract of such roll showing
thereon the lots, tracts and parcels of land that will be
specially benefited thereby and the estimated cost and expense
of such improvement to be borne by each lot, tract or parcel of
land. The City Finance Director immediately shall post the
proposed assessment roll upon his index of local improvement
--- assessments against the properties affected by the local
improvement.
Section 9. This ordinance shall take effect and be in
force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and
publication as provided by law.
ATTEST: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
PREPARED BY:
FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN
By C W rl, on q
Passed the day of 1988.
Approved the day of , 1988.
Published the _ day of , 1988.
I certify 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.
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK (SEAL)
3 6 6 7 x
5 _
i
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 7, 1988
Ij Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: MORTENSON ANNEXATION \
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptan of a 10 percent Notice of
Intent for annexation of approximately 10 acres in the vicinity
of South 218th St . and 98th Ave. So. and authorization to set
July 5 as the date to meet with initiators .
3 . EXHIBITS: vicinity map
-• 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Property Manager
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS•
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilor mber seconds
DISCUSSION
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No . 3G
CITY OF ���
i
D
MAY 2 5 1988
CITY OF KENT
City Clerk CITY CLERK
City of Kent
_. 220 S. Fourth
Kent, Washington 98032
RE: /�7���'d�2 d��r � cry Dated �i�/ -,7jF
Approximately /C' acres (map attached)
Dear Marie:
I have checked the referenced Notice of Intent and find that
,.,• signatures representing owners of property aggregating more than
10% of the assessed valuation were recorded.
Very truly yours,
- Z�c
G. B. McCa• ghan
Property anager
;C�z .ram
"` 2204th AVE.SO. / KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895 / TELEPHONE(206)859-3300
CITY OF
` W" , MAIL TO:
+� -- G. B. McCaughan
City of Kent
P. 0. Box 310
(\ NOTICE OF INTI:N'TION TO COPt\IL'NCE Kent, IVA 98031
ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS
IN CT y
NAME OF PETITIONER;._ 9lzw -
TO; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON Mr. Mortenson =< -'LL,1
We, the undersigned, constituting the owners of not less than 10% in value,
according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property contiguous
to the City of Kent for which annexation is to be petitioned do hereby notify you
of our intention to commence annexation proceedings seeking the annexation of the
following described property to the City of Kent, by circulating a petition there-
fore among the property owners of said area.
The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and .
described as follows:
The Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of
Section 7, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington;
TOGETHER WITH that portion of S. 218th St. lying adjacent thereto; EXCEPT
an o tion of said property in 98th Ave. S. _ ROO ���'�� p'N W 5U. 2- 5f,
H Ne Q�
MAY 2 5 1888
CITY OF KENT
CITY CLERK
("ABOVE OR ATTACHED DESCRIPTION NOT TO BE
USED FOR LEGAL OR ORDINANCE PURPOSES")
WHEREFORE, these initiating parties respectfully request the Honorable Council
to set a date for a meeting with these initiating parties within 60 days .from the
date of filing this notice to determine whether the City of Kent will accept the
proposed annexation, and whether it shall require the assumption of existing City
indebtedness by the area to be annexed.
13 17.'
} Zf 9. 26 3a I ,i
—N 89 -1` 15 E 329.40 _ 5
q
d m
s LOT 4 .s
N '
Y 25 1988 I B9
N 09-59_-53 E _ N
r
O 329.4 ry Cl OF KENT n
m
I TY CLERK N ~g
LOT 5
I .
N �\g I ZAp+G j 4.
0
Ol — lJ 89-59 27 E _ —
298 .8z p
N
N
LOT 2 �� ° I LOT 1 LOT 4 GO y
j� ro
ip5 A
CL � KC SP 12840 5-8612151217
�
_ 469-59-
LOT I 2E — N r a
-- 329.24 N n
LOT 2 LOT 3 n� ✓e�
" I
d VI
k ^
2,0 V �R /
lk
-3J I -N 09-S0-36 E
g`•" 329.fG R '
:•.ANT oQD �ll� 21 8TH. ST.
v
o
30.0
v mc.z, 6��
m i 5 \3 -
,�o ,
. '' � 1��,��• I ,. 1' r�u�:l Z5 . SHEET •. �
CITY OF
lAp PRINT NAME & ADDRESS IN INK LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SIGN N1TH PROPER .IQRATUR LOT, BLOCK & PLAT OR TAX LOT
l o3) qLf� Plku,.so ktcCjj Wo hob
Lelc
WA llre�j
�_i 3 is fg MAY. 2 5* 1988
Sal /'��.•,__7:j ;:-; �;,�;; ,�_ - ,��, �'.�` , ��� Cl I Y UF
CITY CLERK
17/
uJA98o3/
13I7.'�
-7777
LOT 4
� 0 A�' N o -•`h
Ln
o� I 1 —
o° es
N
p — 329.A N U D n
r11 n N.B
I MAY 2 5 1988
LOT 3
_ CITY OF KENT
CITY CLERKLo
p X a4 Q v
89-59- 27 E _ P
V o
N
or 2 °= 1 LOT I LOT 4- co
1�5 KC SP 12840 5-8612151217 °
329.2 a
L O T 3 / n .✓as
/ v LUT Z I
Yr OD '
•"i/ LOT I rod
�S AL h n
ho j
Z g9 3 ►. /
5 p Y• ��
/98 - q uT oRp ' 1 � d S7 p_�.:. !s .zz.y7
21 8TH.
.06
MORTENSON ANNEXATION v
o
•' m
I
� a
N ' (�•XiJ � u �'
� l
Kent City Council Meeting
�\ Date June 7, 1988
�J Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: HAZARDOUS WASTE ZONING GRANT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept grant contract with the Washington
State Department of Ecology for consulting services to develop
hazardous waste zoning regulations pursuant to requirements of
RCW 70. 105 and to authorize the Finance Department to set up a__
budget account for this grant.
3 . EXHIBITS: Grant contract with DOE.
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $10, 529
SOURCE OF FUNDS: DOE grant (25% local match provided by in-kind
services)
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3H
GRANT*
LOCAL HAZARDOUS WASTE PLANNING AND ZONING
..._ THIS GRANT is a valid, binding contract made and entered into between the
STATE of WASHINGTON, acting by and through the DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY,
hereinafter called the DEPARTMENT, and City of Kent, hereinafter called
the GRANTEE.
GRANTEE'S Legal Address and Telephone Number:
City of Kent
220 4th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
(206) 859-3300 �,<<
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the DEPARTMENT has jurisdiction to enter into this grant as
authorized by RCW 70.105.235; Hazardous Waste Disposal.
WHEREAS, the GRANTEE represents that it is fully qualified to complete
the Scope of Service, Appendix "A," as per DEPARTMENT instructions here-
inbelow described.
- NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF MUTUAL BENEFITS TO BE DERIVED FROM
THIS GRANT, the DEPARTMENT and GRANTEE agree as follows:
1. SCOPE OF SERVICE
The GRANTEE agrees to complete in satisfactory and proper manner as
determined by the DEPARTMENT the services described and broken down
into budget object categories in the attached Appendix "A"; PROVIDED,
however, that such determination is subject to and conditioned by
the DEPARTMENT through its audits and inspections to which the
GRANTEE hereby agrees. The GRANTEE also agrees to the audit of all
relevant records and files by the DEPARTMENT or by any other duly
authorized audit representative for a period of at least three (3)
years after the termination date of this grant or of any dispute
hereunder.
2. PERFORMANCE
a. Effective Date of Grant: Unless otherwise agreed upon in
writing herein, the effective date of this grant shall be the
date it is signed by the Solid and Hazardous Waste Program
Manager of the DEPARTMENT.
b. Time for Performance: Any work performed on or after the
starting date and on or before the completion date identified
in Appendix "A" shall be paid pursuant to this grant. Any work
performed prior to the starting date or after the completion
date identified in Appendix "A", unless agreed upon herein,
will be at the GRANTEE'S expense.
*Cost Reimbursement
c. Completion Date: Performance under this grant shall be -.
completed no later than June 30, 1988, and such performance
shall be undertaken and completed in such manner so as to
assure expeditious completion in accordance with the purposes
of this grant.
d. Personal Performance: The performance of all activities con-
templated by the grant shall be accomplished personally by the
GRANTEE and GRANTEE'S employees. The GRANTEE shall not assign
or subcontract performance to others unless specifically
authorized in writing by the DEPARTMENT. The DEPARTMENT shall _.
not provide typing, xeroxing, or any other personal services
except as otherwise provided in writing herein.
e. Performance Reporting: The GRANTEE shall submit progress
reports as required. The GRANTEE shall also report, in writ-
ing, to the DEPARTMENT Contract Officer any problems, delays,
or adverse conditions which will materially affect the ability
to meet project objectives, time schedules, or work units by
the established time periods. This disclosure shall be accom-
panied by a statement of the action taken or contemplated and
any DEPARTMENT assistance needed to resolve the situation.
f. Compliance With All Laws: The GRANTEE agrees to observe all
laws, regulations, and policies of the United States and the
State of Washington affecting performance under this grant.
3. COPYRIGHTS, PATENTS, AND TANGIBLE PROPERTY RIGHTS
a. Copyrights and Patents: When the GRANTEE creates any
copyrightable material(s) , or invents any patentable property,
the GRANTEE may copyright or patent the same; but the DEPART-
MENT retains a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable
license to reproduce, publish, recover, or otherwise use the
material(s) or property and to authorize others to use the same
for federal, state, or local governmental purposes.
Where federal funding is involved, the federal government has a
proprietary interest in patent rights to any inventions that
may be developed by the GRANTEE. As such, the federal grantor
agency, in the absence of legislation otherwise, will allocate
patent rights in accordance with the "Memorandum and Statement
of Government Patent Policy" (36 F.R. 16887-16892) issued by
the President on August 23, 1971.
b. Tangible Property Rights:
(1) Generally - The DEPARTMENT'S current edition of "Financial
Guidelines for Grants Management," Ch. 4, as supplemented
by the "Grant Guidelines for Local Hazardous Waste Plan-
ning and Zoning," shall control the utilization and
disposition of all real and personal property purchased
wholly or in part with funds furnished by the DEPARTMENT
in the absence of state/federal statute(s) , regulation(s) ,
or policy(s) to the contrary.
-2-
(2) Personal Property Furnished by DEPARTMENT - Where personal
property having an acquisition cost of $300.00 or more per
unit and a useful life of more than three years is furnished
directly to the GRANTEE for use in performance of the
project, it shall be returned to the DEPARTMENT prior to
final payment. The GRANTEE shall make payment in cash or
by setoff to the DEPARTMENT for use of such property.
Should said property be lost, stolen, or damaged while in
the GRANTEE'S possession, the DEPARTMENT shall be reim-
bursed in cash or by setoff by the GRANTEE for the fair
market value of such property.
4. CONVERSIONS
The GRANTEE shall not, at any time, convert any equipment, property,
or facility acquired or developed pursuant to this grant to uses
other than those for which monies were originally allocated without
-- prior written approval of the Director of the DEPARTMENT. Such
approval may be conditioned upon payment to the DEPARTMENT of that
proportion of the proceeds of the sale, lease, or other conversion
or encumbrance which monies granted pursuant to this grant bore to
y the original acquisition, purchase, or construction cost.
5. COMPENSATION
a. Amount-
(1) DEPARTMENT Payment - The DEPARTMENT agrees to compensate
or reimburse the GRANTEE a sum not to exceed $10,529.00.
This amount shall not exceed seventy-five (75) percent of
the total project cost.
(2) Total Grant Value - The sum of the DEPARTMENT'S payment
together with the GRANTEE'S matching contribution shall
not exceed $14,039.00, which is the total project cost,
including Washington State Sales Tax, where applicable.
No additional payments shall be made under this grant unless
otherwise specifically agreed upon in writing as an amend-
ment to this grant.
(3) Indirect Costs - Indirect costs are not eligible for
reimbursement.
(4) Deviation from Budget - Payment will be disallowed when
the GRANTEE'S request deviates from any of the budget
objects in the project agreement by more than a cumulative
five (5) percent of the total project cost without prior
„•, written approval.
Expenditures or transfers to equipment expense will be
disallowed when equipment has not been listed as a budget
item. Other unlisted cost item transfers may be allowed,
subject to the five (5) percent limitation. Each element
of a multi-element budget shall be subject to these
restrictions.
-3-
b. Transfers from Indirect Costs: Transfers from indirect costs -
are not allowed.
C. Method of Compensation: Payment will be made at least
quarterly and no more often than once per month. All payments
will be made for deliveries or services performed on a reim-
bursable basis expressly conditioned upon submission to the
DEPARTMENT of a state invoice voucher request form along with
supportive documents which describe and document, to the
satisfaction of the DEPARTMENT, the work performed, activities
undertaken, or the progress of the project otherwise made.
The voucher request form and supportive documents must itemize
and break down all allowable costs into budget object categories;
for example: personnel, fringe benefits, travel, equipment,
supplies, contractual, construction, indirect charges, etc. A
general guideline for completion of the voucher request form
and supportive documents is attached to this grant as Appendix
"B," and by this reference is made a part hereof.
d. Period of Compensation: All payments will be for deliveries or
services performed within the effective dates of this grant
unless specifically modified in writing herein.
e. Final Request(s) for Payment: The GRANTEE must submit final
request(s) for compensation within thirty (30) days after
satisfactory completion of the grant and within fifteen (15)
days if completed at or near the end of a fiscal biennium.
f. Maintenance of Records: All records supporting every request
for payment shall be maintained in a manner which will provide an audit trail to the expenditures for which state support is
provided. Original source documents shall be maintained by the
GRANTEE and made available to the DEPARTMENT or a duly author-
ized audit representative upon request.
g. Security For Performance: Five percent (5%) will be withheld
by the DEPARTMENT from each payment as security for performance.
This amount will be paid upon completion of the project in a
manner satisfactory to the DEPARTMENT.
h. Mileage And Per Diem: If mileage and per diem are paid, it shall
not be in an amount greater than that allowed state employees.
6. DISPUTES
a. Except as otherwise provided in this contract, any dispute
arising under this contract, which is not disposed of by agree-
ment between the parties, shall be decided by the DEPARTMENT' s
Contract Officer, or other authorized official of the DEPARTMENT, _.,.
who shall reduce his/her decision to writing and furnish a signed
copy to the GRANTEE. The decision of the Contract Officer, or
the DEPARTMENT's authorized official, shall be the final and
-4-
conclusive decision of the DEPARTMENT unless, within thirty
(30) days from the date of receipt of such copy, the GRANTEE
mails or otherwise furnishes to the Contract Officer a written
appeal addressed to the Director of the DEPARTMENT. The
decision of the Director, or the Director's duly authorized
representative for the determination of such appeals, shall be
the final and conclusive decision of the DEPARTMENT.
b. Review of the decision of the DEPARTMENT shall not be sought
under Chapter 43.21B RCW. Any action or proceeding brought
to enforce or otherwise arising out of or relating to this
contract shall be brought in the Superior Court of Thurston
County. Pending final resolution of a dispute pursuant to this
Section 6 the GRANTEE shall proceed diligently with the perform-
ance of the contract and in accordance with DEPARTMENT"s final
decision.
_.. 7. TERMINATION OF GRANT
a. For Cause: The obligation of the DEPARTMENT to the GRANTEE is
contingent upon satisfactory performance by the GRANTEE of all
its obligations under this grant. In the event that the GRANTEE
fails to perform any obligation required of it by this grant,
the DEPARTMENT may refuse to pay any further grant funds there-
under and/or terminate this grant by giving written notice of
such termination and specifying the effective date thereof,
at least five (5) days before the effective date of such ter-
mination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents,
data studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, and
reports or other materials prepared by the GRANTEE under this
grant shall, at the option of the DEPARTMENT, become its property
and the GRANTEE shall be entitled to receive just and equitable
compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such
documents and other materials.
Notwithstanding the above, the GRANTEE shall not be relieved of
liability to the DEPARTMENT for damages sustained by the
DEPARTMENT by virtue of any breach of agreement by the GRANTEE.
The DEPARTMENT may withhold any payments until such time as the
exact amount of damages due the DEPARTMENT from the GRANTEE has
been determined.
b. Insufficient Funds: The obligation of the DEPARTMENT to make
grant payments is contingent upon the availability of funds
through legislative appropriation and state allotment, and such
other conditions not reasonably foreseeable by the DEPARTMENT
rendering performance impossible. When the grant crosses over
fiscal years, the obligation of the DEPARTMENT is contingent
upon the allotment of funds during the next fiscal year.
8. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
a. Discrimination: The DEPARTMENT and the GRANTEE agree to be
bound by all federal and state laws, regulations , and policies
-5-
against discrimination and agree not to discriminate in -
employment, either directly or indirectly, because of a person's
age, sex, marital status, creed, color, national origin, or the
presence of any sensory, mental, or physical handicap, unless
based upon a bona fide occupational qualification.
The GRANTEE further agrees to affirmatively support the
DEPARTMENT'S minority contract procurement program ensuring the
participation of minority businesses in subcontracts, subcon-
tracts for goods and services , etc. , awarded under this grant.
b. Publications and Brochures: Any publications or brochures
required as a product of this grant shall conform to minimum
standards of size, 8-1/2" x 11", white, 20# bond manuscript, _.
single spaced, no less than 1" margins. Photos, illustrations,
and graphs must be of reproducible quality. Additional speci-
fications as may be outlined in the attached Appendix "A" shall
be complied with.
C. All Writings Contained Herein: This grant, its appendices,
exhibits, and the current editions of the DEPARTMENT'S "Finan-
cial Guidelines for Grants Management" and "Grant Guidelines
for Local Hazardous Waste Planning and Zoning" contain the
entire understanding between the parties, and there are no
other agreements, understandings, or representations set forth
or incorporated by reference herein. No subsequent modification(s)
or amendment(s) of this grant shall be of any force or effect
unless in writing, signed by authorized representatives of the
GRANTEE and DEPARTMENT and made a part of this original grant.
d. Assignments: No right or claim of the GRANTEE arising under -
this grant shall be transferred or assigned by the GRANTEE.
e. Waiver: Waiver of any GRANTEE default is not a waiver of any
subsequent default. Waiver of a breach of any provision of
this grant is not a waiver of any subsequent breach and will
not be construed as a modification of the terms of this grant
unless stated as such in writing by the authorized
representative of the DEPARTMENT.
f. Subcontractor Compliance: The GRANTEE is responsible for
ensuring that all subcontractors comply with the terms of this
grant.
g. Third Party Beneficiary. The GRANTEE shall ensure that in all
subcontracts entered into by the GRANTEE pursuant to this
agreement, the state of Washington is named as an express third-
party beneficiary of such subcontracts with full rights as such.
h. Industrial Insurance: The GRANTEE certifies full compliance
with all state industrial insurance laws where applicable. If
the GRANTEE fails to comply with such laws, the DEPARTMENT
shall have the right to immediately terminate this grant for
cause as provided in Section 7.a. , herein.
-6-
i. Conflict of Interest: No officer, member, agent or employee of
either party exercising any function or responsibility in the
review, approval, or carrying out of this grant shall partic-
ipate in any decision which affects his/her personal interest
or the interest of any corporation, partnership, or association
in which he/she is, directly or indirectly interested; nor
shall he/she have any personal or pecuniary interest, direct or
-- indirect, in this grant or the proceeds thereof.
j . Contract Officer: The Contract Officer for this grant is
Corinne Guse.
k. Liability for Performance: To the extent that the Constitution
and laws of the State of Washington permit, the GRANTEE shall
indemnify and hold the DEPARTMENT harmless from and against
any liability for any or all injuries to persons or property
arising from the negligent act or omission of the GRANTEE
arising out of this agreement, except for such damage, claim,
or liability resulting from the negligent act or omission of
the DEPARTMENT.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby execute this Grant:
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
W Jfc%r
MR. CHRIS HAYRES — SIGNA ^ , OFFICIAL DATE
ACTING PROGRAM MANAGER OF GRANTEE AUTHORIZED
TO MAKE AGREEMENT
��N1EL�. 1�iEL` F AIS
PRINT NAME OF DATE
AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL
C f_0
TITLE OF AUTHORIZED DATE
OFFICIAL
Ap�r�pved as to form this WITNESSE"M:
�l`-day of 19k
Marie Jens City Clerk'
AS TO FKM:
A sistant Attorney General APPROVED
Grant No. 67-^�`
0Q&8 ' a7 &LI R-�-�
Sandra Dr' toll - City Attorney
Accounting Data
Fund Source
-7-
CONTRACT
Appendix A
GRANTEE: City of Kent
PROJECT TITLE: Hazardous Waste Zoning -
CONTRACT STARTING DATE: January 4, 1988
CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE: JUNE 30, 1988
TOTAL PROJECT COST: $14,039 STATE GRANT AMOUNT: $10,529
NARRATIVE PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The City of Kent will prepare and adopt zoning ordinance amendments that
will bring the City into compliance with RCW 70.105.225 and the
DEPARTMENT's "Zoning Guidelines for Hazardous Waste Treatment and
Storage Facilities, WDOE 87-19."
The project is described in detail in the City of Kent grant application
dated December 23, 1987, which is hereby included as a part of this
contract. The major project tasks below summarize the project and the
project budget.
Final reimbursement will only be made by the DEPARTMENT after the zone
designation compliance certification, as set forth in the DEPARTMENT's
zoning guidelines, has been submitted to the DEPARTMENT by the City of
Kent.
TOTAL GRA1,'T ESTIMATED
MAJOR PROJECT TASKS ITEM COST AMOUNT COMPLETION DATE
1. Inventory $ 2,110 $ 1 ,582 February 28, 1988
2. Code Review 3,174 2,381 March 31, 1988
3. Draft Code Amendments 4,564 3,423 April 30, 1988
4. Public Information Meetings 2,083 1,562 May 15, 1988
5. Public Hearings 2,108 1 ,581 June 30, 1988
TOTAL $14,039 $10,529
Appendix B
GUIDELINE:
SUBMISSION OF A19-1 VOUCHER
AND SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTS
(COST REIMBURSEMENT CONTRACTS)
The purpose of this appendix is to assist the CONTRACTOR/GRANTEE in
determining allowable items of cost. If the CONTRACTOR/GRANTEE fails to
name an item of cost in the request for payment, this does not imply it
is either allowable or unallowable; rather, determination of allowability
shall be based upon the treatment of similar or related items of cost.
1. Factors Allowing Cost
In order to be allowable, costs must:
a. Be necessary and reasonable and not be a general expense,
b. Not be prohibited by any laws or regulations,
C. Conform to any cost limitations or exclusions,
d. Be consistent with state and federal (when applicable)
policies, regulations and procedures,
e. Be given consistent treatment through uniform accounting
principles,
f. Not be allocated to or included as a cost of any other
state/federally financed program, past, or present,
g. Be net of all allowable credits.
2. Certification
To assure expenditures are proper, vouchers requesting payment must be
certified by the CONTRACTOR/GRANTEE. Form A19-1 has a certification
provision which must be signed by the CONTRACTOR/GRANTEE or its authorized
representative before payment will be allowed.
3. Credits
The applicable portion of any income, rebate, allowance, and other
credit relating to any allowable cost, received by or accruing to the
CONTRACTOR/GRANTEE, must be credited to the DEPARTMENT, either as a cost
reduction, or by cash refund, as appropriate.
. - 4. Unforeseen/Emergency Expenditures
A contingency line item providing a specified amount for reimbursements
for unforeseen expenditures may be made only with the prior written
approval of the DEPARTMENT.
5. Allowable Expenditures
No request for payment will be honored for those expenditures incurred
before the commencement date of the agreement, or after termination of
such agreement, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing (see agreement
-- provision, Section 2.b. , "PERFORMANCE,") .
B-1
6. Contract Provisions Controlling
Where any discrepancies between the specific provisions of the agreement
and the applicable cost principles arise, the agreement provisions shall
apply.
7. Deviation From Budget Objects
Payment will be disallowed when the CONTRACTOR'S/GRANTEE'S request
deviates from any of the budget objects in the project agreement by more
than five percent (5%) of the total project cost without prior written
approval.
Expenditure or transfers to equipment expense will be disallowed when
equipment has not been listed as a budget item. Other unlisted cost _.
item transfers may be allowed, subject to the five percent (5°A) limita-
tion. Each element of a multi-element budget shall be subject to these
restrictions.
8. Phone Number
The CONTRACTOR/GRANTEE must include his business phone number along with
the documents requesting payment to expedite processing should questions
arise.
9. Instructions - Form A19-1
Specific instructions for filling out the A19-1 voucher and supportive
documents are found in Financial Guidelines for Grants Management, Chap-
ter 6, published by the Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE) . A r
copy of this text is available from the DEPARTMENT and is furnished to all
CONTRACTORS.
10. Cost Object Breakdown
The documents supporting each request for payment must have a brief con-
cise breakdown of each cost object under the agreement, along with a
brief explanation for the charges.
11. Allowable Costs -
Generally, whether costs are allowable depends upon cost principles
applicable to the particular project agreement. However, certain costs
are commonly allowed. These include:
advertising
compensation for personal services
depreciation and use allowances
employee fringe benefits
employee morale, health and welfare
maintenance and repair --
materials and supplies
memberships, subscriptions and professional activities
taxes
training and education
transportation
travel
B-2
Employee benefits in the form of regular compensation paid to employees
during periods of authorized absences from the job, such as for annual
leave, sick leave, court leave, military leave, and the like, if they
are: (1) provided pursuant to an approved leave system, and (2) the
' cost thereof is equitably allocated to all related activities, including
grant programs.
Employee benefits in the form of employers' contribution or expenses for
social security, employees' life and health insurance plans, unemployment
insurance coverage, workmen' s compensation insurance, pension plans,
severance pay, and the like, provided such benefits are granted under
approved plans and are distributed equitably to grant programs and to
other activities.
Where any questions involving allowability of costs arise, the
DEPARTMENT contracts officer should be consulted; otherwise, certain
costs may be disallowed.
12. Payroll and Distribution of Time
Amounts charged for personal service, regardless of whether treated as
direct or indirect costs, will be based on payrolls documented and
approved in accordance with the generally accepted practice of the state
or local agency. Payrolls must be supported by time and attendance or
•• equivalent records for individual employees. Salaries and wages of
employees chargeable to more than one cost objective must be supported
by appropriate time distribution records. The method used should produce
an equitable distribution of time and effort. Such time records must be
certified by the project director. Such certified records are the only
allowable source document for charging and reporting personnel
expenditures.
13. Costs Allowable With Prior Written Approval
Certain costs require prior written approval of the federal granting
agency and/or the DEPARTMENT. Costs requiring prior approval include
indirect costs, some direct costs such as equipment, insurance and
indemnification, and preagreement costs. Again, reference to cost
- principles and consultation with DEPARTMENT officials should eliminate
any questions and possible rejection of incurred costs.
..., 14. Unallowable Costs
Certain Costs are commonly disallowed. These unallowable costs include:
bad debts
contingencies
contributions and donations
entertainment
fines and penalties
interest and other financial costs
underrecovery of costs under grant agreements
Once again, whether a cost is unallowable depends upon the applicable
cost principles to the agreement. Failure to clarify any question
whether a cost is unallowable or allowable may result in its disallow-
ance by the DEPARTMENT.
B-3
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 7,
1988
Category Consent Calendar
V1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE CONDEMNING EASEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF
PORTION OF MILL CREEK DETENTION FACILITY
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Ordinance No. f � providing for
the taking of an easement for ingress and egress in the area of
the upper Mill Creek drainage facility for maintenance of the
detention facilities in the vicinity of 106th Ave SE and SE 268.
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
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. 3I
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
JUNE 31 1988
- TO: MAYOR KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON WICKSTROM
RE: CONDEMNATION FOR EASEMENT - UPPER MILLER CREEK DETENTION
BASIN
.. This item has been discussed with the Public Works Committee
members.
We have been in negotiations with the property owners to obtain an
easement for ingress and egress. It does not appear that we are
able to reach a negotiated settlement. Therefore, we are
requesting authorization to proceed with condemnation so that we
-� can move toward construction this year. At the same time, we will
continue with attempts to reach an agreement through negotiations.
W
Yr
1Yr
•r
/i (BURIED ER
BAR PON VIA I 2 DIVERSION STRUCTURE CONDUIT X S-ERVICE
• TO MINI
iTREAM /' ( /
2
20, —
ESMT 12'ROAO �•
/•• JNApnq�a / 60'
';n1ie A� .::IESMT {20'EASEAIENT.
rIrw AREA ;T ,,g• ` +'. — 125' ± 2 ACCESS CONTROL
OX CULV. ROC(( WALL
,ME AS 1 I � 9 GATE
:onD
BARN
2 ROAD GRADE TO FOLLOW
(EXISTING SURFACE
ED POWER Q I ` CAD 70 LF, 12'z3' DOX CULVERT I I
SOR CONDUITS I.E. • 341.67 DIVERSION STRUCTURE
I ,' E. • 341.30 @ OUTLET t
• I J (. ll
W
Z I,
A
O I
W (
' 4
1 4 {1] I
INOTES: ''to
•rnai�en W
I. REMOVE EXISTING WIRE FENCE Q
ALONG 104TIl AVE. S.E. FROM
)VE 2 I NORTHERLY IP_ TO SOUTHERLY T I
T,` 6 DRWY. ( APPROX. 485 L.F.)
.T 0
7 III, 2. CONSTRUCT LOG FENCE ALONG
�JEL ` \• 104T11 AVE. S.E. WITHIN LIMITS
\J \JJt V I 1 �I �II�III SHOWN. ( APPROX. 345L.F. TOTAL
LENGTH ) 3
IIH—I
- I�I E 6 ;
CA>?
L
1
2 1.
D 2 X!\ \ DEMOLISH EXIST. HOUSE
AND GARAGE. REMOVE
16
EXIS1 SEPTIC TANK.
2
' DETENTION
\Lr
BASIN �\ 1 1 \. \\
(I II
1777 ;
, /r,0U3E ,
22.so
N � ,� i,. „ 7y7I6'o � • �
40 N
Ac - �(Z)
� :w - - Q�Ilb
i99 / 0005
6 Y r
2.77.yy7/ mmannown
'�rk� 9 .G2d7. 7/> i� �
D7. T/ r•- .
SDI
'D �
I' W 2JB, 33
••-• /�c. 19p�W -
�G n 0• A
00
U n 2 q P 298. 9s t
6 T 0, of t- eat oa t
29
-- - e v
tj
� N
IS
�i 81 V l,I Z 0010 A ' 003!
h
m ac k+ 7
27/•59 3nO.J6•'� <2 1 . Zo r 2B� JB it
/ 0 8 — --
- i to A
f
.._-� .1 Li rnprl sr.' 1 \�r\ \�" �\\\ �._7 I i •L—__— ./�I_—^�,P \ \-
BAS11
7'.
�!\::. 1• ::. �I.. ��J ''III! '.1• �\ � I'.`t \�
4P3
BASIN J Ft
ij
,��.� — s . z — � �
J1
L
..........
N S,
I`lam,,� lII(I rl}1IX�zo
CITY .OF KENT, WASHINGTON
SURFACE DRAINAGE FACILITIES
PREPARED BY URS COMPANY, FEBRUARY 1085
SCALE: I'-
DE rENrION
BASIN Go'
\v
1A 1,711,0"1,5;E //I
i
I
i
ORDINANCE NO.
i
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, providing for the construction,
�i improvement and maintenance of certain surface
drainage facilities and related purposes; for
the purpose of providing for condemnation,
appropriation, taking and damaaing of land and
other properties therefor; all located
approximately near Southeast 267th and 106th
Avenue Southeast, 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 surface
drainage 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 nanner provided by law.
Section 3. The entire cost of the improvement and
I
acquisition provided for by this ordinance shall be paid from the
Drainage Utility Funds, or from such general funds of the City of
Kent as may be provided by law.
._ i
I
Section 4. The City Attorney be and she is hereby
authorized and directed to begin to prosecute the actions apd
proceeding in a manner provided by law to condemn, take, damage
and appropriate land and other property necessary to carry out thel
provisions of this ordinance. In conducting said condemnation
proceedings, the City Attorney is hereby authorized to enter into
stipulations for the purpose of minimizing damaaes; such
stipulations to include, but not limited to size and dimensions ofl
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.
i
Section 6. Effective Pate. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage,
approval and publication as provided by law.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK j
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
I
SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY _..
PASSED the day of 1988. ,
11 APPROVED the day of 1988.
POPLISHED the day of , 1988.
I
- 2
i
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. i
I I
i
i
(SEAL) i
MARIF JENSEN, CITY CLERK
I
I
I
I
1
I
i
� I
5720-190
I
I
I
3 -
Exhibit A
F11SI24WT
Beginning at a point on the North line of the West half of the
Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest
quarter in Section 29, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M. ,King
County, WA. which point lies 10.00 feet West from the Northeast
corner thereof being the True Point of Beginning; thence West
along said North line a distance of 8.60 feet; thence South
parallel with the East line of said West half a distance of 60.00
feet; thence in a Northeasterly direction in a straight line to a
point which lies 10.00 feet South and 53.40 feet East of the True
Point of Beginning; thence West parallel with the North line of
said Southwest quarter a distance of 53.40 feet; thence North
parallel with said West line a distance of 10.00 feet to the True
Point of Beginning..,
;
MAIN PARCEL. ._..
PARCEL A:
TI4E EAST 18. 6 FEET OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE µ
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 22
NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON;
EXCEPT THE NORTH 10 FEET OF THE EAST 10 FEET THEREOF.
PARCEL B:
THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, _
WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN. IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONi
EXCEPT THE NORTH 10 FEET;
EXCEPT THE EAST 30 FEET; IT
AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF THE PARCELS A AND B DEEDED TO THE CITY OF KET
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST 18. 6 FEET OF THE WEST HALF
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE »-
MERIDIAN. IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGIN14114G
OF PROPERTY HEREIN DESCRIBEDi
THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE THEREOF A DISTANCE OF 238. 84 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY A DISTANCE OF 308. 49 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH
LINE OF THE. SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER IN SAID SECTION+ WHICH IS 188. 82 FEET EASTERLY OF THE POINT OF
BEGINNINGr
THENCE WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE A DISTANCE ❑F 188. 82 FEET TO THE TRUE
POINT ❑F BEGINNING. "'"
' Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 7, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
V
1. SUBJECT: CONDEMNATION ORDINANCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Ordinance No . T providing for
the acquisition through condemnation of a certain portion of
Kingsport Industrial Park to acquire a right-of-way for the
192nd/196th corridor as was approved by the Council on
November 3, 1986 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves , Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No . 3J
i
i
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, providing for the construction and
improvement of certain roadways and corridors
and related purposes; for the purpose of
providinq for condemnation, appropriation,
taking and damaging of land and other
properties therefor; all located approximately
South 196th Street and 78th Avenue South in
..,- Kent, Washington.
I
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 a portion of certain real property for
the construction and improvement of certain roadways and highway
corridors and related purposes for such property described as
•.• Lot 1 in Kingsport Industrial park Pevised Short Plat recorded
under King County Auditor file No. 8104140726.
Section 2. All land, rights, privileges, and other
I
property lying within the limits of the lot, blocks, and tracts ofi,
i
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,
it appropriated, taken and damaged for the public use of such
purpose, and all lands, rights, privileges and other properties
I
are to be taken, damaged and appropriated only after lust
compensation has been made or paid into the court for the owners
i
it thereof in the manner provided by law.
i
Section 3. The entire cost of the improvement and 1
acquisition provided for by this ordinance shall be paid from the
Capital Improvement Funds, or from such general funds of the City
of Kent as may be provided by law.
it I
it !
I j
Ii �
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 ofl
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 crdinance 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:
i
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
I I
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
i
SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY -
PASSED the day of , 1988.
APPROVED the day of , 1988. y
I PUBLISHED the day of , 1988.
i
_ 2 _
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.
I
(SEAL)
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
I
i
i
... I I
i
.4
I
I
I
5710-190
Kent City Council Meeting
_. )J Date June 7, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: PAY N PAK SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of bill of sale and warranty
agreement for approximately 51 feet of sanitary sewer extension
constructed in the vicinity of 27232 72nd Ave. So. for Pay N Pak
distribution center and release of the project bonds . No
maintenance period is being required as the system has been
operational for a period longer than what would be required for
maintenance.
-- 3 . EXHIBITS: vicinity map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3K
WL" INITY MAP
i( wfl,0w Iln, FIRE
STATION
Qr
a I
Ction 25 fromtholice
Ic nthil' ZZ {dorth ,
III rite East , a
of .10.b0 feet.
tl 10 East ST
If
r73ST,1 •iF
)f__of Parcel rD .,- 'Ui
c•.
records of ���_.:�__ , I �j,
alolm Ole
f -/o,!tf, feat. to \ -f )
'•71d Auditor s �167 1�
r �.
10 along
rl Of 710,01) fnFtt; rf) �t_)7R
vo sr I �I
wr,.rJ9 feet thenc `r" `
feet to the
r ISFCRT .% II
t! nce alon said . AGF
R . 00 r r
o,-jh a centralPROJECT
q t tin .e t >
a feet. i . c SITE
' T E
r^ `= II
st , a distance
t distance of
n- founty recordi ly b
o,rec�f. v ;
w �� r•"�
YI 9A9A
.. ) ui2 y,
� 1 Y
W j
REYNOLDS
' 7
111 O
THOMAS ST ! I'
Z INTI.Rt !+t.IICE
,,� SMITH BROS. rj
DAIRY m :y' '�j
5 zTerH AVE
-- L' RAWN �, H PAY'N PAK DISTRIBUTION CENTER DATE
U G A . 31I06 "
C, HKID __KENT , '�`
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 7, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
/I —SU,JECT: KENT CENTENNIAL L O
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approve Kent Centennial Logo. The logo is
comprised of 10 sections, one for each of ten decades of the Kent
Centennial. Homage is paid to early pioneers, farming, dairy and
lumber industries, the Green River, the railroad, the beauty and
livability of Kent and Kent ' s future. The logo is designed by
graphic artist, Jennifer Holmes, of Kent and was selected from
over 40 applicants by Art Selection Jury Members, Dr . Judy Woods,
Jeannine Dowell, JoAnn Brady, Midge Sweeley and Nancy Leahy. The
design has received the approval of the Kent Arts Commission.
3 . EXHIBITS: copy of logo design
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Arts Commission
(Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc . )
--. 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $300
SOURCE OF FUNDS: City Art Program
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember oves, Councilmember seconds
71
DISCUSSION: .41
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3L
� �b
Il
1��
� ,
...............
/ Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 7, 1988
\KI\�1V Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: CONTRACT FOR COVSIONINGOF ORIGINAL COMPOSITION IN
CELEBRATION OF THE KENT CENTENNIAL
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: ApproveRL contract between artist
Timothy A. Kramer and the City of
for the
commissioning of the Kent Centennial composition. The
composition will be premiered by the Rainier Symphony for the
citizens of Kent during Kent ' s Centennial .
3 . EXHIBITS: contract and original work program proposal and
presentation plan
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Arts Commission
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
recommended the approval of the contract at their May 24, 1988
meeting
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $2,000
SOURCE OF FUNDS: City of Kent ' s Arts Commission Budget
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION•
Councilmembe moves, Councilmembe seconds
DISCUSSION: `
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No . 3M
Contract for Commissioning of Original Works
Kent Arts Commission
City of Kent
Artist Timothy A. Kramer Owner City of Kent
Address 430 South Dunn St. Location: 220 Fourth Avenue South
A artment #314 Kent, Washington2
Bloomington, IN 4/401
SS#
Telephone 812/334-7048
Discipline: Music Composition
--. Actual Cost of Artwork $ 2,000.00
Total $ 2,000.00
Title Kent Centennial Composition
AGREEMENT FOR ORIGINAL WORKS
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 5th day of February, 1988 by
and between the City of Kent, Washington, hereinafter called the "OWNER", and
Timothy A. Kramer, hereinafter called the "ARTIST."
WHEREAS, the OWNER desires to contract with the ARTIST, to provide musical _.
composition; and
WHEREAS, the ARTIST has represented to the City that he is capable of
performing the work in an artistic, professional manner.
NOW, THEREFORE, the OWNER and the ARTIST, in consideration of covenants and
conditions hereinafter set forth do agree as follows:
I
RETENTION OF ARTIST
The OWNER does hereby retain the ARTIST to perform the work and services herein-
after described. The ARTIST is an independent contractor and shall furnish all
labor, materials, equipment, supplies, shipping costs and all other incidentals,
including Artist transportation costs to the premiere performance, except as
specifically provided below, and shall conduct and complete the work in a --
competent and professional manner.
II
SCOPE OF WORK
The Work referred to by this AGREEMENT is the creation of a musical composition,
completed full score for conductor and individual parts for orchestra as required
and premiere performance rights including pre-concert lecture of the following
original work (hereinafter referred to as the "WORK") :
Type of Work - Musical Composition
Earliest Possible Date of Performance - September 15, 1989
Latest Possible Date of Performance - December 31 , 1990
- 1 -
The ARTIST shall execute the WORK in accordance with an artist proposal first
approved in writing by the OWNER. The WORK must be adaptable for performance by
,... the Rainier Symphony orchestra.* The ARTIST will be present at the premiere
performance and will be responsible for proper presentation of the WORK.
*The WORK must reflect the theme "Kent's Centennial " and the character of the
Kent community, as stated in the ARTIST's project description and presentation
plans.
III
TIME SCHEDULE
The ARTIST shall commence work on the project upon the date of execution of this
contract, and shall complete the WORK, and deliver the work to the OWNER no later
._ than August 15, 1989. The performance date shall be mutually agreed upon between
ARTIST and OWNER and shall take place during the dates set forth in Section II
above. Amendments to the time of the premiere performance shall be agreed upon
in advance, in writing, by both the ARTIST and OWNER.
- IV
TRANSFERS
- The work and services required of the ARTIST under this Agreement are the
property of the City of Kent which shall be performed exclusively by the ARTIST
and shall not be assigned, sublet or transferred without the prior written
approval of the OWNER. This shall not prohibit the ARTIST from employing
qualified personnel who shall work under his direct supervision for non-creative
work.
V
REVIEW OF WORK IN PROGRESS
The OWNER, or its representatives, shall have the right to review the WORK and
progress of the WORK.
- 2 -
VI
PAYMENT
The ARTIST shall be paid by the OWNER for completed work and/or services related
to this AGREEMENT only as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation
for all work performed and/or services rendered, and for all supervision, labor,
supplies, materials, shipping, travel expenses, equipment or use thereof, and for
all other incidentals necessary to complete the WORK. Total payment shall not
exceed the sum fee of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00). The ARTIST is solely
responsible for payment of all sales tax and other federal , state and local taxes.
The total payment is subject to adjustment as set forth in Section VII. Payments
will be made upon a percentage of completion as set forth below:
Payment 40% ($800) Upon completion of artist's proposal and signing contract
Payment 40% ($800) Upon Owner receipt of completed approved full scores for
the Conductor.
Payment 20% ($400) Within thirty (30) days of completion of the lecture and
premiere performance, if all other contracted services have
been provided, no claims have been filed, all taxes have
been paid and the Agreement accepted as 100% complete by
the Owner.
The ARTIST may request reimbursement for purchase of materials in advance of the
amount of the next scheduled payment. The Owner may grant reimbursements at its
sole discretion so long as the amount of reimbursement does not exceed the total
of the next scheduled payment and after providing the OWNER with receipt for
payment for such materials.
Final payment will be made following a 30 day period to begin upon the date of
completion of premiere performance at the designated time and location and delivery
of artist's updated resume and performance instructions, program notes and ARTIST
statement about the WORK and acceptance of this Agreement as 100% complete.
The ARTIST is responsible for payment of all costs, including required materials,
labor of assistants, communications, studio space, travel , taxes, transportation,
shipping, storage, rentals, delivery, documentation and public report of the
completed WORK.
- 3 -
The ARTIST is responsible for payment, to the Department of Revenue, of business
and sales taxes which may be due from him as a result of this contract. The
ARTIST must register with the Washington State Department of Revenue.
The ARTIST shall submit a billing, including evidence of payment of sales tax, in
triplicate on City of Kent voucher forms in a manner directed to the OWNER when
he believes each stage outlined has been reached. The determination that the
stage has in fact been reached shall be solely that of the OWNER. The OWNER will
promptly determine whether or not the applicable stage has been reached and upon
making that determination it will process the invoices and make payment to the
ARTIST within thirty (30) calendar days of the receipt and approval of the
voucher.
VII
TERMINATION
A. The right is reserved by the OWNER to terminate this AGREEMENT for any
(nonaesthetic) reasons at any time upon not less than ten (10) calendar days
written notice to the ARTIST. The Owner shall be the sole judge of whether
the rendering by the ARTIST is aesthetic or nonaesthetic.
B. In the event this AGREEMENT is terminated by the OWNER without fault on the
part of the ARTIST as solely determined by the City, the ARTIST shall be
entitled to a final payment or settlement as set forth below at the option
of the ARTIST:
1 . The ARTIST shall be paid according to the schedule set out in Section
VI, plus a portion of the next installment due which corresponds to the
percentage of the work completed at the time of termination. If
payments previously made to the ARTIST exceed the total amount due as
computed above, then the ARTIST shall refund that amount of the total
previous payments which exceed the amount determined by applying the
above formula. Such refund shall be received by the City within ten
(10) calendar days of the date of termination of this Agreement. The
ARTIST shall deliver to the OWNER the WORK in whatever form it exists
at that time, which shall then become the property of the OWNER for use
- 4 -
without restriction, except that it shall not be represented to be the
work of the ARTIST; or
[. The ARTIST may refund all monies paid to him by the OWNER prior to the
time of termination and retain the WORK for his own use without
restriction.
C. In the event this AGREEMENT is terminated by the OWNER for breach of any
term of this agreement by the ARTIST, or because of the disability of the
ARTIST, or is terminated automatically because of death of the ARTIST, the
OWNER may utilize either of the options available to the ARTIST under B
above. Exercise of either of these options by the OWNER shall not prevent
the OWNER from pursuing any remedy otherwise available to it in law or
equity.
VIII
INDEMNIFICATION
The ARTIST does release and agree to save and hold, the OWNER, all elected and
appointed officers, agents and employees, harmless from any and all causes of
action, suits of law or equity, or claims or demands or any form of liability of
any nature arising out of or in connection with the performance of the WORK and
obligations contained herein on the part of the ARTIST, his agents, and
employees; except where caused by the sole negligence of the OWNER.
IX
RISK OF LOSS AND INSURANCE
The risk of damage to or loss of the WORK during development and through
completion of premiere performance shall be solely that of the ARTIST. This risk
shall transfer to the OWNER only upon transfer of ownership of the WORK, which
shall occur after completion of premiere performance and this Agreement is
accepted as 100% complete by the OWNER. The ARTIST shall provide to the OWNER a
copy of a policy of insurance, covering all risks and hazards against any damage
to or loss of the WORK while it is being created.
- 5 -
X
NOTICE
A public notice including the ARTIST'S name as composer and Commissioned by the
City of Kent Arts Commission to celebrate Kent's Centennial 1990 shall be
published on the cover page of the score and shall be publicly displayed and
identified with the WORK.
XI
REPRODUCTION
The ARTIST shall retain the copyright and all other rights, if any exist, in and
to the WORK except that the ARTIST grants to the OWNER an irrevocable and
permanent license and/or other rights to reproduce the WORK for performance in
any manner whatsoever.
XIII
EMPLOYMENT
Any and all employees or agents of the ARTIST or other persons which engage in
the performance of any work or services required by the ARTIST under this
AGREEMENT shall be considered employees or agents of the ARTIST and not of the
OWNER and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workmen's
Compensation Act or other laws on behalf of said employees or agents or other
persons while so engaged, and any and all claims made by any third party as a
consequence of any act or omission on the part of the ARTIST'S employees or
agents or other persons while so engaged on any of the WORK or service provided
to be rendered herein, shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of the
ARTIST.
The ARTIST warrants that he has not employed or retained any company or person,
other than a bona fide employee or established art agent of the ARTIST, to
solicit or secure this AGREEMENT, and that the ARTIST has not paid or agreed to
pay any company or person, other than such employee or established agent, any
fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration,
contingent upon, or resulting from the award or making of this AGREEMENT. For
- 6 -
breach or violation of this warranty, the OWNER shall have the right to terminate
this contract or to deduct from the contract price the full amount of such fee,
commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or contingent fee.
XIII
NONDISCRIMINATION
The ARTIST shall comply with all federal , state and local laws and ordinances
prohibiting discrimination in employment with regard to age, sex, race, color,
creed, national origin, or presence of any sensory, physical or mental handicap,
unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification.
XIV
MODIFICATION OR AMENDMENT
This AGREEMENT is the sole agreement between the OWNER and the ARTIST concerning
the subject matter hereof and supersedes any and all prior agreements relating
thereto. No provision of this AGREEMENT may be amended, modified or supplemented
except in writing signed by the OWNER and the ARTIST and submitted to the KENT
ARTS COMMISSION. The waiver of the breach of any provision of this AGREEMENT
will not constitute a waiver of any subsequent breach thereof, nor of the
AGREEMENT.
XV
COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTES, RULES AND REGULATIONS
In the performance of the WORK, the ARTIST shall comply with all applicable state
and local laws, rules and regulations. The laws of the State of Washington shall
apply. Any conflict of interpretation of this Agreement shall be resolved by
Superior Court of King County, Washington.
XVI
WAIVER
The ARTIST agrees to notify the OWNER of changes in his address and failure to do
so, if such failure prevents the OWNER from locating him, shall be deemed a
waiver of the ARTIST'S rights.
- 7 -
XVII
RECORDS
The OWNER agrees to maintain on permanent file a record of this AGREEMENT and of
the location and disposition of the WORK to the extent such record is required by
law.
XVIII
PUBLIC REPORT FORMAT
To help facilitate the understanding of works of art within public agencies the
ARTIST shall make a public report to the OWNER. The ARTIST shall upon
presentation of the completed work, provide this public report in a format agreed
upon by the OWNER and the ARTIST.
XIX
ARTIST'S PROFESSIONAL RESUME, SCORE (THREE COPIES) AND
PERFORMANCE INSTRUCTIONS
Upon completion of the WORK, the ARTIST shall provide a current professional
resume and technical description of the artwork and detailed recommendations for
its performance, according to a form provided by the City of Kent. These docu-
ments are to be provided to the OWNER.
For purposes of documentation and publicity of works acquired by the City of
Kent, the ARTIST will furnish the OWNER with the following copies of the musical
score and photographs.
1 ) Three professional quality copies of the completed musical score.
L) Two black and white glossy photographs of the ARTIST.
XX
ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This writing constitutes the entire agreement of the parties.
- 8 -
XXI
COMMUNICATIONS
Communication, written and verbal , between parties shall be with the following.
ARTIST OWNER
ADDRESS BY: -
TELEPHONE ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
Agreed to by the following:
AGENCY City of Kent ARTIST Timothy A. Kramer BY BY
TITLE Mayor of Kent TITLE
DATE DATE -
ACCEPTED BY
TITLE Chairman
KENT ARTS COMMISSION
DATE -
Based on approval by the Kent Arts
Commission during its meeting of
- 9 -
Approved as to form:
CITY ATTORNEY
Date
1659R-6R
10
ATTACHMENT A
PUBLIC REPORT FORMAT
To help facilitate the understanding of works of art within public agencies, the
ARTIST shall make a public report to the OWNER, i .e. program notes, pre-concert
lecture prior to premiere and ARTIST statement regarding the WORK.
i
i
i
ATTACHMENT B
PERFORMANCE INSTRUCTIONS FOR ORIGINAL WORK
To include all instructions to the Conductor and orchestral set-up if applicable.
1659R-6R
- 1L -
Contract for Commissioning of Original Works
Kent Arts Commission
City of Kent
Artist Timothy A. Kramer Owner City of Kent
Address 430 South Dunn St. Location: 220 Fourth Avenue South
Apartment #314 Kent, Washington 98032
Bloomington, IN 0
SS#
Telephone 812/334-7048
Discipline: Music Composition
Actual Cost of Artwork $ 2,000.00
Total $ 2,000.00
Title Kent Centennial Composition
PROPOSAL FORMAT
CITY OF KENT ARTS COMMISSION
CITY OF KENT
ORIGINAL WORKS PROGRAM
ARTIST NAME Timothy A. Kramer
ADDRESS 430 South Dunn St. , Aot 314 Bloomington, IN 47401
TELEPHONE ( 812 ) 334-7048
DISCIPLINE Music: Composition
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Please succinctly and clearly described the project. (Please
use additional pages if necessary. )
Please see attached Proposal
PRESENTATION PLANS: Please provide a detailed description of your premiere
performance presentation plan, i .e. rehearsal plans, working with conductor,
pre-premiere discussion(s) , lecture(s) and/or other public education programs and
premiere performance. (Please use additional pages if necessary. )
Please see attached Presentation Plans
Return to: City of Kent Arts Commission
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032 206/859-3350
PROPOSAL
Within the broad range of the orchestral repertoire lies a narrow band of
contemporary music which satisfies both the composer and the audience - bridging
the gap between them. My commissioned work for the city of Kent will continue in
this tradition. It will reflect both the vision of this community and the
exuberance of its centennial year while fulfilling my own artistic desires as a
composer born and raised in Washington state. The roots of my past, as the
source of my musical expression, will prove to play a vital role in forging a
fresh, vibrant, and festive composition, representative of Kent as a model city
for the Pacific Northwest.
With the understanding that the composition is for a community orchestra,
certain technical features will be considered. Special attention will be given
to the length of the piece and the level of difficulty. Decisions of this nature
are, of course, largely dependent upon the ability of the players and the amount
of rehearsal time available, but I propose that the work will be fifteen to
twenty minutes long.
I will also be sensitive to the needs of the community and to the purpose
and function of this event. I do not regard myself as an "art-for-art's-sake"
composer, but, rather, an "art-for-people's-sake" composer. My intentions for
this composition are to provide an uplifting and memorable occasion, full of
noble beauty. I will strive to not only project the granduer of Kent's
centennial celebration, but to provide an artistic focal point for the community
past and present.
These considerations should not be misconstrued as restrictions on my
imagination. They are, on the contrary, the guideposts for my musical impetus.
It is from these concepts that the course of the work will follow its natural
destiny.
PRESENTATION PLANS
The information surrounding this Centennial composition will be dis-
seminated to primarily three groups of people: the conductor, the orchestra
members, and the audience.
Joseph Pollard White and I have already spoken about this project and
I will be working directly with him through its development and presentation.
I propose, in agreement with Mr. White, that I have no less than two
rehearsal sessions with the orchestra within the few days prior to the
premiere. At that time, I can advise, if necessary, on the interpretation
of the work and answer any technical details.
The public awarness and education of new music - and of this Cenntenial
work, in particular - also plays an important role in this project. My
concerns are that the audience will receive enough information about the
composition to be comfortable with the music and sensitive to my ideas.
_.. Prior to the premiere, I would hold a half-hour pre-concert discussion.
(This could be held, perhaps, in a smaller room adjoining the concert hall,
allowing a more intimate and personal atmosphere. ) During that time, I
would talk about the composition and answer any general or specific
questions about new music. In this way, the public would have the
opportunity to become directly involved with the premiere, granting a
tangible appreciation of this festive event.
0 Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 7, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: FIRE DEPARTMENT SITE PREPARATION ON THE WEST AND EAST
HILL PROPERTIES
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to proceed with site
preparation of the West and East Hill properties in June, prior
to the conditional use hearing.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum of explanation.
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff Fire Chief Public Safety Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Already dedicated Public Safety Bonds
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3N
MEMORANDUM
MAY 27, 1988
TO: MAYOR KELLEHER, COUNCIL PRESIDENT WHITE
COUNCILMEMBERS BERNE BITEMAN, CHRISTIE HOUSER
JON JOHNSON, JUDY WOODS, STEVE DOWELL, PAUL MANN
FROM: NORM ANGELO, FIRE CHIEF •)1 -.>Q'
SUBJECT: SITE PREPARATION ON WEST AND EAST HILL PROPERTIES
----------------------------------------------------------------
The fire department feels that due to the increase in demand for
services, increased response times and the need to meet the
project time lines of the bond issue, it is necessary to begin
- site preparation for the West and East Hill sites in the month of
June. We have received a "declaration of nonsignificance" for
the West Hill site through the SEPA process. The East Hill site
will soon be going in for the SEPA review. Based on past
precedence, of allowed site work based on the public good and
safety, (e.g. the well site developed by the City on 212th) , we
respectfully ask for approval to commence with significant site
" preparation on the West Hill prior to the Conditional Use hearing
which is scheduled in mid July.
Further, subject to the SEPA review, we are also requesting
permission to do significant site development on the East Hill
location of the headquarters fire station and training center
prior to Conditional Use hearing.
Although pipes will be placed in the ground during site
preparation, they will not be hooked to any of the utilities
until after the full Conditional Use hearing and permits are
issued.
._ Contact will be made with all departments involved in the
development to insure the site preparation is done in accordance
with their concerns conveyed in SEPA and Conditional Use
processes.
Memo to Mayor Kelleher and Councilmembers
May 27, 1988
Page 2
The fire department and the involved architects deem it necessary
to start site preparation this summer. Delaying this phase of
the projects will have a significant negative impact on the
project time and on our ability to provide adequate emergency
services to the public (given the radically increasing response
times and simultaneous alarms) . Another consideration is the
constraints on the funding . The time line on public bond issues
is strongly regulated by the federal government. It is in the
I
community's best interest to have these stations built on time
and within budget for the purposes to deliver adequate services.
i
We have discussed this matter with the Planning Director and City
Administrator. The risk we are facing is that the Hearing
Examiner could require more site work resulting in additional
costs. Given the need to deliver Public Safety Services and the
constraints on public funds, we believe the risks are greatly
outweighed by the ability to build adequate facilities within
rigid time constraints .
We strongly urge you to consider this request and authorize the
Fire Department to proceed with significant site preparation on
the West and East Hill sites.
tcn
.. i
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 7, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: ARCHITECT SERVICES FIRE DEPARTMENT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to sign an
agreement with the firm of Edberg Christiansen Architects for the
East Hill headquarters station and training center and for the
remodel of the downtown fire station.
3 . EXHIBITS: Executive summary, copies of the contract will be
available at the meeting.
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Fire Department Staff Public Safety
Committee, 6/7/88 8 a.m.
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $283 ,000
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Public Safety Bond
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 30
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MAY 27, 1988
TO: MAYOR KELLEHER, COUNCIL PRESIDENT WHITE,
COUNCILMEMBERS BERNE BITEMAN, CHRISIE ROUSER,
JUDY WOODS, STEVE DOWELL, JON JOHNSON, PAUL MANN
FROM: NORM ANGELOr FIRE CHIEF '. �'�
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF SELECTED ARCHITECT FIRM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
After a period of negotiations with the architectural firm of
Edberg Christiansen Architects, the Fire Department has reached
tentative agreement on fees and services.
This agreement will be for the remodel of the downtown fire
station, East Hill headquarters station and the training center.
This is the same legal format previously approved by the City
Attorney. No significant changes have been made, therefore the
City Attorney has given us verbal approval to continue with the
same language.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is the recommendation of the Fire Department and the Public
Safety Committee that the Mayor sign the architectural agreement
between the City of Kent and Edberg Christiansen Architects.
SIGNIFICANCE
The signing of this agreement will allow the Fire Department to
reduce any further time delays due to the hiring of an
architectural firm and allow us to proceed with the completion of
the East Hill and remodel projects.
BUDGET/ECONOMIC IMPACT
The monies have been budgeted within the bond project funds and
will not impact the normal operating budget of the City or the
Fire Department.
The overall costs for architect services including those paid for
with the previous architect, places us over the architectural
budget. These funds will be covered within total budget by
interest earned on project funds and savings from within the
existing project budget.
ALTERNATIVES/CONSEQUENCES
None
tcn
«M
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 7, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: REGIONAL WATER ASSOCIATION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval for the City' s continued
participation in the association and for payment of annual dues
in the amount of $8, 100.
3 . EXHIBITS: excerpt from the Public Works Committee minutes
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3P
EXCERPT FROM PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
MEETING MAY 24, 1988
Mark Shaffer of Converse distributed a map of the well
locations. (copy attached) The well in question is circled in
red. The first time the well was sampled was December, 1987
which showed contamination by four different compounds. The
schematic handout indicates that the middle sampling is what is
, .showing the contamination. The other monitoring wells in the
north end of the site do not show contamination with exception
of one of the 8M8 series and that is being double checked. The
second page of the written handout list possible sources of
contamination of the 7M26B well. The third pagejof the written
material lists those things that have been and are being done.
The barrier well in Area VII has been sampled and is clean. He
stated he felt the turnaround time of the laboratory data will
improve with the implementation of an onsite laboratory. Biteman
asked why probes couldn't be put down to determine the
contamination. Shaffer responded that it is probably too deep
for a probe. Ron Vernesoni added it is crucial to get the
barrier wells into Area VI. He stated they have been in
negotiations with Standard Equipment for about a year to get
this done.
Wingard stated there is indication the groundwater is moving
either west or northwest. He commented the barrier well
placement is not ideal. He commented about the concept of the
Area I wells drawing the plume. Ron Vernesoni stated he has
discussed this with Greg for several hours. He added that EPA
and Department of Ecology has a team of 5 hydrogeologists
working on this program.
It was determined this item was for the information of the
Committee and that no action was called for at this time. Gill
stated the City will be pushing for action on this.
REGIONAL WATER ASSOCIATION ANNUAL BUDGET
Wickstrom stated the City has been participating in the RWA for
approximately 5 years and have been contributing to the annual
costs of the program. It is proposed that instead of each
member contributing to the costs that a budget be established
and the participating agencies contribute an annual cost. The
City's share would be approximately $8 , 100. Woods moved the
City continue participation and contribute its share of the
annual cost estimated at $8, 100. The Committee unanimously
approved.
ESTABLISHING DATES FOR REVIEW OF 1989 PUBLIC WORKS BUDGET
It was determined the Committee would review the Public Works
Budget at their meeting on June 28 at 3 : 00 p.m.
J V Kent City Council Meeting
- 1 �y Date June 7, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: THE LAKES - RELEASE OF COVENANTS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As approved b .;
the Public Works Committee
authorization fo he Mayor to sign release of covenants for fh
Lakes project The improvements for which the covenants were
executed have been constructed.
3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from the Public Works Committee minutes .
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION: -
Council Agenda
Item No. 3Q
EXCERPT FROM PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
MEETING MAY 24, 1988
STOP SIGNS
Morris distributed a list of the top 20 accident locations in
1987 that are stop sign controlled. Some improvements have
already been made alleviating some of the problems. At 42nd and
212th, a left turn pocket has been installed. A 4-way stop has
been installed at 192nd and 80th Avenue, a 4-way stop at 2nd and
Meeker and a signal installed at 252nd and Pacific Highway S.
Three other intersections have signals planned - Meeker and
64th, 104th and 260th and 216th and West Valley Frighway. There
was channelization and pavement marking improvements made at
Lincoln and Meeker. Left turn restrictions were placed at 212th
and Frager and Russell. Morris continued they are currently
going through the police citation records to determine where
there is a high incident of drivers running stop signs. This
will help make a final determination where the striping of the
stop sign posts should be placed. Biteman stated he would be
interested in knowing when accidents occurred as a result of
running the stop sign.
RELEASE OF COVENANTS - THE LAKES
The Lakes development had executed covenants for improvement
which have been constructed. They are asking that the covenants
be released now. Wickstrom asked for Committee approval for the
Mayor to sign the release. The Committee concurred.
,( Kent City Council Meeting
_. °Iy O • �„ Date June 7, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
Q
1. SUBJECT: CONSIDER LEASING TEMPORARY OFFICE SPACE IN THE CURRAN
LAW BUILDING
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Consider leasing office space in the
Curran law building which has been recently been vacated by the
law firm of Curran, Kleweno and Johnson. This item has been
considered by the Operations Committee which is recommending that
the City not enter into a lease agreement for office space in
this facility.
3 . EXHIBITS:
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee June 1, 1988
(Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc . )
The Operations Committee recommends that the City not enter a
lease agreement for office space in the Curran law office
building.
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves , Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3R
Kent City Council Meeting
\� Date June 7, 1988
Uv Category Consent Calendar
vv
1. SUBJECT: COUNCIL MEETING
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Change of location for Council meeting of
June 21. Authorization to change the location of the regular
City Council meeting of June 21, 1988 to the Kent Methodist
Church located on the East Hill at 11010 SE 248th St. The
meeting will be conducted as usual at 7 :00 p.m.
3 . EXHIBITS:
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION'
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No . 3S
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 7, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORKS REORGANIZATION - EQUIPMENT RENTAL
DIVISION
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the placement of the
position of Lead Mechanic, Equipment Rental Division of the
Public Works Department at salary range T-30. This is a newly
created position in the Teamsters Bargaining Unit which has been
previously authorized by the City Council . This action
authorizes the salary range for the position.
3 . EXHIBITS:
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Council and Operations Committee
(Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Department Budget
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No . 3T
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 2, 1988
TO: Mayo Kelleher and Councilmembers
FROM: Mi*Webby, Assistant City Administrator
SUBJECT: REORGANIZATION - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, EQUIPMENT RENTAL DIVISION
The purpose of this memorandum is to complete the reorganization of the
_.. Equipment Rental Division of the Public Works Department. The reorganization
itself was previously approved by Council and this action before you tonight
will be to recommend approval of the salary range for the position of Mechanic
Leadworker.
The Personnel staff has completed analysis of the position and has reviewed
that salary recommendation with the Operations Committee at its meeting on
June 1 , 1988. The Operations Committee recommends approval of salary range 30
for the position of Mechanic Leadworker. This position is a Union position in
our Teamster's bargaining unit.
Attached you will find a memorandum from me to Don Wickstrom and Tim Heydon
regarding the staff analysis and recommendation as well as a copy of the
minutes from the Operations Committee meeting on June 1 , 1988 which I have
provided as supporting documentation of the recommendation before you at this
meeting. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this item, please
contact me prior to Tuesday evening's Council meeting.
_. 2238W-34W
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF RENT
DATE: May 3, 1988
TO: Don Wickstrom, Director of Public Works
MAY 1oAA
T;Heydon, Operations Manager ENGINEERING DEPT.
FROM: M ebby, Assistant City Administrator
SUBJECT: LEAD MECHANIC ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide our analysis and salary
recommendation for the newly approved position of Lead Mechanic in the Public
Works, Equipment Rental Division. Before discussing our salary
recommendation, I would first like to outline the activities and analysis
which was previously completed.
A job and task analysis was conducted which involved input from Tim Heydon and
Jack Spencer. A new job description was drafted and reviewed with both Tim
and Jack. A final draft was prepared before a salary survey was conducted.
The cities of Auburn, Bellevue, Kirkland, Olympia, and Renton had positions of
similar content and responsibility. The average monthly salary (top step) in
these cities is $2,713 per month. Salary range 30 in Kent's Teamster Union
pay schedule tops out at $2,664 per month. That salary would place our
position third from the top in the six cities including Kent. That range
would also place the position three ranges higher than our mechanic' s salary
range (range 27). Other leadworkers in the bargaining unit are currently
placed at three ranges higher than the next subordinate position to them.
Therefore, it is my recommendation that the mechanic leadworker be placed at
salary range 30. If this meets with your approval , I will proceed to the
Council Operations Committee for their approval . When approved, the
recommendation will then be placed on the City Council agenda for final
action. Please advise following your review of this recommendation.
2183W-18W
Masterfile
LEAD MECHANIC
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC 14ORKS CLASS NUMBER:
-- DIVISION: OPERATIONS CLASS TITLE:
NATURE OF WORK:
Under the general direction of the Fleet Manager, this position overhauls,
repairs and maintains a variety of municipal automotive and maintenance
equipment. Position also supervises, schedules, assigns, and evaluates the
work of subordinates in order to accomplish the work.
-..• This position works without direct supervision and uses independent judgment
as to methods of repair.
Employees in this position must furnish all hand tools; tools WILL NOT be
replaced by the City due to wear, loss or breakage.
EXAMPLES OF WORK:
1 . Performs skilled mechanical repair work.
2. Performs maintenance and repair work on automobiles, light and heavy
trucks, tractors, graders, mowers and all other types of municipal power
driven equipment in accordance with standard trade practices using a wide
variety of tools, equipment and testing apparatus, including tire changing
- and balancing equipment.
3. Supervises, schedules, assigns and evaluates ►•rorkload for skilled,
semi-skilled and unskilled workers.
4. Inspects driver' s report of equipment malfunction and determines necessary
repairs. Repairs are made in accordance with the latest standards and
techniques.
5. Keeps informed of current developments in automotive repair field.
6. Inspects new equipment for requirements as indicated on bid specifications.
_,. 7. Participates in an effective shop safety program.
8. Tests and inspects complete work to assure proper performance.
9. Confers with Fleet Manager in scheduling maintenance and repairs,
including standard maintenance practice of lubrication and oil changes on
a scheduled basis.
10. Maintains records and completes repair reports.
11 . Records accurate readings from fuel pumps on a rotating schedule.
2077W-3514 (Rev Date 3/88)
PUBLIC WORKS Masterfile
Lead Mechanic
Page 2 of 3
DESIRED KNOWLEDGE, ABILITIES AND SKILLS:
1 . Knowledge of standard practices, equipment and techniques of maintenance
and repair of automotive equipment, including heavy trucks and
construction equipment.
2. Knowledge and understanding of the principles of gasoline and diesel _
engines and basic hydraulics. Good knowledge of engine and chassis units
and general repair work.
3. Ability to gauge progress and make adjustments to meet deadlines.
4. Ability to assign and coordinate workload to employees based on their
skills and abilities. -
5. Knowledge of occupational hazards and safety precautions of automotive
and machine shop work.
6. Considerable knowledge of the practices, methods, and tools of the
welding trade. Possession of certificate for both acetylene and arc
welding is desirable.
7. General knowledge of parts buying and stocking.
8. Ability to locate and correct mechanical defects using proper tools,
parts or equipment for specific repair problems.
9. Ability to make repairs and adjustments of equipment as needed using
flat-rate as a time guide element.
10. Skill in use of hand and machine tools, testing equipment, welders and
other automotive equipment.
11 . Ability to maintain effective working relationships with subordinates and
other City employees .
12. Ability to write legibly, maintain records and complete reports.
13. Ability to understand and carry out moderately complex oral and written
instructions.
14. Ability to make good observations, use initiative and resourcefulness in
handling repair problems.
2077W-35W (Rev Date 3/88)
PUBLIC WORKS Masterfile
Lead Mechanic
Page 3 of 3
TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE:
Five (5) years experience at the journeyman level as an automotive mechanic
including experience with heavy gasoline and diesel equipment and the use of
the latest testing equipment.
Possession of a valid State of Washington motor vehicle operator' s license
with a good driving record. Must be able to successfully complete the
. employer' s defensive driving course.
Must be able to acquire and maintain current First Aid card certification
while employed with the City of Kent.
2377W-3514 (Rev Date 3/88)
Operations Committee Minutes
June 1 , 1988
Page 2
RECLASSIFICATION OF BUILDING MAINTENANCE LEADWORKER _
Assistant City Administrator Webby noted that he had met with Charlie Lindsey
and Frank Klingebiel on a number of occasions to discuss the change in duties
related to Frank 's position. Frank is the City' s building maintenance person,
but with the assumption of the building maintenance function by the Finance
Department, a number of additional duties were added to Frank' s duties. Frank
performs leadworker responsibility and has assumed grounds maintenance and
additional electrical and heating and air conditioning responsibilities . Mike
is proposing that Frank 's salary be adjusted from a range 24 to a range 27.
This amounts to a monthly increase of approximately $50. The Committee
unanimously approved the recommendation.
CLASSIFICATION OF TEAMSTER'S UNIT EMPLOYEES
As discussed with the Committee at their May 16 meeting, Mike informed the
Committee that he is proposing a salary range for two former Teamster's Union
employees that through negotiations with the Union it has been agreed that
these positions function more as non-Union positions. One position, Scott
Woods in the Finance Department, performs supervisory-type duties over the
meter reading unit which is a part of the Union. In Scott's case, the --
proposed rate increase will be from a range 25 to a range 29. The other
position is comparable to an engineering technician position and has been
proposed to be reclassified from a range 27 to a range 28. The Committee
unanimously approved the recommendation .
LEASING OFFICE SPACE
At the request of the Council , City Administrator McFall investigated leasing
options at the Curran Law Building. The proposal was for $11 .00 per square
foot on a 5500 square foot building, for a monthly rental of approximately -
$5,000. Brent noted we could obtain other space near City Hall for about half
as much and recommended against the Curran Building option.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 7, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: FINANCE DEPARTMENT - CUSTOMER SERVICES DIVISION
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the reclassification of
the position of Craftsman/General Building Maintenance Worker,
Customer Services Division, Finance Department. Reclassification
will place the salary at range T-27. This reclassification has
been reviewed and recommended for approval by the Operations
Committee at its meeting on June 1, 1988 .
3 . EXHIBITS:
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Council, Operations Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Department Budget
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3U
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 2, 1988
TO: Maypr, Kelleher and Councilmembers
FROM: Mi ebby, Assistant City Administrator
SUBJECT: RECLASSIFICATION - FINANCE DEPARTMENT, CUSTOMER SERVICES DIVISION
The purpose of this memorandum is to discuss the reclassification of the
„ position of Craftsman/General Building Maintenance Worker. This position is
currently assigned to the Finance Department as a result of a reorganization
of duties, it having previously reported to the Parks Maintenance Division.
The affected employee is a member of the Teamster's bargaining unit.
A reclassification request had previously been submitted to the Personnel
Department with their approval , and in fact was generated by the affected
"••• employee for consideration. Personnel staff reviewed the request and
conducted a comprehensive review of the existing position description,
comparable salaries in the Puget Sound labor market, as well as equity studies
within the Teamster's bargaining agreement. Following review, staff concurred
that reclassification was in order primarily as a result of added
responsibilities in the area of landscape maintenance, plumbing, mechanical
and electrical maintenance activities, as well as the added responsibility of
lead worker duties.
The recommendation was reviewed by the Operations Committee at its meeting on
June 1 , 1988. The Operations Committee approved the staff recommendation to
". reclassify the position to Teamster's salary range 27. A copy of the staff
recommendation and revised job description is attached for your review. Also
attached is a copy of the June 2, 1988 minutes of the Operations Committee.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this item, please contact me
prior to Tuesday evening's Council meeting.
2240W-34W
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 9, 1988
TO: Mike Webby, Assistant City Administrator
FROM: Peggy Todd, Personnel Analyst 61
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF CRAFTMANS/GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE WORKER JOB
DESCRIPTION - REQUEST FOR RECLASSIFICATION
I recently met with Frank Klingebiel and Charlie Lindsey on separate occasions
to discuss Frank's request to be reclassified and to change his salary from
range 24 to 27.
Upon reviewing Frank's material and getting responses to my questions, I find
that the position of Craftsman/General Building Maintenance Worker has had
changes occur in the duties whereby the incumbent needs to have additional
knowledge, skills and abilities to perform the work.
Where I see the most significant changes occurring is in the adding of
landscaping maintenance, repair and maintenance of fountain and sprinkler
systems, performing a higher level of electrical work than was previously
required, expansion in the number of facilities maintained, and the training
and delegation of work duties to an assistant. (There were areas of duties
that have been deleted from the position as well but these duties mainly
involved filling in as a laborer for the Parks Department as needed. ) Frank
is now working for the Customer Services Division and works very independently
and is given the responsibility for making decisions on how maintenance and
repair work is to be accomplished. He contacts contractors for service and
acquires bid information as needed. He also has worked closely enough with
the contractors in working with and repairing the heating and cooling system
that much of the work is now accomplished within his job duties. Frank has
had to increase his skills and knowledge in this area, as well as in
electrical work to keep up with the maintenance needs of our facilities.
Outside contractors are still contacted when necessary.
Based on my review, I would recommend that the salary range for the position
of Craftmans/General Building Maintenance Worker be elevated to range 27 and
Frank 's salary be adjusted from a 24E to a 27D which is an increase of .0234
percent. This change in salary would, in effect, place a more equitable
salary on this position to compensate for the knowledge, skills and abilities
required to do the job as it is being performed today.
Masterfile
CRAFTSMAN/GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE WORKER
DEPARTMENT: FINANCE CLASS. NUMBER: 3305
DIVISION: Customer Service CLASS. TITLE: Bldg./Facility
Maintenance
Leadworker
NATURE OF WORK
With general supervision and inspection'by the Customer Service Manager, this
is work of a semi-supervisory nature, involving responsibility for the proper
maintenance, repair and custodial upkeep of public buildings.
With general supervision constructs, repairs, remodels and maintains city
structures, fixtures, and equipment. Work performed is evaluated for the
quality and quantity of results obtained.
EXAMPLES OF DUTIES
** General carpentry and cabinetry work as needed, including sketching ideas,
and giving estimates of cost of material and labor.
** Remove and add partitions, install windows, replace broken glass, hang
doors, and move furniture.
** Use power saws, routers, sanders, drills and other tools.
** Paint buildings, inside and out.
** Plumbing repairs and maintenance.
** Maintain and repair sprinkler systems and fountain.
** Act as leadworker on assigned projects.
** Perform and report on related work as required.
** Inspect buildings and fixtures for maintenance requirements.
** Mow and edge parking strips, prune shrubs, and weed flower beds. _-
** Perform landscaping maintenance by planting shrubs and flowers.
** May be required to work at other than normal shift hours to perform major
maintenance operations.
** Responsible for keeping a proper amount of maintenance supplies on hand.
Turn in lists of supplies needed on a regular basis.
** Responsible for the clean and sanitary maintenance and repair of assigned
buildings, referring to supervisor for assistance if needed.
17081.1-33W (Rev 5/88) -~
FINANCE Masterfile
Craftsman/General Building Maintenance Leadworker
Page 2 of 2
** Ability to lift a minimum of fifty pounds.
** Performs custodial duties as required during the working day.
_. ** Monitors, repairs, and adjusts heating and cooling systems as needed.
** Contacts equipment maintenance contractor for assistance with mechanical
systems.
** Replaces light bulbs and tubes as necessary, and performs general
electrical work.
** Keep walkways around buildings clean and in safe condition.
** Performs other duties as necessary.
DESIRABLE KNOWLEDGE, ABILITIES AND SKILLS
** Thorough knowledge of standard practices in the appropriate trade fields.
** Knowledge of safety precautions necessary in the assigned tasks.
** Sk,ill in the operation and repair of job-related tools and equipment.
** Ability to read and draw up simple fabrication plans, sketches blueprints.
** Ability to understand, follow and transmit oral or written instructions.
** Ability to perform manual labor of a routine nature.
** Ability to work well with other maintenance workers.
** Ability to deal courteously with the public and other employees.
** Skill in the safe operation and minor repair of equipment used in building
-- maintenance.
** Knowledge of HVAC systems including the operation, maintenance and repair
thereof.
TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE
** Minimum of three years experience performing building maintenance and HVAC
operation and maintenance duties. Completion of related trades education
may be substituted for up to one year of experience.
** Possession of a valid Washington State Drivers License, prior to
employment, and successfully complete employer's defensive driving program.
** Possession of or ability to obtain a valid first aid card.
170814-3314 (Rev 5/88)
Operations Committee Minutes
June 1 , 1988
Page 2
RECLASSIFICATION OF BUILDING MAINTENANCE LEADWORKER
Assistant City Administrator Webby noted that he had met with Charlie Lindsey
and Frank Klingebiel on a number of occasions to discuss the change in duties
related to Frank 's position. Frank is the City's building maintenance person,
but with the assumption of the building maintenance function by the Finance
Department, a number of additional duties were added to Frank' s duties. Frank
performs leadworker responsibility and has assumed grounds maintenance and
additional electrical and heating and air conditioning responsibilities. Mike
is proposing that Frank 's salary be adjusted from a range 24 to a range 27.
This amounts to a monthly increase of approximately $50. The Committee
unanimously approved the recommendation.
CLASSIFICATION OF TEAMSTER'S UNIT EMPLOYEES
As discussed with the Committee at their May 16 meeting, Mike informed the
Committee that he is proposing a salary range for two former Teamster's Union
employees that through negotiations with the Union it has been agreed that
these positions function more as non-Union positions. One position, Scott
Woods in the Finance Department, performs supervisory-type duties over the
meter reading unit which is a part of the Union. In Scott's case, the
proposed rate increase will be from a range 25 to a range 29. The other
position is comparable to an engineering technician position and has been
proposed to be reclassified from a range 27 to a range 28. The Committee
unanimously approved the recommendation.
LEASING OFFICE SPACE
At the request of the Council , City Administrator McFall investigated leasing
options at the Curran Law Building. The proposal was for $11 .00 per square
foot on a 5500 square foot building, for a monthly rental of approximately
$5,000. Brent noted we could obtain other space near City Hall for about half
as much and recommended against the Curran Building option.
�L Kent City Council Meeting
N_OJ Date June 7, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORKS/FINANCE DEPARTMENTS - TRANSFER OF
SUPERVISORY POSITIONS FROM THE TEAMSTERS BARGAINING
UNIT
-- 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization of the placement of the
positions of Control Room Supervisor, Public Works Department and
Field Services Supervisor, Finance Department to salary ranges 28
and 29 respectively. The City and the Union had previously
reached agreement that the positions are now supervisory in
nature and no longer within the jurisdiction of the Union. The
transfer has been reviewed and approved by the Operations
Committee at its meeting on May 16 and June 1, 1988 .
3 . EXHIBITS•
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Council Operations Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Department Budget
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No . 3V
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 2, 1988
TO: M or Kelleher and Councilmembers
FROM: Mi Webby, Assistant City Administrator
SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORKS/FINANCE DEPARTMENTS - TRANSFER OF SUPERVISORY
POSITIONS FROM TEAMSTER'S BARGAINING UNIT
The purpose of this memorandum is to discuss staff's recommendation regarding
the placement of two positions within our nonrepresented salary plan. These
positions were previously under the jurisdiction of our labor agreement with
the Teamster's Union. These positions which include the position of Field
Services Supervisor, Finance Department, and Control Room Supervisor, Public
Works Department, have become primarily supervisory in nature. Because of the
supervisory nature of the positions, our respective department directors
requested that I discuss the appropriateness of bargaining unit representation
with the Union.
I concurred with the department managers' evaluation of the positions '
supervisory nature and entered into a discussion with the Teamster's business
manager and shop stewards regarding the issue of jurisdiction. Following the
discussion, the Union agreed that both positions were indeed supervisory and
Union representation was no longer appropriate for either position. Following
agreement in this matter, meetings were conducted with both employees,
informing them of the City and Union agreement and informing them that job
analysis and recommendations would follow regarding the placement of their
positions within the nonrepresented salary plan.
The staff analysis was completed and presented to the Operations Committee at
its meeting on May 16, 1988 and June 1 , 1988. The staff's salary
recommendation was presented and discussed at the Operations Committee meeting
on June 1 , 1988. The Committee recommends approval of salary range 28 for the
position of Control Center Supervisor, and salary range 29 for the position of
Field Services Supervisor. The proposed date of implementation for both
positions is June 1 , 1988. This date coincides with the release of
jurisdiction by the Teamster's Union.
I have attached copies of the staff analysis and the respective job -
descriptions as well as copies of Operations Committee minutes for your
review. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this item, please
contact me prior to Tuesday evening's Council meeting.
Attachment
2239W-34W
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 23, 1988
TO: Mike Webby, Assistant City Administrator
FROM: Peggy Todd, Personnel Analyst d�1
SUBJECT: POSITIONS REMOVED FROM TEAMSTERS BARGAINING UNIT - FIELD SERVICES
SUPERVISOR AND CONTROL CENTER TECHNICIAN
Attached are copies of job descriptions for the two positions that have been removed
from the Teamsters Bargaining Unit. I have reviewed these two positions and have
written appropriate classification descriptions to fit in with our most current
format. As you will recall , these positions were previously under the Teamster pay
and class system and have now been placed under our nonrepresented pay and class
system.
In reviewing both positions, I find it necessary to also make revisions to the
salary ranges. For the Field Services Supervisor, I find that this position most
closely aligns with the salary range 29 which is comparable to what we are paying
the Customer Services Supervisor in the Finance Department. Both the Customer
Services Supervisor and Field Services Supervisor work in the same environment and
perform similar functions.
The Control Center Technician position is comparable to the Engineer Technician II
classification which has a salary range of 28. I also have contacted the City of
Bellevue to try and do a job match on our position. The position that they have
that most closely matches the Control Center Technician would be a position called
Telemetering Specialist. The salary range for the Telemetering Specialist has a low
of $2,084 to a maximum of $2,531 . As this position is a difficult one to match
among cities, I feel that range 28 and the comparison to our Engineer Tech II
classification makes for placement of this position correctly at this range.
Therefore, I would recommend that the Field Services Supervisor, with the incumbent
of Scott Woods, be placed at range 29D plus $15 for longevity. For the Control
- Center Technician, with the incumbent of George Jett, the salary should be adjusted
to range 28D plus $10 longevity. If you should have any questions regarding this
information, please let me know.
2216W-29W
CITY OF KEPT
CLASS TITLE: FIELD SERVICES SUPERVISOR
BASIC HACTiON:
Unifier the direction of We Internal Operations Wan:ager, plan, organize,
coordinate and supervise the �i?ter Reading function of the Customer Services
Division; assure proper reading, repair an ! replacement of water meters within
the City boundaries; supervis' arA evalost° the p?rformance of assigned staff.
REPRESENTATIVE DUTIES:
Assure the timely and accurate administration of the services and
functions related to the reading, repairing and replacement of water
meters.
Supervise and provide work direction regarding the Meter Reading function
and conduct periodic checking of assigned staff for quantity and quality
of tasks performed.
Coordinate field and office work so as to provide an efficient schedule
and method of maintaining accurate records for billing purposes .
Communicate with Employees and other Ch ty department personnel to,
coordinate operational activities .
Communicate with the puhl i c with repordn .o prQb i ergs with i•rater meters.
Plan work routes and schedules for a. signad staH.
AdminisL-er the program for repairing and/or replacing water, meters. Order
meters and return (bum) meters to the Public Uorks Operations Division to
be returned to manufacturer.
Assure the proper setup and maintenance of the record keeping system
pertaining to iostallation Of kew 6100r':; 0P billing pirposes.
Assure the turning off of do linquC0 accounts and/or restoration of
service after delinquency has been satisfind.
Supervise, train, coordinate and evala e assigned staff; recommend
selection and disciplinary action to Internal Operations Manager;
implement remedial actions and evaluate progress as necessary.
KNOWLEDGE A14D ABILITIES:
KNOWLEDGE OF:
Technical aspects of field or speciality.
Meter functions and repair techniques.
Oral and written copmaHications skills.
Interpersonal skills using 'rack, patience and courtesy.
Principals and practices of supervision and training.
City organization , operations, policies and objectives.
Statistical record keeping techniques .
Utilities billing operation and procedures.
ABILITY TO:
Supervise, organize and coordinate activities of the Meter Reading Unit.
Interface with the public in resolving water meter problems.
Organize, analyze and coordinate work floor.
Evaluate and propose improvements in operations, systems and procedures,
policies, methods and ordinances.
Add, subtract, multiply and divide quickly and accurately.
Communicate effectively both orally and in writing.
Understand and follow oral and written directions.
Read and interpret plans and blueprints concerning water services,
locations and new installations.
Establish and maintain cooperative and effective working relationships
with others.
Analyze situations accurately and adopt an effective course of action.
Plan and organize work.
Peet schedules and timelines.
Work independently with little direction.
Supervise and evaluate personnel .
Maintain records and prepare reports.
Use all tools required in performance of tasks.
Learn the locations of meters and City later boundaries.
Fill in on any phase of meter reaicrs/repair work.
Respond effectively to emergency situations .
Obtain valid first aid certification.
EDUCATION AND EXPERiENCE:
Any combination oquivalont to: graduation from high School and two years
experience in meter raading, repair and custcoor service rel Lions involving one
year in a lead position .
LICENSES AND OTHER F:EQU R i':ENTS:
Valid 1,a:inlilCjt:Cn ,.l:d`„e driver' s 11Ce.:5;'; lafid 1°11"St aid certification
It,:.LlCn
or ability to obtain during employment.
_ WORKING CONDITIONS:
Work includes office environment and obt door environment as needed;
subject to lifting, bending and climbing.
2205W-351d
CITY OF KENT
CLASS TITLE: COHI OL CENTER TICHNICIAN
BASIC FUNCTION:
Under the direction of W Operations 40:39er, operate the control center
and perform a variety of technical duties such as creating and maintaining
computer database, control and ar;,iust systcos fir remote - site operations,
provide assistance and inforwation to City e'nployscs and the Sener'al public.
REPRESENTATIVE DUTIES:
Provide technical information and assistance to the Operations Manager,
the public and other employees as appropriate ; respond both orally and in
writing utilizing computer reports providing information concerning Water
service activity.
Maintain detailed and accurate recoris including entry and exit of
personnel at remote sites, alarms , status changes for remote facilities,
and contacts regarding service par'for ed at remote sites.
Prepare and maintain reports including daily woathcr forecast, monthly _.
computeri zcd activity reports , Water PP0dUC i:"i on/dnyand, laboratory lest
results, computerizod station alarm Listory for Cach remote site.
Monitor Fire and Police Dopar m2nt r d i o chnnncl s .
Receive and dispatch c6ppl ai nts and sc . :C:' requests to W i si on
personnel , including traffic sig3s and signals , In response to emergce.ncies and off dirty alai':i callonts .
Notify fire personnel oP oat of focvic'ie hydrants and maintain related
_
hydrant status records and reports.
Opel"ill' and !'".. , iii:.ciri S''var_I f,vni-;!i ':i_'i': , 'ifi .@1"S , mliGf-'tLs, and C'CI;:lO disks
including maintaining sci'ware nannals .
Create and maintain <<atr:uare for fi.ci li ty reports .
Create and maintain porns for oparations s dff, using word processing.
Complete special projects as 'request2O h`/ Operations Vafi ger". -
Make necessary adjusmants to ensure proper tank levels, flow rates and
system status for water system by utilizing various software computers.
Monitor underground utility locate requests on teletype and provide
information to locator.
Control Center Technician - Cci-,tir,ned page 2
Coordinatn allr2enc' locate requests by radio%telephcne dispatch.
KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITIES:
KNOWLEDGE OF:
Ci ty ;eu2r and storm systems including wells, pumping facilities
and lift: stations.
City organization , operations, policies and objectives .
Basic research and recor dkeeping methods .
Computer systems, hardware and software.
Interpersonal skills using tact; patience and courtesy.
Telephone techniques and etiquette.
Oral and written comwunication skills.
ABILITY TO:
Perform minor rEpairs and adjustments to computer systems and related
hardware.
Maintain computer and software manuals .
Establish and maintain cooperative and effective working relationships
with others.
Work independently with little supervision .
Meet schedules and timelines.
Understand and folloj oral and written directions.
Communicate effectively with staff and the public.
Proficiently operate computers and related equipment.
EDUCATION AND EXPERIFNCF:
Any combination equivalcnt to: graduation from high school supplemented
by college coursework in computer science and two years of increasingly
responsible experience in the operation, maintenance and repair of utility
systems including water, sewer, storm and street operations.
LICENSES AND OTHER REQUIREVENJIS:
Valid Uashir,gton State ' driver's licensr Possession of or obtained within
six months after date of hire Water Distributi„n I and Waste Wat: r Collection I
certifications.
WORKING CONDITIONS:
Office environment.
22074-3 5W
Operations Committee Minutes
May 16, 1988
Page 3 -_
in executive session and as a group and decided to recommend that the WCIA go
bare on its excess insurance coverage. Two quotes have been received prior to
the meeting from Cal Union, the current excess insurance provider and Reliance
Insurance Company. The quotes for excess coverage of $5 million were between
a million and two million a year. Based on the fact that the Authority in its
eight years of existence, having paid 3,000 claims, has never paid a claim
over a million dollars and it has no claims currently registered that have a
potential to exceed a million dollars , it was decided to save the insurance
premium providing its own excess coverage. To do this the Authority
established for itself the same excess insurance coverage of $5 million that
would have been provided with a purchase of insurance. The information was
brought to the committee as a point of information following past discussions
with the committee on providing the City's own excess coverage.
TEAMSTER UNION/MECHANIC LEAD WORKER SALARY RECOMMENDATION
At a previous committee meeting the committee authorized the establishment of
a lead mechanic in the Public Works Equipment Rental Division. Following that
approval a study of wages paid such a position was conducted with the Cities
of Auburn, Bellevue, Kirkland, Olympia and Renton. Based on a review of these
cities and with the City's own internal equity for positions, a pay range of
30 is recommended for this position. A pay range 30 places the position 3rd
from the top in the six cities including Kent and is 3 steps above the City's `
current mechanics salaries. Based on these criteria, the staff is
recommending that this position be placed in the pay scale at a pay range 30, -
which tops out at $2,664 per month. The Committee approved the recommendation.
TEAMSTER UNION-RELEASE OF POSITION JURISDICTION
Assistant City Administrator, Webby explained to the committee that he had
made a request of the Teamster's Union to release three supervisory type
positions. Two positions were in the Public Works Department and one was the
Field Customer Services Supervisor in the Finance Department. The union
approved two of the requests, the one in Finance and the Operations Computer
Operations Committee Minutes
May 16, 1988
Page 4
Control Room position occupied by George Jett in the Public Works Department,
- the other Public Works position was considered by the Union to be not a
supervisor position but a technical position and one they felt that they
., should still cover. Based upon this request from the Union, Mike will be
preparing a salary range study for the two positions authorized to be coming
out of the union. It was noted in his presentation that these two positions
supervise other union personnel and that is the prime reason for them being
pulled out. It was noted in the questioning, that the employee benefit plan
for the nonunion members would be approximately the same as if they were union
but a salary study must be done based on the reclassifications.
66F-01F
rl
` Kent City Council Meeting
1 Date June
111�1�1` ategory Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: REQUEST BY RESIDE ALT AIR HILLS FOR ANNEXATION
TO CITY OF DES MO N
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Background issue and procedure for
annexation approval/denial process .
3 . EXHIBITS: Legal memorandum
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: City Attorney
(Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: No expenditure required, however
approval of annexation to Des Moines would result in decrease in
City revenues.
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3W
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 2, 1988
TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Carolyn Lake, Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT: REQUEST BY RESIDENTS OF SALT AIR HILLS FOR ANNEXATION TO CITY OF
DES MOINES
INTRODUCTION
Residents of Salt Air Hills have filed petitions with Kent City Clerk seeking
an election on the issue of whether that territory, currently a portion of the
City of Kent, should be allowed to annex to the City of Des Moines. Three
methods are statutorily authorized for this type of procedure. By the filing
of the petition, th residents have chosen the Petition for Election for
Annexation method. The law provides that the procedure shall then be the same
as used when unincorporated territory is annexed to a city. However, the
statute adds one very significant addition to that procedure in that the city
from which the territory is to be taken must approve the annexation before
further action can be taken. If the approval is not granted, the annexation
cannot proceed.
No statutory procedure exists for submission of the action to the city from
which the territory is proposed to be taken. This procedure may be analogous
to the method used when unincorporated territory is annexed to a city. That
procedure provides that the petition is to be filed with the legislative body
of the city to which annexation is proposed. That body is either to approve
or reject the proposed annexation by resolution within 60 days of the date it
was filed. Also within the 60-day period the body is to notify the
petitioners either by mail or by publishing notice once a week for at least
two weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the area proposed to be
annexed. A formal hearing is optional . It is proposed that this request
first be presented to the Planning Committee for it's consideration and
recommendation.
SUMMARY OF PETITION FOR ELECTION METHOD OF ANNEXATION
A. Background
The petitions were filed with the City of Kent following review by
King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office. That office was obligated
to review the petition to determine whether the action is legally
authorized. King County's Prosecuting Attorney 's Office has
determined that the petitions "meet the procedural and substantive -
requirements of RCW 35.10 and 35.13."
The prosecuting attorney then forwarded the petitions to City Clerk,
City of Des Moines. The citizen petitioners then delivered the
petition to the City of Kent on May 26, 1988. City of Kent received
petitions May 26, 1988. Should the Kent council approve the
annexation, the following procedural steps set forth below must occur.
B. Approval of Des Moines
The petitions will be filed with the City Council for the City of
Des Moines who would either approve or reject the proposed annexation _.
within 60 days of the date it was filed, and also within this 60-day
period notify the petitioners of its action either by mail or by
publishing notice once each week for at least two weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation in the area proposed to be annexed.
The approval of the Des Moines legislative body is required for any
annexation.
The Des Moines legislative body may require, in approving the
proposed annexation, that the following provisions be submitted to -.
the electorate of the territory to be annexed:
1 . A proposition that all property within the area shall , upon
annexation, be assessed and taxes at the same rate and on the
same basis as the property of such annexing city is assessed and
taxed to pay for all or any portion of the then outstanding
indebtedness of the city to which said area is annexed, approved
- 2 -
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 2, 1988
TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Carolyn Lake, Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT: REQUEST BY RESIDENTS OF SALT AIR HILLS FOR ANNEXATION TO CITY OF
DES MOINES
INTRODUCTION
Residents of Salt Air Hills have filed petitions with Kent City Clerk seeking
an election on the issue of whether that territory, currently a portion of the
City of Kent, should be allowed to annex to the City of Des Moines. Three
methods are statutorily authorized for this type of procedure. By the filing
_ of the petition, th residents have chosen the Petition for Election for
Annexation method. The law provides that the procedure shall then be the same
as used when unincorporated territory is annexed to a city. However, the
statute adds one very significant addition to that procedure in that the city
from which the territory is to be taken must approve the annexation before
further action can be taken. If the approval is not granted, the annexation
cannot proceed.
No statutory procedure exists for submission of the action to the city from
which the territory is proposed to be taken. This procedure may be analogous
to the method used when unincorporated territory is annexed to a city. That
procedure provides that the petition is to be filed with the legislative body
of the city to which annexation is proposed. That body is either to approve
or reject the proposed annexation by resolution within 60 days of the date it
was filed. Also within the 60-day period the body is to notify the
petitioners either by mail or by publishing notice once a week for at least
two weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the area proposed to be
annexed. A formal hearing is optional . It is proposed that this request
first be presented to the Planning Committee for it's consideration and
recommendation.
SUMMARY OF PETITION FOR ELECTION METHOD OF ANNEXATION
A. Background
The petitions were filed with the City of Kent following review by
King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office. That office was obligated
to review the petition to determine whether the action is legally "
authorized. King County's Prosecuting Attorney's Office has
determined that the petitions "meet the procedural and substantive
requirements of RCW 35.10 and 35.13."
The prosecuting attorney then forwarded the petitions to City Clerk,
City of Des Moines. The citizen petitioners then delivered the
petition to the City of Kent on May 26, 1988. City of Kent received
petitions May 26, 1988. Should the Kent council approve the
annexation, the following procedural steps set forth below must occur.
B. Approval of Des Moines
The petitions will be filed with the City Council for the City of
Des Moines who would either approve or reject the proposed annexation _.
within 60 days of the date it was filed, and also within this 60-day
period notify the petitioners of its action either by mail or by
publishing notice once each week for at least two weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation in the area proposed to be annexed.
The approval of the Des Moines legislative body is required for any
annexation.
The Des Moines legislative body may require, in approving the
proposed annexation, that the following provisions be submitted to
the electorate of the territory to be annexed:
1 . A proposition that all property within the area shall , upon
annexation, be assessed and taxes at the same rate and on the
same basis as the property of such annexing city is assessed and
taxed to pay for all or any portion of the then outstanding
indebtedness of the city to which said area is annexed, approved
- 2 -
by voters, contracted, or incurred prior to, or existing at, the
date of annexation.
2. If the Council has completed preparation and filing of a
comprehensive plan for the area to be annexed pursuant to
RCW 35. ,13.177-.178, it may also require that the comprehensive
plan be simultaneously adopted upon approval of the annexation
by the electorate of the area to be annexed.
.. C. Petition to be filed with King County Council and King County
Boundary Review Board.
After approval by Des Moines Council , the petition is filed with the
King County Council . Notice of the proposed annexation must also be
given to the King County Review Board for approval (RCW 36.93.090).
D. Exemption from Review RCW 36.93.110
No review is had of an annexation of less than ten acres and $800,000
assessed valuation when the chair of the board by written statement
declares that review is not necessary for the protection of the
interest of the various parties.
E. Upon Approval by the Boundary Review Board, King County Council to
Hold Hearing on Petition
Date and Notice of Hearing
Upon the filing of the approval by the applicable review board, the
King County Council at its next meeting is to set a date for the
hearing on the petition. The hearing must be held not less than two
weeks nor more than four weeks from the date of the meeting. The
petitioners must give notice of the hearing by publication once each
week at least two weeks prior to the hearing in a newspaper of
general circulation in the area proposed to be annexed.
- 3 -
Hearing and Determination RCW 35.13.040 -
If the petition complies with legal requirements and has been
approved by the review board, the petition for an annexation election
must be granted.
F. Election on Annexation
1 . Date of Election
If the petition is granted, RCW 35.13.060 requires the King
County Council to set a date for the election, which must be not
less than 30 nor more than 60 days after the date of granting
the petition.
2. Cost of Election
The cost of the election must be borne by the City of Des Moines.
3. Minimum Vote Required for Approval of Annexation
a. The propositions for or against annexation shall be deemed
approved if a majority of the votes cast on the proposition -
are favorable.
b. A proposition for or against the assumption of all or any
portion of indebtedness may be deemed approved if a
majority of at least three-fifths of the electors of the
territory proposed to be annexed voting on the proposition,
vote in favor thereof, and the number of persons voting on
the proposition constitutes not less than 40% of the total
number of votes cast in the territory at the last preceding
general election.
4. Duty of King County Council RCW 35.13.090
If any of the propositions were approved by the electors, the
King County Council is required to:
a. Enter on its minutes a finding to that effect;
- 4 -
b. Transmit and file a certified copy of its minutes and an
abstract of the vote with the clerk of the City of Des
Moines.
5. Duty of City of Des Moines Upon Receipt of Abstract of Vote
a. The Des Moines City Clerk must transmit the certified copy
of the finding of the county to the Council at the next
regular meeting or as soon thereafter as practicable.
b. The Council must adopt ordinances providing for annexation
and adoption of the comprehensive plan. If a proposition
calling for the assumption of all or any portion of the
outstanding indebtedness of the city or town was submitted
and approved, this provision is to be included in the
annexing ordinance. If this proposition did not receive
the necessary vote, then the legislative body must decide
whether to enact an annexation ordinance, or to decline to
annex the territory.
C. Effective Date of Annexation
The area annexed becomes a part of a city upon the date
fixed in the ordinance of annexation.
_ 3989L-18L
- 5 -
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 7, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
ji. SUBJECT: LIBRARY BOARD APPOINTMENT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor ' s appointment of
Betty Rasmussen to replace Steve Johnson on the Library Board.
This term expires in January 1991.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo
4. RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No . 3X
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
DATE: JUNE 11 1988
" TO: JIM WHITE, COUNCIL PRES NT
FROM: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
RE: LIBRARY BOARD -- APPOINTMENT
I have recently appointed Mrs. Betty Rasmussen to the
Library Board, to replace Steve Johnson who resigned from the
Board effective June 1, 1988. The term of Mrs. Rasmussen's
appointment will be through 1/91. Mrs. Betty Rasmussen has been
active in the Kent community as a resident and business owner for
2 years. She has served as President of the Mercer Island
Parent-PTA and is an Elder in the Presbyterian Church. I submit
this for your confirmation.
DK:am
cc: Councilmembers
Marie Jensen, City Clerk
Brent McFall, City Administrator
Laurel Whitehurst, President, Library Board
Members of the Library Board
Kent City Council Meeting
�t Date June 7, 1988
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: APPEAL - GOODWIN PROFESSIONAL CENTER NO. CE-87-6 (OLD
NO. CE-87-5)
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: At their April 19 meeting, the City
Council held a public hearing to consider an appeal of the
Hearing Examiner ' s recommendation of denial of Goodwin
Professional Center conditional use permit No. CE-87-6 . The
Council remanded the appeal to the Hearing Examiner as a request
for reconsideration. i
d
e ev
wt1�e-A-profe ce-�einQ diarr; �r The subject
property is located on the east side of 104th Ave . SE south of SE
248th St.
3 . EXHIBITS: Minutes of City Council meeting of April 19, order
on request for reconsideration, applicant ' s notice of appeal,
staff report, minutes, findings and recommendation.
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner. January 13 , 1988
(Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc. )
Denial .
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
_._ SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: ,)
Councilmember moves, Councilmember G�,7 seconds
to approve/modify/deny the Hearing Examiner ' s recommendation of
denial of G n Professional Center , conditional use permit
No . CE-87-6. 4v R ti'G�✓ u _ u� fz� SO�Jc / 'z �rwL
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
0. Council Agenda
y
(jkz, Item No. 4A
MARIE JENSEN
CITY OF KENT
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
IN RE LD
GOODWIN PROFESSIONAL ) ORDER ON REQUEST FOR MAY 2 Q 1988
CENTER ) RECONSIDERATION CITY OF KENT
#CE-87-5 )
CITY CLERK
I. INTRODUCTION
THIS MATTER came on before the undersigned for public hearing
on December 16, 1987 . A recommendation of denial was issued on
January 13 , 1988 .
The applicant appealed to the Kent City Council. The City
Council, on April 19, 1988, remanded the matter to the undersigned
for consideration of the issues raised in the Notice of Appeal since
no Request for Reconsideration before the undersigned was ever
filed.
II. ORDER
HAVING fully considered the issues raised in the Notice of
Appeal, and having reviewed the file, hearing minutes, and revisited
the site,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. All evidence was fully considered by the undersigned
including the declaration of Robert E. West, Jr.
2 . It is true that banks are high traffic generators.
However, at the time of the hearing, no information was
given whatsoever by the applicant with respect to the
types of tenants proposed, and the only use which was
described was "commercial" . Accordingly, the findings of
the undersigned were based on this type of anticipated
use.
3 . The East Hill Plan, as amended, was fully considered by
the undersigned.
4 . Finding of Fact No. 8 is not improper.
5. Finding of Fact No. 9 is not improper.
6. The undersigned considered all applicable sections of the
Zoning Code.
1
Order on Request for Reconsideration -
Goodwin Professional Center
#CE-87-6
7. Conclusion of Law No. 3 is supported by the evidence.
8 . Conclusion of Law No. 8 is supported by the evidence and
the record.
9. No other errors were committed in consideration of the
conditional use permit application.
Dated this 19th day of May, 1988 .
DIANE L. VANDERBEEK
HEARING EXAMINER
2
JAN 27 1988
CITY OF KENT
CITY CLERK
CITY OF KENT
OFFICE OF THE
LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
IN RE THE MATTER OF )
GOODWIN PROFESSIONAL CENTER ) NOTICE OF APPEAL
#CE-87-6 )
The applicants-petitioners , William and Sharon Goodwin ,
appeal the decision of the Hearing Examiner , Diane L. Vanderbeek,
issued on January 13 , 1987 .
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS :
1. The written Declaration of Robert E. West, Jr. regarding
traffic and trip generation data and the letter from Robert E .
West, Jr . to the Hearing Examiner dated December 16 , 1987 , which
were presented at the public hearing , do not appear to have been
part of the record and evidence considered by the Examiner.
2 . Finding of Fact No . 5 is incomplete . It fails to find
that the proposed use would generate fewer peak hour trips that
other uses , such as banks , that are permitted uses in the O zone .
3 . Finding of Fact No . 7 is incomplete . The East Hill
Plan , as last amended , also recognizes a proposed use designation
of LC, Limited Commercial/Office , which if implemented would
apply either to the subject property or to that adjacent to it.
4 . Finding of Fact No. 8 is improper . It is an error in
procedure to consider as evidence any evidence submitted at the
time of the public hearing on a different application by the
Goodwins in 1985 .
5 . Finding of Fact No . 9 is improper . It is an error in
procedure to adopt the entire staff report dated December 7 ,
1987 , by reference as a finding of fact.
6. Conclusion No . 2 is incomplete . The Examiner fails to
acknowledge that Zoning Code Sections 15 . 09 .030E and 15 . 04 . 150C
APPEAL -1
HAWKTNR. INGALLS. WFRT & EDWARDS. P.S.
960 EAST MAIN STREET
AUBURN•WASHINGTON S0002
AUBURN(2061 B33-B320 SEATTLE MOO)941-3063
TACOMA 12081 922.8470
must be considered in conjunction with Section 15. 09. 030D.
7 . Conclusion No . 3 in concluding that the proposed use
would lead to strip commercial development is unsupported by the
evidence and findings of fact, and cannot occur absent a change
in the zoning of the subject property.
8 . Conclusions No . 5 is unsupported by the traffic and trip
generation data presented to the Examiner by the staff and
applicants .
9 . Conclusion No . 8 is unsupported by the evidence and
findings of fact.
10 . The Examiner has committed errors in either
interpreting or by failing to consider all relevant zoning code
provisions .
11 . The applicants further appeal from the Determination of
Nonsignificance dated October 22 , 1987 , on the grounds that it is
based on inaccurate and/or incomplete is an trip generation
data .
DATED this 27th day of Janu ry, 1988 .
.tom
Ro ert E. West, Jr .
Attorney for applic
Petitioners Goodwin 77'�
0127rew2. i30
APPEAL -2
HAWKTNH. INOALLS. WGHT & EDWARDS. P.S.
900 EAST MAIN STREET
AUBURN.WASHINGTON 90002
AUBURN f20B1 833-5320 SEATTtE(205)841.3 83 .-
TACOMA 12081 S22.8478
March 25, 1988
NOTICE OF APPEAL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Robert E. West, Jr. , Attorney,
960 East Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002 for William and
Sharon Goodwin, has filed an appeal from the Hearing Examiner's
decision issued January 13 , 1988 , in the matter of
Goodwin Professional Center #CE-87-5. This was a request for a
conditional use permit to allow retail uses up to 50 percent of
a planned development in the O, Professional and Office, zoning
district. The site is located at 25022 104th Avenue SE.
Notice is further given that the appeal will be considered by
the City Council at their regular Council meeting on April 5,
1988 at 7 : 00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall at which time public
testimony will be heard. The City Council has the option to
accept, deny or modify the Hearing Examiner's decision as set
forth by the Hearing Examiner.
Marie Jensen, CMC
City Clerk
Note: Copies of the verbatim minutes are available for perusal
in the Planning Department.
3
3/,[)
FINDINGS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT
FILE NO: #CE-87-5 GOODWIN PROFESSIONAL CENTER
APPLICANT: William and Sharon Goodwin c/o Robert West -
REOUEST: A conditional use permit request to allow retail uses up
to 50 percent of a planned development in the 0,
Professional and Office, zoning district.
LOCATION: The subject property is located on the east side of
104th Avenue SE , south of SE 248th Street at
25022 104th Avenue SE.
APPLICATION FILED: August 28 , 1987
DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE: October 22 , 1987
DECISION ISSUED: January 1.3 , 1988
DECISION: DENIAL
STAFF REPRESENTATIVES : James Hansen, Planning Department
Greg McCormick, Planning Department
Ken Morris, Public Works Department
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Robert E. West, Jr.
WRITTEN TESTIMONY: None
INTRODUCTION
After due consideration of the evidence presented by the applicant, all
evidence elicited during the public hearing, and as a result of the
personal inspection of the subject property by the Hearing Examiner,
the following findings of fact and conclusions shall constitute the
decision of the Hearing Examiner on this application.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant applied for a conditional use permit to allow up to
50 percent of a planned development in the O, Professional and
Office, zoning district.
2 . The subject site is 1. 61 acres in size and is located at
25022 104th Avenue SE in Kent. The site is currently zoned O,
Professional and Office. The applicant seeks to develop this site
for retail and office use. Through utilization of the conditional
use permit procedure, the applicant seeks to establish up to 50
percent of the site for retail purposes. The evidence establishes
that this site consists of three structures. Two of the
buildings, Buildings A and B, are 5,950 square feet in size
1
Hearing Examiner Findings
Goodwin Professional Center
#CE-87-5
respectively, and are proposed to be utilized for office and
retail uses. The evidence establishes that Building C, which is a
one-story structure, would be 9, 180 square feet in size.
3 . The property is currently developed and landscaped pursuant to the
site plan and Zoning Code requirements.
4 . There is an existing multifamily residential development in the
vicinity. However, there are some commercial uses existing to the
south along 104th Avenue SE and there are commercial nodes at the
intersection of 104th Avenue SE and SE 256th Street,' and
104th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street.
5. The subject property has access to 104th Avenue SE which is
classified as a primary arterial . The evidence establishes that
104th Avenue SE was recently improved with five lanes of paving
and related appurtenances. The current average daily traffic
count is 20, 800 trips per day. The adjacent intersection at
104th Avenue SE and SE 256th Street, currently operates at LOS "F"
at the time of the prior application on this (Goodwin Professional
Center, File #CE-87-10) , the average daily traffic count was
19 , 500 trips per day. Currently, the City Traffic Engineer
estimates that the proposed 50 percent retail use would generate
an additional 24 p.m. peak-hour trips more than would the 100
percent office• use permitted outright under the Zoning Code.
6 . The subject property was annexed to the City in 1969 pursuant to
Ordinance #1624 , as part of a 70-acre annexation. The initial
zoning of the site was R4 , Medium Density Multiple Family
Residential . This designation was later changed to O,
Professional and Office, in 1973 with the adoption of the present
Zoning Code.
7 . The East Hill Plan designates the subject site as "Office" .
8 . The site plan and evidence submitted at the time of the public
hearing is essentially the same as the evidence submitted at the
time of the previous public hearing on this application. The only
change factor is the improvement of 104th Avenue SE since that
date.
9 . The staff recommendation is for denial. The staff report is
incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full.
CONCLUSIONS
- 1. The Comprehensive Plan contains goals and policies with respect to
development on the East Hill. In addition, the East Hill Plan
reiterates planning goals and policies with respect to the East
Hill area specifically. The East Hill Plan and the City-wide
Comprehensive Plan designates the subject site as "Office" .
2
Hearing Examiner Findings
Goodwin Professional Center
#CE-87-5
2 . The Zoning Code at Section 15. 09 . 030 D, sets forth a series of
criteria which much be established by the evidence prior to the
time that a conditional use permit can be granted.
3 . The first of these criteria stated that the proposed use and the
proposed location will not be detrimental to other uses legally
existing or permitted outright in the zoning district. In this
instance, the proposed designation of up to 50 percent retail uses
may be detrimental to other uses legally existing or permitted
outright in the zoning district. Specifically, if the above 50
percent retail uses are permitted in an O, Professional and
Office, district as in this case, strip commercial development may
result. The potential adverse visual and traffic impacts
resulting from commercial strip development would be extremely
detrimental to other use legally existing or permitted outright in
the zoning district.
4 . The applicant must further establish that the size of the site is
adequate for the proposed use. This criteria is established by
the evidence.
5. Further, the applicant must establish that the traffic generated
by the proposed use will not unduly burden the traffic circulation
system in the vicinity. Although 104th Avenue SE has been
improved to five lanes, traffic has increased substantially since
the last application for retail uses on the subject site. It has
not been established by the evidence that the additional traffic
generated would not unduly burden the circulation system. This is
particularly true considering that the intersection at
104th Avenue SE and SE 256th Street currently operate at level of
service "F" . It would unduly burden the traffic circulation
system to permit even more retail uses in the vicinity.
6 . The conditional use permit application must also establish that
the other performance characteristics of the proposed use are
compatible with other uses in the neighborhood or vicinity. This
criteria is established by the evidence.
7 . The remaining criteria concerning adequate buffering, compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan, and any other similar considerations
which may be appropriate to a particular case, has been
established by the evidence. `
8 . However, the Zoning Code also requires a conditional use permit
applicant to establish that the other uses in the vicinity of the
proposed site are such as to permit the proposed use to function
effectively. In this instance, the adjacent uses, which include a
small two-story office building to the south, and larger office
buildings which exist to the south and northwest of the site, may
not permit the proposed use to function effectively because of the
3
Hearing Examiner Findings
Goodwin Professional Center
#CE-87-5
inherent conflicts between retail and office uses. This criteria
has not been established by the evidence.
RECOMMENDATION
For each of the above reasons, the decision of the Hearing Examiner on
,.., the request for the conditional use permit is DENIAL.
Dated this 13th day of January, 1988 .
DIANE L. VANDERBEEK
Hearing Examiner
Reguest for Reconsideration
Any party of record who feels the decision of the Examiner is based on
error of procedure, fact or judgment, or the discovery of new evidence
may file a written request for reconsideration with the Hearing
Examiner no later than 14 days of the date of the decision.
_. Reconsideration requests should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner, 220
S . Fourth Avenue, Kent, WA 98032 .
Notice of Right to Appeal
The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written appeal
to Council is filed by a party of record within 14 days of the
decision. The appeal must be filed with the City Clerk and state the
basis of appeal which may be errors of fact, procedural errors,
omissions from the record , errors in interpretations of the
Comprehensive Plan or new evidence. See Ordinance #2233 and
Resolution #896 for specific information.
„•, Section 15. 09 . 030 G Kent Zoning Code provides that any conditional use
permit granted by the Examiner shall remain effective only for one (1)
year unless the use is begun within that time or construction has
commenced. If not in use or construction has not commenced within one
year, the conditional use permit shall become invalid.
4
CITY 01 _>LCNT
planning: '
f1 oi`� p o n � � �• � .
n
a
— ^ O
O - O
0
O
Op h
8 C) cp __ K --}--�
It
a
I L N I �OI
�5
o
-o
8.5
13
C7� -
.0
L 'T
o ,
MINI _..
� 1
APPLICATION Name G000Y4IN PROFESSIONAL CENTER LEGEND
Number NfF_R,_q Dale 12/16/87 applioallonnsilo IMINIMI
DegUesl�lll IICF DFRMTT 200i00 beU"darY'
sA
TOPO/ZONING Cily Ilmlls
SCALE = I°:200
l CITY OF ..ENT
plan.n.ing
SSE 233RD A( M 1^/, A n " Q-•
i SE 234'.�
iO STH\"1 i0`+iMP\' r 3� .SE • n
o
W " -.. • n 3E 236TH ST AY \ ST nl 2NTH IV f"1
> S 236TH \r So E 7�J sr BarlcaJe
W
a '.i" SE 236TH tL W G)
"'•' w SE 232TH ST > Wal{I
`
`I. Sa < Hncrvo-•
E 236TH m
3E 239TH \ ST
�sL > W ST
J170 '< SE OTH ST 17 16
Prd-0. '
Q EAST HILL
T* ELEMENTARY - 20 21
_.... 3 SCHOOL
m�
"
3RD
i W
F " LST
SE2aaTH = n j
W C W
> Q N
< W 2
.. f
P 1
6TH V
I W ^
S 24eTH ST SE " 246TH � ST \
W SIT
F i
> 1
W SC b2RO ST <
EAST HILL 5
CENTER
I 2 m
N held
SE 25 ST m '
Field 5T C _s + � j1- 5
m517 '� < 5RN t
KENT-MERIDIAN < Is
SR.HI.SCHOOL C
.... �L. „ Y SE 236TH ST <20 2I ~I.
L<_; s i " W $ "' 29 28 SE 2s
o STN
o ..9 G
SE m6 ST „ SE h
4 260TH KI 3E 39TH
.« ST Of Ey 3T
= W O
" W < (Pvl)SEQUOIA
N
S lQHO JR.HL T
-• PI I SCHOOL 4
i
i h )
I � i mo AIIdTl1l 1 ��
SE 264TH STO FnHJ J
I
APPLICATION Name—GDnnwIN PRnFFSSInNAI CENTER LEGEND
..» Numher- kfF-R7-q Dale -17/lfi/R7 '.application silo
Re.gUOSt CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 2onlou ItOU�dafy
VICINITY MAP City limit$ .
SCALE = IH:i000l
CITE.' Or I.-,AT
} Ft
�lt t} Gam:
E3
T d I � :arll 4. c'9 1 i
t 31 MlMi�-Pt a
E+_ l j�u A � a ° 1�'i � k a d t LY� FTT poi
Il;Yrb�- �•
n�
. 1
� .UTP .zvr-
• f�Z, ~1 r J
0 1
n
APPLICATION Name_ rnnnl+,. °DUAL-cFa�rEa-- LEGEND :
Number_ 4F a s . Dale 12/16/87 applicollou silo
Request Conditional Use Permit tonin0 boundary
SITE PLAN CIIf Ilmlis
SCALE _ 1';20
r
KENT PLANNING AGENCY
STAFF REPORT
FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF DECEMBER 6, 1987
FILE NO: GOODWIN PROFESSIONAL CENTER #CE-87-5
APPLICANT: WILLIAM AND SHARON GOODWIN
REOUEST: A conditional use permit request to allow retail
uses up to 50 percent of a planned development
in the 0, Professional and Office, zoning
district.
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE: Greg McCormick
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Description of' the Proposal
The applicant proposes to develop the site with a
retail/office development. The development would consist of
three buildings . Buildings A and B are one-story,
5, 950 square foot structures for office and retail uses.
Building C is a one-store, 9, 180 square foot structure
intended for office uses only.
B. Location
The subject property is located on the east side of
104th Avenue SE , south of SE 248th Street at
25022 104th Avenue SE.
C. Size of Property
The property is approximately 1. 61 acres in size.
D. Zoning
The site is zoned O, Professional and Office.
E. Comprehensive Plan
The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive Land
Use Plan in 1969 . The goals, objectives and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan represent an expression of community
intentions and aspirations concerning the future of Kent and
the area within the Sphere of Interest. The Comprehensive
1
STAFF REPORT
GOODWIN PROFESSIONAL CENTER
#CE-87-5
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 subject
property is covered by the East Hill Plan. The East Hill
Plan Map designates the subject property as "Office" .
CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ECONOMIC ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: PROMOTE CONTROLLED ECONOMIC GROWTH WITH
ORDERLY PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT, RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND
PRESERVATION.
GOAL 2 : Assure retail and commercial developments are in
suitable locations.
Objective 1: Minimize adverse physical impacts of strip
commercial development.
Policy 3 : Restrict strip commercial development to
areas already so developed.
Policy 4 : Adopt and enforce regulations which will
minimize the adverse impacts and unsafe
conditions caused by strip development.
Planning Department Comment
This property is located on 104th Avenue SE which is the
major north/south corridor on the East Hill . One Hundred
Fourth Avenue SE is a four-lane street which connects two
major retail nodes at the intersection of 104th Avenue SE and
James and 104th Avenue SE and 256th.
This corridor has a potential to be developed as a commercial
strip. The lots in this area extend east and west from
104th Avenue SE approximately 300 feet which is the zoning
boundary between O, Professional and Office, to residential .
Permitting 50 percent of this development to be used for
retail would set a precedent along 104th Avenue SE which may
lead to the development of a commercial strip. Among the
problems created by commercial strips are increased traffic
2
STAFF REPORT
• GOODWIN PROFESSIONAL CENTER
#CE-87-5
congestion due to increased auto trips and increased turning
movements on and off the street and adverse visual and
auditory impacts on neighboring residential uses from
increased signage and traffic noise.
In this particular case, given the traffic congestion and the
proximity of this site to residential uses, it would be
appropriate to locate retail uses in areas that are zoned
commercial . Major commercial areas exist to the north and
south of the subject property. Allowing the requested use
would be inconsistent with the above noted goals, objectives
and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
EAST HILL PLAN
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISH A BALANCED, SAFE AND EFFICIENT
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM LINKING THE EAST HILL WITH INTERNAL AND
EXTERNAL HOUSING, EMPLOYMENT, SERVICE AND RECREATIONAL
OPPORTUNITIES. THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM SHOULD BE DESIGNED
AS BOTH A MULTI-MODAL AND A MULTI-PURPOSE SYSTEM' THAT CAN BE
ECONOMICALLY IMPLEMENTED THROUGH THE JOINT EFFORTS OF LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS, THE STATE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNERS .
GOAL 3 : Establish and maintain the highest feasible level of
-... service for East Hill .
Objective 1: Determine the minimum level of service.
Policy 4 : Coordinate the transportation plan with
land use patterns and plans.
Planning Department Comment:
The City's Master Transportation Plan outlines future roadway
improvements based on a number of factors. One of the major
considerations in predicting future transportation needs is
land use patterns and zoning. Allowing the requested retail
uses would only serve to intensify an already critical
traffic problem on the East Hill.
II . HISTORY
A. Site History
The subject property was annexed into the City in 1969
(Ordinance 41624) as part of a 70-acre annexation. The
initial zoning of the site was R, Medium Density Multifamily
Residential. This designation was changed to O, Professional
3
STAFF REPORT
GOODWIN PROFESSIONAL CENTER
OCE-87-5
and Office in 1973 with the adoption of the present Zoning
Code.
The applicant applied for an identical conditional use permit
request in 1984 . This request was denied by the Hearing
Examiner with findings which included the following: that
traffic generated by the proposed use would unduly burden the
existing traffic circulation system and that office uses
would impact the adjacent residential areas to a lesser
degree than retail activities.
The site is being developed with Buildings A, B and C.
Buildings A and B are completed, Building C is under
construction. Portions of Buildings A are occupied at this
time.
B. Area History
The subject property abuts 104th Avenue SE which is a major
north/south transportation corridor which links areas south
of Kent to Renton. One Hundred Fourth Avenue SE is
considered a primary arterial and was improved earlier this
year to a four-lane facility from north of SE 240th Street to
SE 260th Street. A great deal of commercial and multifamily
residential has occurred on the East Hill in the past few
years.
This site lies between two major commercial nodes. These
commercial areas occur at the intersection of 104th Avenue SE
and SE 256th Street to the south and James Street and
104th Avenue SE to the north of the site. These major nodes
provide a wide variety of services and retail opportunities
to the surrounding residential areas. "
There have been a number of applications filed in the area
requesting up to 50 percent of various developments to be
used for retail uses in the 0, Professional and Office,
zoning district. The following is a review of these
requests.
The present applicant (William Goodwin) filed a conditional
use permit request (CE-84-10) to allow 50 percent of a
proposed three building development to be used for retail
uses on the subject property in 1984 . The request was denied
by the Hearing Examiner on January 30 , 1985 for the following
reasons:
1. The additional traffic generated by the proposed use
would unduly burden the existing traffic circulation
system.
4 `
STAFF REPORT
- GOODWIN PROFESSIONAL CENTER
#CE-87-5
2 . Office uses would impact adjacent residential uses to a
lesser degree than retail activities.
Charles C. Adams (#CE-82-12) filed a conditional use permit
request to allow 50 percent of a building to be used for
retail use in the 0 zoning district. The subject property is
located at 25625-27-29 101st Avenue SE. This request was
approved with conditions by the Hearing Examiner on
October 20, 1982 .
Kangley Center (#CE-79-12) was a conditional use permit
request to allow 50 percent of a proposed development in an 0
zone to be used for retail activities. This property is
located at 10618 Kent-Kangley Road. The request was approved
by the Kent Planning Commission on August 28 , 1979 .
Adams, et al (#CE-75-4) applied for a conditional use permit
to allow up to 50 percent of a planned development to be used
for retail use in the 0 zone. This request was for property
located at the southwest corner of l.olst Avenue SE and
SE 256th Street. This request was denied by the Planning
Commission on July 22 , 1975 . The applicant's appeal of the
decision to the City Council was withdrawn before Council
action.
III . LAND USE
The subject property is in an area that is in transition. In the
past year, a number of commercial, office and residential
developments have been construction or are in the process of
obtaining permits. There is some vacant land in the area still
available.
A number of multifamily developments exist to the east and
northeast. A number of commercial uses exist to the south along
104th Avenue SE. These uses are located within the commercial
area at the intersection of 104th Avenue SE and SE 256th Street.
Office uses exist to the south of the project and also at the
southwest corner of SE 248th Street and 104th Avenue SE, north of
the site. An application to construct an additional office
building at this neighboring site has been submitted.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
A. Environmental Assessment
A Final Declaration of Nonsignificance was issued on
October 22 , 1987 with the following conditions:
.w
5
STAFF REPORT
GOODWIN PROFESSIONAL CENTER
#CE-87-5
In the event the conditional use permit is approved, the
following mitigating conditions shall apply:
1. The developer of the Goodwin Professional Center shall
do a traffic study to identify all traffic impacts upon
the City of Kent road network and traffic signal system.
The study shall identify all intersections at level of
service "E" or "F" or which will be at level of service
"E" or "F" due to increased traffic volumes from the -•
development. These intersections are at a threshold
level for traffic mitigation.
The study shall then identify what improvements are
necessary to mitigate the development impacts thereon.
Upon agreement by the City with the findings of the
study and mitigation measures outlined in the study,
implementation and/or construction of said mitigation
measures shall be the conditional requirement of the
issuance of the respective development permits.
2 . In lieu of conducting the above traffic study,
constructing and/or implementing the respective _.
mitigation measures hereby, the developer may agree to
the following conditions to mitigate the traffic impacts
due to the Goodwin Professional Center development.
a. The developer shall execute an environmental
mitigation agreement (no-protest LID agreement) to
participate in the formation of an LID to construct
the SE 272nd/277th Street corridor project. The
minimum benefit to the above development is
estimated at $51, 264 based upon 24 p.m. peak hour
trips entering and leaving the site and the
capacity of the SE 272nd/277th Street corridor.
(The estimated benefit is based upon 100 percent
participation in the LID by the developer for trip
generation exceeding the allowable land use
densities. This conforms to the SEPA conditions
set forth in the West Valley Industrial Plan. ) The
execution of this agreement will serve to mitigate
traffic impacts to the above-mentioned
intersections and road system by committing funding _.._
for the SE 272nd/277th Street corridor which will
provide additional capacity for traffic volumes
within the area of the above-mentioned development.
STAFF REPORT
GOODWIN PROFESSIONAL CENTER
#CE-87-5
B. Significant Physical Features
1. Topography and Hydrology
The property is generally flat and level. Buildings A
and B are completed and Building C is under
construction. The parking areas have been paved and
appropriate landscaping provided.
2 . Vegetation
The site is covered by either buildings or parking,
eliminating all of the native vegetation. Landscaping
has been provided on the site that is in conformance
with Zoning Code standards.
C. Significant Social Features
1. Street System
The subject property has access to 104th Avenue SE which
is classified as a primary arterial. The street has a
public right-of-way width of 80 feet while the actual
paving width is 58 feet. The street is improved with
five lanes of asphalt paving, curb and gutter, storm
water drainage, sidewalks, and street lighting.
When the applicant applied for this conditional use in
1984 , 104th Avenue SE was a two-lane roadway. While the
improvement of 104th and the new traffic light at the
intersection of 104th and 248th has improved the
capacity on 104th Avenue SE, the intersection of
104th Avenue SE and SE 256th is operating at level of
service "F" . The additional traffic which would result
from this request being approved would only make a bad
situation, in terms of traffic congestion, worse.
The average daily traffic count on the street is 20, 800
trips per day. During the environmental review process,
the intersection of 104th Avenue SE and SE 256th Street
was identified as operating at a level of service F.
2 . Water System
An existing 12-inch water main is available to serve the
subject property from 104th Avenue SE.
7
STAFF REPORT
GOODWIN PROFESSIONAL CENTER
#CE-87-5
3 . Sanitary Sewer System
An existing 10-inch sanitary sewer line in
104th Avenue SE is available to serve the subject
property.
4 . Storm Water System
An existing storm water line in 104th Avenue SE is
available to serve the subject property.
5. LID' s
The property is covered by LID 321 which was passed to
construct the recent roadway improvements to
104th Avenue SE.
V. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
The following departments and agencies Were advised of this
conditional use application:
City Administrator City Attorney
Director of Public Work Chief of Police
Parks & Recreation Director Fire Chief
Building Official City Clerk
In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies
within 200 feet of the site were notified of the application and
of the December 16, 1987 , public hearing.
Staff comments have been incorporated in the staff report where
applicable.
VI . PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
The Planning Department has reviewed this application in relation
to the Comprehensive Plan, present zoning, land use, street
system, flood control problems and comments from other departments
and finds that:
A. The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as
"Office" .
B. The present zoning of the site is O, Professional and Office.
C. The subject property is on the northern edge of a commercial
center which is located at the intersection of
104th Avenue SE and SE 256th Street. North of the site is
8
STAFF REPORT
GOODWIN PROFESSIONAL CENTER
#CE-87-5
vacant land and a single family residence, west of the site
is office uses, single family, and vacant property; to the
east is multifamily residential .
D. The site has access to 104th Avenue SE which is a primary
arterial. During the environmental review for this request,
the intersection of 104th Avenue SE and SE 256th Street is
currently functioning at a level of service F.
E. There are no flood control problems on the site.
F. A conditional use permit shall only be granted after the
Hearing Examiner has reviewed the proposed use to determine
if it is in compliance with the following standards and
criteria. These standards are provided for in Kent Zoning
Code Section 15. 09 . 030 D.
1. The proposed use in the proposed location will not be
detrimental to other uses legally existing or permitted
outright in the zoning district.
2 . The site of the site is adequate for the proposed use.
' 3 . The traffic generated by the proposed use will not
unduly burden the traffic circulation system. in the
vicinity.
4 . The other performance characteristics of the proposed
use are compatible with those of other uses in the
. neighborhood or vicinity.
5. Adequate buffering devices such as fencing, landscaping,
or topographic characteristics protect adjacent
properties from adverse effects of the proposed use,
including adverse visual or auditory effects.
-. 6 . The other uses in the vicinity of the proposed site are
such as to permit the proposed use to function
effectively.
7 . The proposed use complies with the performance
standards, parking requirements and other applicable
provisions of this code.
8 . Any other similar considerations that may be appropriate
to a particular case.
The staff has responded to these statements and made the
following findings.
9
STAFF REPORT
GOODWIN PROFESSIONAL CENTER
#CE-87-5
1. The proposed use in the proposed location will not be
detrimental to other uses legally existing or permitted
outright in the zoning district.
Planning Department Findinc[
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit to allow
up to 50 percent of the development to be used for retail
uses. This type of request is provided for in the 0,
Professional and Office, zoning district outlined in the Kent
Zoning Code. The staff has interpreted these provisions to
allow retail uses similar to the uses permitted in the CC,
Community Commercial, Section 15 . 04 . 150 of the Kent Zoning
Code. This section specifically denotes uses such as drive-
in restaurants, service stations, drive-in cleaning establish
merits are not permitted in this district.
The subject property as well as adjacent properties to the
north and south and property on the west side of
104th Avenue SE is zoned 0, Professional and Office. it is
expected that the surrounding properties will be developed
into professional and office uses.
Allowing the requested commercial - uses would promote
commercial strip development along 104th Avenue SE, rather
than locating commercial uses within the major commercial
nodes in the area.
2 . The site of the site is adequate for the proposed use.
Planning Department Finding
The property is an irregular shaped lot and is 1. 61 acres in
size. The site was designed and is being constructed to meet
all applicable Code requirements.
3 . The traffic generated by the proposed use will not
unduly burden the traffic circulation system in the
vicinity.
Planning Department Finding
This property has access to 104th Avenue SE which is
classified as a primary arterial . Recently, 104th Avenue SE
was improved to a five-lane facility with curbs and gutters,
sidewalks, street lighting and all related appurtenances.
The average daily traffic on 104th is 20, 800 trips per day,
ADT on 256th is currently 35, 200 daily trips.
While the above noted street improvements have increased the
capacity of 104th Avenue SE , the intersections at
10
STAFF REPORT
GOODWIN PROFESSIONAL CENTER
#CE-87-5
104th Avenue SE and SE 256th and 104th Avenue SE and James
are operating at a level of service F. The City Traffic
Engineer estimates that an additional 236 daily trips will be
generated by allowing 50 percent of this development to be
used for retail uses. Due to the increased intensity in land
use and traffic generation, the City Public Works Department
has recommended that this request be denied.
4 . The other performance characteristics of the proposed
_. use are compatible with those of other uses in the
neighborhood or vicinity.
Planning Department Finding
The subject property is in an area of office and residential
uses. Given the range of retail uses that would be allowed
if this request was granted, it would be difficult to predict i
the impact on adjacent uses. Generally, office and
professional uses tend to have less of an impact,
particularly on residential uses, - than would retail uses.
The purpose for the O, Professional and Office, zone is to
buffer residential districts and that the development j
standards, sign regulations, etc. are such that office uses
should be compatible with residential districts.
5. Adequate buffering devices such as fencing, landscaping,
or topographic characteristics protect adjacent
properties from adverse effects of the proposed use,
including adverse visual or auditory effects.
Planning Department Finding
Landscaping on the site has been provided in accordance with
the Zoning Code requirements. However, additional buffering
devices such as fences have not been used to buffer this site
from adjacent uses.
6. The other uses in the vicinity of the proposed site are
such as to permit the proposed use to function
effectively.
Planning Department Finding
Properties adjacent to this site are zoned O, Professional
and Office. The neighboring property to the south has been
developed with a small, two-story office building. Larger
office buildings exist to the south and northwest of the
site. Land to the north, east and west are either vacant or
undeveloped with residential uses. None of the adjacent uses
would impact the ability of the proposed use to function
effectively.
11
STAFF REPORT _.
GOODWIN PROFESSIONAL CENTER
#CE-87-5
7 . The proposed use complies with the performance
standards, parking requirements and other applicable
provisions of this code.
Planning Department Finding
The site as developed appears to meet the applicable
performance standards, parking requirements, etc. of the Kent
Zoning Code. However, this development does have some
violations of the sign code. The site has two freestanding
signs and a lighted tenant sign. This development is allowed
only one freestanding sign and the Zoning Code does not allow
tenant signs to be illuminated.
8 . Any other similar considerations that may be appropriate
to a particular case.
Planning Department Finding
The O, Professional and Office, zoning district allows a
number of service uses. The 0 district is being used in this
instance to act as a buffer between existing and anticipated
multifamily development occurring to the east and west of the
104th Avenue SE corridor. The uses allowed in a commercial
area do not normally mix well with residential uses.
If the request for commercial uses is approved, similar
requests are likely to follow. Once this precedent is set,
it is difficult to refuse similar requests. This may result
in a commercial strip developing on 104th Avenue SE from
256th to 240th.
VII . CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The City staff' s recommendation, based upon the above findings,
for this application is DENIAL.
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
December 7 , 1987
12
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES
December 16, 1987
The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to order by
the presiding officer, Diane L. VanDerbeek, Hearing 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 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.
GOODWIN PROFESSIONAL CENTER
Conditional Use Permit
#CE-87-5
The first item on the agenda was a public hearing to consider the
request by William and Sharon Goodwin c/o Robert E. West, Jr. ,
960 East Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002 , for a conditional use permit
to allow retail uses up to 50 percent of a planned development in the
O, Professional and Office, zoning district. The property is located
on the east side of 104th Avenue SE, south of SE 248th Street at 25022
104th Avenue SE.
VERBATIM MINUTES
(1-302) Greg McCormick: Madam Hearing Examiner, Greg McCormick,
again, with the City's Planning staff. As you have stated, the
applicant proposed to use a site that has been developed with three
buildings, two of which are one=story structures, approximately-5, 950
square feet a piece and one structure that is under construction now,
not quite ready for occupancy, that is 9, 180 square feet in size.
There' s proposed to be a combination of retail and office uses in
these buildings. The site is located on the east side of 104th
Avenue, south of 248th Street. The property is approximately 1. 6 acre
in size and the site is zoned O for Professional and Office.
-• Currently, the zoning boundary to the north is 248th Street, north of
that is an area which is--was recently annexed into the city and is
still under the interim zoning designation of R1-20, Single Family
Residential . To the south, extends down south--off the picture here,
you run into a CC, Central Commercial, zone.
The applicant has applied for this conditional use permit previous to
this time in 1984 . This request was denied by the Hearing Examiner
with findings that the traffic generated by the proposed use would
unduly burden the existing traffic circulation system in the area and
that office uses would impact the adjacent residential areas to a
lesser degree than retail activities. The proposal is to use portions
1
Hearing Examiner Minutes -
Verbatim
Goodwin Professional Center
#CE-876
of the buildings for office and a mix of retail. The site abuts 104th
Avenue which now has been improved to a four-lane facility with a
continuous left turn lane from 240th down to 260th Street. A great
deal of commercial and multifamily residential has occurred on the
East Hill in the past few years and this site lies between two major
commercial nodes which are at the intersection of 104th Avenue and
240th Street or James Street and the intersection of 104th Avenue SE
and 104th Avenue. These major nodes provide a wide variety of
services and retail opportunities to the surrounding residential
areas.
The land use in the area and the subject property is in an area that' s
in transition now. There are several areas that are adjacent to this
property to the north and across the street to the west that are
vacant or in the process of being developed. A number of multifamily
developments exist to the east and to the northeast of the subject
site and the--a number of commercial uses exist to the south of this
along 104th and extends down south of the intersection at 256. An
application to construct an additional office building at this site
has been submitted. At this point I would like to run a quick video
that was taken today of the site.
(1-475 to 1-549) Video was shown. This is standing on the west side
of 104th, looking south down towards the intersection of 256th and
104th and this is a commercial, CC, area that stands up. And, I
believe that that Dairy Queen is on the last lot zoned CC, and then
you get into more office, real estate office type uses, a multifamily
development entrance there and then right here. . . looking towards 248th
now at the intersection. . .undeveloped land north of the subject
property. O.k. , this is looking directly across from the development
here, standing on the west side of 104th. This is an office building
to the south and then into the- multifamily entrance again herd and
then looking south towards the commercial area. This is standing on
the east side and looking to the west, directly across from the site,
an area just been build and under or undeveloped office, looking to
the north--new office uses, just south of 248th.
This project was reviewed under the State Environmental Policy Act and
a Final Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on October 22 with
mitigation conditions that in the event that the conditional use
permit is approved in part or in its entirety would apply to the
project.
The City of Kent has adopted a Comprehensive Plan and the goals,
objectives and policies of that plan are used by the various City
departments, Planning Commission, City Council, City administrator, to
guide growth, development and spending decisions. With comments
received back on this particular request, the staff has reviewed the
Comprehensive Plan in terms of this request and has quoted some of the
sections out of the various Comprehensive Plan. The City has adopted
2
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
Goodwin Professional Center
#CE-876
subarea plans as well as the City-wide Plan and which deal on--with
_ land use issues on more geographic--specific geographic area and this
particular area is covered under the City's Kent East Hill Plan. The
City-wide Comprehensive Plan, the Economic Element of that plan, the
OVERALL GOAL being promote controlled, economic growth with orderly
physical development, resource conservation and preservation. GOAL 2
under the Overall Goal is to "assure retail and commercial
developments are in the. . in suitable locations" . Objective 1
"minimize adverse physical impacts of strip commercial development.
Restrict strip commercial development to areas already so developed" .
And, Policy 4 is to adopt and enforce regulations which will minimize
the adverse impacts and unsafe conditions caused by strip development.
The property is located on 104th which is a major north/south corridor
on the EAst Hill . One-Hundred and Fourth connects two major retail
nodes which exist at 256th and 104th and James Street and 104th.
This particular corridor has a potential to be developed as a
commercial strip. Lots in this particular area extend east and west
from 104th Avenue approximately 300 feet, which is the zoning
boundaries for the O, Professional . and Office, and that then reverts
into a residential zoning designation. It is felt that if permitting
" a 50 percent use of this development for retail would set a precedent
along 104th Avenue which may lead to the development of a commercial
strip and one of the problems created by commercial strips are
increased traffic congestion due to increased auto trips and increased
" turning movements on and off the street . and 'adverse visual and
auditory impacts on neighboring residential uses from increased
signage and traffic noise. In this particular case given the traffic
congestion, the proximity of this site to residential uses, it would
be appropriate retail uses in areas that are zoned commercial in the
major commercial nodes that exist both north and south of the site.
Under the East Hill Plan, this request was reviewed in light of the
Transportation Element which Overall Goal is to establish a balanced,
safe and efficient transportation system linking the East Hill with
internal and external housing, employment, service and recreational
opportunities. The transportation system should be designed as both
multi-model and a multi-purpose system that can be economically
implemented through the joint efforts of local jurisdictions, state
and transportation planners. And an Obiective under that--is to
determine the minimum level of service and coordinate the
transportation plan with land use patterns and plans. The City has
adopted a Master Transportation Plan which outlines future roadways
improvements based on a number of factors. And one of those factors
that is looked at when the transportation plan is created is the land
" use patterns and existing zoning and based on those facts or those
facts and other related information, the Master Plan outlines those
roadway improvements that will be needed in the future. Allowing the
requested retail uses would only serve to intensify the problem--the
traffic problem that is already present on the East Hill. The
3
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
Goodwin Professional Center
#CE-876
Planning Department has reviewed this application in relation to the
Comprehensive Plan, the present zoning and land use, street system,
flood control problems and comments from other departments and finds
that the Comp Plan designates the subject property as Office, the
current zoning is O. Professional and Office; subject property is on
the northern edge of a commercial center which is located at the
intersection of 104th and 256th, north of the site is vacant land and
single family residences, excuse me, west of the site is office uses,
single family and vacant problem and to the east is multifamily
residential .
The site has access to 104th which is a primary arterial. During the
environmental review for this request, the intersection of 104th and
SE 256th was identified as functioning at a level of service F. No
flood control problem on the site. The conditional use section of the
Zoning Code provides criteria which by the Hearing Examiner is to
review a proposed use and determine if it is in compliance with the
standards and criteria set forth in the Zoning Code.
Those criteria are:
1. The proposed use in the proposed location will not be detrimental
to other uses legally existing or permitted outright in the zoning
district.
2 . The size of the site is adequate for the .proposed use.
3 . The traffic generated by the proposed use will not unduly burden
the traffic circulation system in the vicinity.
4 : That the other performance characteristics of the proposed use are
compatible with those of other uses in the neighborhood or
vicinity.
5. Adequate buffering devices such as fencing, landscaping, or
topographic characteristics protect adjacent properties from
adverse effects of the proposed use, including adverse visual or
auditory effects.
6. That the other uses in the vicinity of the proposed site are such
as to permit the proposed use to function effectively.
7 . The proposed use complies with the performance standards, parking
requirements and other applicable provisions of the zoning code.
8 . That the--any othet similar considerations that may be appropriate
to a particular case.
Planning staff has reviewed this request in light of those
requirements and finds that:
4
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
Goodwin Professional Center
#CE-876
1. The applicant has requested a conditional use permit and this is
allowed in the zoning code, Section 15. 04 . 150, this section
specifically denotes uses such as drive-in restaurants, service
stations, dry cleaning establishments are not permitted in the
district under the 50 percent should it be granted. The subject
property as well as adjacent properties to the north and south and
property on the west side of 104th is zoned office, O,
_ Professional and Office. it is expected that surrounding
properties will be developed into professional and office uses.
Allowing the request for commercial use would promote commercial
strip development along 104th rather than locating commercial uses
within the major commercial nodes in the area.
2 . That the property is irregular shaped, is approximately 1. 6 acres
in size. The site was designed and is being constructed to meet
all applicable City code requirements.
3 . This property has access to 104th which is a primary arterial.
Recent improvements to 104th included improving it to a five lane
facility with curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lighting and the
average daily traffic on 104th is approximately 20, 800 trips per
day and trips on 256th is approximately 35, 200. While the above
noted street improvements have increased the capacity of 104th,
the intersection of 104th and 256th and the intersection at 104th
and James Street are currently operating at 'level of service F.
The City Traffic Engineers estimates an additional 236 daily trips
would be generated by allowing 50 percent of this development to
be used for retail uses.
Diane VanDerbeek: Will the Traffic Engineer be able to give me
additional information about that statistic?
McCormick: Yes, I believe he will . I talked to him just prior to the
meeting and he said the figures he used to calculate that were in the
low to middle range for retail uses in terms of traffic generated.
So, he may be able to clear. . .
-._ VanDerbeek: I don't find just additional trips per day a particularly
helpful statistics. In this instance, I would find the additional
a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips perhaps more helpful.
McCormick: O.k. I 'm sure that he can estimate those for you.
4 . That subject property is in an area of office and residential
uses. Given the Lange of retail uses that would be allowed if
this request was granted it would be difficult to predict what the
impact on adjacent residential uses would be. Generally, office
zoning is used as a transition district between heavier commercial
uses and residential uses. The development standards, sign
5
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
Goodwin Professional Center
#CE-876
regulations and so on, are such that office uses are more
compatible with residential uses than retail uses are.
Landscaping on the site has been in accordance with Zoning Code
requirements. However, additional buffering devices such as
fencing, etc. have not be used to buffer this site
from adjacent uses.
6. The properties adjacent to this site are zoned O, Professional and
Office. Neighboring property to the south has been developed with
small, two-story office building and larger office buildings exist
to the south and to the northwest of the south.
Land northeast and west are either vacant or undeveloped--
underdeveloped with residential uses at this time and none of the
adjacent uses would impact the ability of the proposed use to
function effectively.
The site, as developed, appears to meet the applicable performance
standards, parking requirements, landscaping requirements, etc. of
the Code. However, this development does not have some--
currently, has some violations of the sign code. The site has two
freestanding signs and a lighted tenant sign. This particular
development under the Zoning Code is allowed to have one
freestanding sign and the Zoning Code does not allow for tenant
signs that are illuminated. And finally., the' O, Professional and
Office, zoning district allows a number of service uses. The O
district is being used in this instance to act as a buffer between
existing and anticipated multifamily development occurring east
and west of the 104th Avenue corridor. The uses allowed in the
commercial area normally do not mix well with residential uses and
that if this particular request is approved, similar request`s are
likely to follow and once the precedence has been set it is
difficult to review--refuse similar requests under similar
circumstances.
City staff recommendation based on the above findings and comments
received from other City departments is denial of this application.
May I answer any questions.
VanDerbeek: Just about the traffic but I don't think you can answer
them.
McCormick: O.k. Thank you.
(1-1107) Ken Morris: ' Ken Morris, City Traffic Engineer, 302 W. Gowe
Street, Kent, WA.
VanDerbeek: I guess my question, it's difficult to take a statistic
like 236 additional trips per day when I 'm not provide with any
6
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
Goodwin Professional Center
#CE-876
information as to how many total trips that would be generated by the
proposed use under office--under the already permitted zoning. And,
then, how many total trips would be generated under the proposed
conditional use permit and then, what would be the difference under
the a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips so that I could get a better idea of
what we were talking about.
Morris: O.k. Basically, they are asking for 50 percent retail.
VanDerbeek: Right.
Morris: They have two structures. One is approximately 6, 000 square
feet, the other is just slightly over 9 , 000. So approximately total
of 15, 000 square feet of building space.
VanDerbeek: 7 , 500 square feet of retail.
Morris: Right. Oh, I 'm sorry, two buildings at 6, 000 and one
building at 9, 000, so it would be about 21, 000.
VanDerbeek: 21, 000, so 10, 500 .
Morris: Of retail.
VanDerbeek: Square feet of retail.
Morris: Right. The p.m. peak hour is mainly what we are considering
for traffic mitigation and the peak hour factor for office buildings
is 2 .82 trips per 1, 000. The peak hour factor for retail is about
five trips per 1, 000 . This is sort of a specialty retail center as
opposed to a high generator such as fast food or a drive-through type
of business.
VanDerbeek: That' s why you are using five as opposed to a higher
number.
Morris: Right.
VanDerbeek: What number would you use for a more concentrated. . .I
understand that fast food or drive-through would not be permitted
under the existing zoning even if I recommended approval of the
conditional use permit.
Morris• Right.
VanDerbeek: But, just' for me to get an idea, what number would you
use for that type of use.
Morris: They would generally be around 30-35 per 1,000; 35 trips per
1, 000 square feet.
7
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
Goodwin Professional Center
#CE-876
VanDerbeek: All right. Have you calculated this out?
Morris: Yes. But, the difference in the 100 percent office and 50
percent office/retail was 24 p.m. peak hour trips.
VanDerbeek: And so, what were the number of the total trips per day
under, under all office versus 50 percent retail?
Morris: O.k. I don't have that information before me but I could
calculate it for you if you want me to do that.
VanDerbeek: Yeah, you know I ask that every time.
Morris: Right, right.
VanDerbeek: And usually I bring my calculator but I left it at my
office, so.
Morris: I have my calculator so I could go through the calculations.
VanDerbeek: I would appreciate it if you would calculate that. I
don't know maybe engineers think differently than lawyers but I always
like to look at the whole picture as opposed to just 236 more trips.
That isn't helpful. All right, any further information from staff.
All right at this time I will hear from the applicant or the
applicant' s representative.
(1-1263) Bob West: Good evening, Ms. Examiner, my name is Bob West,
I 'm an attorney, my address is 960 East Main in Auburn, I 'm appearing
here on behalf of Wayne and Sharon Goodwin, Mrs. Goodwin is here`"this
evening with me. As has been noted, the applicants ' request is for
their right to obtain a conditional use permit that would permit up to
50 percent retail use in their existing professional center. And,
first off, I would like to emphasize that the Code provision states,
"up to" , we are not necessarily asking for the right to have a full 50
percent although I hope to be able to demonstrate that we should be
entitled to it. Nevertheless I hope that the Hearing Examiner will
keep that distinction in mind.
The Kent Zoning Code Section 15. 09 . 030 D provides the standards and
criteria against which the Hearing Examiner shall review the proposed
request. In addition, under Section 15. 09 . 030 E, the Hearing Examiner
may impose special conditions on the proposed development to insure
that the proposed use will meet with standard and criteria of
subsection D. Of the eight standards and criteria which were revised
previously and which the Examiner must evaluate, the Planning
Department's proposed findings essentially satisfy half of those
particular standards. The one's that questions are raised on refer
8
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
Goodwin Professional Center
#CE-876
primarily to standard #1, 3 , 4 and to some extend #8. I 'm primarily
going to address those four particular standards.
The first standard is that the proposed use in the proposed location
will not be detrimental to other uses legally existing or permitted
outright in the zoning district. It has a point in the beginning, it
must be recognized that the legislative body for the City of Kent, the
City Council, has provided in the Zoning Code that the retail sales
shall be conditionally permitted as a part of a planned development
where at least 50 percent of the total development is for office use.
And this is under Code Section 15. 04 . 150 C. Accordingly, the
legislative determination has already been made that retail should be
permitted to co-exist with office uses provided that appropriate
development standards for such uses are put in place. The staff
states that it is interpreted that the provision to allow retail uses
similar to the uses provided in the CC or Community Commercial zone
which is I believe under Section 15. 04 . 150. This is indicated in the
staff report. The report really gives no supporting or justifying
basis for this particular interpretation. In reviewing the Code, I
noticed a similar section where the NCC zone, which is a neighborhood
convenience commercial zone under Section 15. 04 . 090 which also seems
to me--sets forth the types of uses that could apply for the type of
development that we are asking for here this evening. In any event it
is noteworthy that under both the NCC and the CC zones, the purpose
clause with respect to those zones, states that they are to provide
areas for limited, emphasis, limited commercial they
that serve
adjoining residential neighborhoods. Section 15. 04 . 150 C specifically
excludes from any planned retail activity drive-in restaurants,
service stations, drive-in cleaning establishments and other similar
retail establishments. The Goodwins would certainly have objection to
the Hearing Examiner imposing conditions as authorized by the previous
,_.• ordinance provision I mentioned- to excluding car washes, nurseries,
green houses and other commercial recreational facilities which are
defined as outright permitted uses in the CC zone and that seems to be
a matter which concerns staff that if our request was granted they
would have to allow those types of uses. We would agree and, in fact,
would suggest that those uses prohibited as a condition of our request
being granted. The staff further states that allowing the requested
commercial uses would promote commercial strip development along 104th
Avenue SE this finding fails to recognize the already existing
legislative determination that 50 percent retail or limited commercial
use would be appropriate and that with that limiting factor it is
impossible for 100 percent commercial strip development to accrue,
excuse me, occur along this portion of the roadway. The only way that
could occur is, in fact, the City Council subsequently determines to
change the zoning in that particular area and to allow 100 percent
retail use. Following the staf f s proposed finding for standard #1,
it is impossible for me to imagine any scenario under which any
project in an office zone would be permitted to have retail sales as
part of its planned development. I believe this not only flies in the
9
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
Goodwin Professional Center
#CE-876
face of the expressed language of the particular section of the Zoning
Code but it's tantamount to a deprivation of rights to which the
property owner is entitled to exercise. I might also add that with
respect to any concern about this or concern but statement that this
particular area should be reserved strictly for office development -
that there' s going to be a tendency for that to develop, I would like
to state that this particular development, two of the three buildings
have now been in place for approximately two years and well over 50
percent of the space remains vacant and has been vacant that entire
time period because of a lack of demand for that type of office space
on the East Hill area. The next particular standard I would like to
address is standard #3 .
VanDerbeek: Counsel, how am I to take into account under Washington
state law the economic circumstances in making a land use decision?
Are you aware of any authority which would be, would permit me to
consider the fact that, that the market may not bear out a need for
office space in that location.
West: I 'm not aware of any more authority for you to take into
consideration necessarily my comments or the City comments with
respect to their statement that they anticipate office development.
I 'm merely making a statement that the history shows that for the past
two years there' s not demand for office ,space there and it's unlikely
that there ' s going to occur any significant office development in the
near future. So, I 'm just responding to the point that was raised by
staff on that. To answer your question, no, I 'm not aware of any
authority with respect to that issue that you should take it into
consideration.
VanDerbeek: All right.
West: O.k. In addressing standard #3 , the traffic generated under
the proposed use will not unduly burden the traffic circulation system
in the vicinity. Mr. Morris, I guess, has not completed his testimony -
but I have a document which I intend to submit as part of the record.
And, I would just like to read from that, read it into the record.
This is a declaration of myself, indicating that I am that I am the _.
attorney representing Bill and Sharon Goodwin in connection with their
request for a conditional use permit for the Goodwin Professional
Center, application #CE-87-5.
On November 9 , 1987, I met with Mr. Morris, Kent' s Public Works
Department, to review the report prepared by him in connection with
this matter. Mr. Morris advised me that the Department obtains its -
traffic trip generatibn data from a publication put out by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers, I believed it was the Third
Edition Volume that he uses. The City Traffic Engineer has estimated
that an addition 236 daily trips would be generated by allowing 50
percent of the development to be used for retail use. Attached to
10
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
Goodwin Professional Center
#CE-876
this particular declaration is a copy of the computations made by the
,..._ Engineer, part of which he' s testified to earlier. In connection with
that particular attachment, and perhaps, I 'm not sure what your
procedure is, I would be glad to hand up a copy so you can look at it.
VanDerbeek: You can hand it to Chris Holden, the recording secretary,
it' ll be marked as an exhibit and made a part of the record.
West: Has that been handed up to you.
VanDerbeek: No, she's marking it. The declaration has been marked as
_._ Exhibit 2 to this hearing.
West: All right. If you would be kind enough to turn to the
attachment page which contains the computations you will see in a box,
" a square box there that Mr. Morris ' s information that he testified to
earlier basically comparing the office and the retail peak hour and
daily traffic figures showing for an office zone the 17 .7 trips on an
average daily basis and then 2 . 82 trips per 1, 000 feet at peak hour
and then the retail figures he used at 40 and 5. 0. A point I would
like to make and the point that this particular declaration makes
because I wasn't sure if Mr. Morris would be here this evening, is
that the office zone permits as outright permitted uses, such things
as financial institutions and banks, savings and loans associations
and Mr. Morris indicated to me that in making , his computations, he
wasn't aware that those were permitted uses within the existing office
zone. Attached to the declaration shows by comparison the traffic
information for walk-in savings and loan facility which shows 61 daily
trips per 1, 000 square feet, 5. 3 peak hour trips per 1, 000 square.
For a drive-in bank, you have 192 daily trips per 1, 000 square feet
and 25. 3 peak hour trips per 1, 000 square feet. And, then, there' s
also a figure for a walk-in bank which is slightly less. The-point
being that if you isolate on strictly a general office use, there' s no
question but that some retail, limited retail uses is going to
generate a little more traffic than general office. But it should be
apparent that the types of uses that are allowed in this uses could
generated significantly more traffic than even a 50 percent retail use
is going to generate. I think that particular assumption that is made
-- throughout the report, Planning Department' s report, is incorrect and
certainly needs to be taken into consideration. I 'm not quite sure
without considering that factor what 24 more peak hour trips in and of
itself really means. I don't know whether that' s significant or not.
If that means the system cannot sustain an additional 24 peak hour
trips than I guess, on the one hand that' s seems to suggest to me that
the City cannot allow anymore development along that particular
section of road until' some further road improvements or intersection
improvements are made. In connection with that, I would like to point
out that when this matter came before the Hearing Examiner
approximately two, two-and-a-half years ago, before the project was
built, at that point, Benson Road or Benson Highway, consisted of a
it
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
Goodwin Professional Center
#CE-876
two-lane road. It's now a five-lane road. There was concern _
expressed two-and-a-half years ago that the two-lane road would not
adequately handle the additional traffic. Well, my clients
participated in the funding of that roadway improvement and I believe
that there contribution was in the neighborhood of about $20, 000 to
help fund that improvement.
The next standard I would like to address, standard #4, which states,
the other. performance characteristics of the proposed use are
compatible with those of other uses in the neighborhood and vicinity.
Staff states that it would be difficult to predict the impact on
adjacent office and residential uses if retail uses were permitted.
As noted, the purpose of the O district is to buffer residential
districts. The applicant's site is surrounded most immediately by
multifamily residential development, a law office, a school and other
uses that are transitioning into office and some degree commercial.
In the wider vicinity as we saw in the video and not that far away are
significant commercial, heavy commercial modes of use. I think there -
has been an over emphasis in the Planning Staff's report with respect
to the residential use in the area. I think that the video reflected
that there, that this isn't a single family residential area, that it _.
has been, if there are any homes still occupied by owners, it' s very
few, most of the homes that are still there are waiting, are either
rented out or waiting removal as is evidenced by what we saw on the
video with respect to the property directly across the street that has
recently has structures removed and fill placed in there. So, the
residential use there is primarily multifamily. Three/four story
apartment buildings directly to the east of the property.
VanDerbeek: But, there' s, there's always some assumption that, that
nonowner occupied residential uses or multifamily residential uses _
don't need to be buffered as much as single family residential-'uses
and why shouldn't there be a concern that people who may have to
reside in multifamily dwellings don't need to be buffered by the more
intense uses that are typical of the sorts of retail uses being
proposed by your client.
West: Well, I don't mean to suggest that they don't. I think that to
some degree it's, at least it has been my experience, in the planning
area, that multifamily is higher density use and there is not quite
the concern for the same degree of buffering as a single family _..
neighborhood. At least, certainly in the City of Kent, City of
Auburn, you generally see the transition from the commercial zone to
the multifamily and then into the single family. So, I think that
buffering is important but not to the same degree and I 'm not aware,
other than the multifhmily here, I 'm not aware of any significant
single family development along this stretch of road. Furthermore, I
would like to go back on that particular point, again emphasis to you --
my feeling that the Zoning Code by authorizing up to 50 percent retail
use already was recognized by the City Council as a way to allow some
12
Hearing Examiner Minutes
`"- Verbatim
Goodwin Professional Center
#CE-876
mixed use and still yet achieve adequate buffering up against
residential area. Now, if this was a single family residential area
that surrounded this project, on maybe three sides, I might feel a
whole lot different about that. I think that would be different. I
might also add with respect to the buffering 'question and issue, there
are performance standards outlined in the Code as noted in the staff
report that pertain to landscaping, signage, widening, etc. , and all
this performance standards still have to be met for an Office zone
whether this is a combination retail or office. So this particular
project, as you can see, to some extent in the video and you probably
have driven by it yourself, is a development where all three buildings
,•.., have the same architectural style. It's not, it's a nice designed
building, they are designed with primary emphasis on a professional
office look and there isn't any requirement or any reason why the
performance standards won't be met that are required to be met. With
respect to what has been noted as an apparent violation of the sign
code, the only comment I can really offer to you on that particular
point is that I 'm not aware that any, that the applicant is aware that
••- there is a violation and I don't think the City, at least I 'm not
aware that the City has provided noticed of a violation. If there is,
it's certainly a matter that will be brought into compliance.
Finally, with respect to, really, the last standards, standard #8, it
seems to be kind of a general catch-all standard. _Again, the only
staff comment there is the feeling that by allowing the 50 percent
retail in to this particular project, this is going to open up the
floodgates to strip development. I think that' s inconsistent with the
limitation that is imposed by the Zoning Code which will allow a
maximum of 50 percent. And, again, the only way we're going to
extend, expanded beyond that is if the City Council decides to change
the uses within that zoning provision. Either change the zoning for
that particular area or make some other change with respect to the
conditional use that are presently allowed. So I think that` this
statement that you're going to open all this up for strip, retail
development is kind of a catchy sort of phrase that really is not
realistic, there is a limitation in the Code on that and it just plain
is not going to happen. As I mentioned, the particular project that
is there now is a very nice looking project, it is a planned project,
it is Goodwin' s desire to have limited commercial activities, they
don't want heavy commercial . But, if you set down and think about
different types of uses as the Code defines them, in retail there are
lots of gray areas as to what is a retail use, what' s a personal
service use, what' s an office, office is pretty clear, professional is
pretty clear. But, when you get into those areas of limited
commercial, retail and personal services, there are lots of gray areas
there that don't define whether that type of use should be permitted
here. For example, bArbershops and beauty shops, is that a type of
use that mixes well with an office use or not. It seems to me that
people that are working in offices would like to walk five steps down
the curb to go to a barber shop than have to get into their car and
drive two blocks down the road. And that' s part of the problem that
13
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
Goodwin Professional Center
#CE-876 _.
we have had in this particular project. There have been uses that we
would like to put in there, it's not well defined in the Code, the
Planning Director, being conservative, as he generally must be, has
generally taken the position that unless it has been. . .unless it
really is authorized expressly under the O zone, if it has any _
significant degree of retail involved at all, it has been permitted.
And, because of that we feel that there are a number of commercial
activities, those activities which are defined under the CC or even
the NCC zone with the prohibitions that I mentioned to you, that would
interface well with our existing office uses. The Goodwin's could
have developed their property for a bank, which I pointed out is a
huge traffic generator, but they have not done that. Rather their
proposal is for a mix of office and consistent retail uses that would
be compatible with one another. The proposed findings of the Planning
Department are, in my opinion, and for the most part conclusionary
statements and I don't believe are true findings of fact. The
Planning Department feels that it is not appropriate for retail uses
to be allowed in the O zone, the appropriate action would be to
institute a legislative review by the Planning Commission and City
Council in order to have to 50 percent retail use deleted altogether.
And my final comment, at this time, again is just to emphasize the
legislative determination that has already been made by the Council
and that there is a scale that is involved here of, it's not either a
zero percent or necessarily 50 percent. retail although we feel that
would be appropriate but the Examiner certainly can find some
percentage between that or if the 50 percent, is allowed, as I believe
it ought to be, those conditions that we have outline and have
suggested to you would be appropriate to impose. Thank you.
VanDerbeek: Thank you. Any further comments on behalf of the
applicant. You' re submitting another exhibit to be marked, marked as
Exhibit 3 for the record. What is that, a letter?
West: No; just a memorandum, basically a summary of the testimony
just given. -
VanDerbeek: All right, thank you, Mr. West. All right is there any
public testimony on this application. Any rebuttal comments from
staff.
(Tape 2-70) McCormick: Yes, Madam Hearing Examiner. The first point
brought up was that among others that half of the existing offices
have been vacant and have remained so for two years or more and you
brought up the point that during this review we cannot consider
economic impacts and that building speculative developments such as
this, you run a risk' of that. Secondly, that banks, savings and
loans, type of facilities are allowed outright in the office zone and
have the potential to generate more traffic than some retail uses. I
would venture to guess that is true in some cases but traffic
generated by the retail uses that are allowed, in this case, under the
14
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
Goodwin Professional Center
#CE-876
CC zoning district which has been the policy in the past to allow for
this type of request, several of the uses there would generate
significant amount of traffic. Next, that the neighboring properties
are mostly multifamily developed, generally year-round, 20 units per
acre, the property to the east of the site, and just in terms of
numbers of people affected, I think you would have to, you know, you'd
have to realize that more people would be adversely affected living in
a multifamily complex than if it was a single family area, just
because of the number of people that are living there. There is a
reference made to provision in the Zoning Code which entitles the
property owner in an old zoning area to use or to request 50 percent
or to have that 50 percent office or retail use to be allowed and that
staff feels that, that retail isn't necessary appropriate in office
zoning and I don't think that's the case, staff reviews these on a
case by case basis and in many instances retail may be, you know, no
problems, created through allowing retail in an office zone and may be
appropriate. In reviewing this particular request, the impacts its
going to have, or it could have land use as well as the transportation
"- system, feels, staff feels that it is not appropriate in this
particular case.. In some cases where you have, say for instance,
property that has developed with office and immediately adjoins
commercial area would be more or less an extension of a commercial
node. There would be minimal impacts on the surrounding property,
where the property is not in close proximity to either multifamily or
single family residential and where other properties are already
developed and where there 's been a precedent set f or. . . and where's a
precedent set for vacant problem, staff feels that if retail uses are
allowed to go into this area, that, an undesirable precedent would be
set. If, and finally, if 50 percent retail were appropriate to be
allowed outright in an office zone, it would be stated such in the
Zoning Code and wouldn't have to go through the conditional use permit
_., review process for these types of requests. That' s all I have. `
VanDerbeek: All right. I just have a question about one of your
comments. Specifically with respect to traffic, I think Mr. Morris 's
testimony indicates that, that the types of retail uses proposed would
generate five p.m. peak hour trips per 1, 000 square feet but that's
basically the same as the p.m. peak hour trips per 1, 000 generated by
a bank and I guess if one of the staff' s primary objections to this
conditional use permit has to do with traffic, if one of the
principally permitted use outright generates the same amount of
traffic as these proposed retail uses, then what' s the traffic
objection.
McCormick: Well, I think, that when the Traffic Engineer made his
calculations he did that on the basis of a not the heavier type of
commercial uses that are allowed on a light to medium commercial use
but with the number of uses allowed under this, would be allowed under
this particular request, any of the uses in the Community Commercial
15
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
Goodwin Professional Center
#CE-876 `
zone would be allowed and there are several that I 'm not sure what the _
traffic generation figures are but I would venture to guess that they
would be at least as much if not more than a bank or a financial
institution would generate. Maybe Mr. Morris can get up and shed a
little more light on that for you.
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you. Any further rebuttal comment from
staff? Any further testimony, Mr. Morris, with respect to the total -
number of trips?
Ken Morris: Ken Morris, City Traffic Engineer. I just wanted to make
sure that you had my calculations before you.
VanDerbeek: They are attached to Exhibit 2 .
Morris• Right.
VanDerbeek: Did you want to look at these and make sure that these
are you calculations.
Morris: Yes. Yes, those are my calculations. One thing I should
note, is that I based the commercial trip generation upon the
information supplied by the applicant. There could be higher trip
generation uses within that zoning district if a conditional use
permit was allowed. So, if it changed owner at some future date, you
know, it's possible that they could put a .higher density use or a
higher trip generation use in there. I was just basing it on what the
applicant had submitted at the time.
VanDerbeek: What general type of uses are permitted in the CC or the
NCC zone would generate more than five p.m. peak hour trips per 1, 000
square feet.
Morris: Like the. . .
VanDerbeek: Like, one example, was beauty or barber shop. Well, is
that the type of use that you are talking about for five p.m. peak
hour trips per 1, 000 square feet. Is that a type of use that would be
more intense.
Morris: That may be a little bit more intense. It would depend on
how many barber chairs or how many beauticians they had working and
sort of the turnaround, how many people they can get in and out, say
in an hour's time or during that peak period. I wouldn't imagine it
would be too much more intense than that though. Maybe ten p.m. peak
hour trips, something like that. But a restaurant, something of that
order, a drive-in is not permitted. However, you could put, say, a
deli in there.
16
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
Goodwin Professional Center
#CE-876
VanDerbeek: People don't go to deli' s for dinner. I mean, I don't
. know, it doesn't seem to me that people do.
Morris: Right, that's a possibility of a higher generator, though.
Of someone just dropping in to get a sandwich. Say, they have a night
meeting or something.
VanDerbeek: Well, all right. Any further comments. Any additional
•.•• information from the applicant.
West• No.
VanDerbeek: All right. At this time I will close the public hearing
with respect to CE-87-5.
Hearing was closed.
17
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 7, 1988
Category Other Business
Gp
I SUBJECT: HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT AND STORAGE FACILITIES -
ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This proposal is to amend the City of Kent
zoning code as required by recent State legislation to designate
land use zones in which hazardous waste treatment and storage
facilities will be allowed as permitted uses . The proposed
amendments will add new definitions, siting criteria, performance
standards and permitted uses to the commercial, industrial, and
agricultural zones . The Planning Commission -l4e� recommended Vke
after holding a public hearing on
May 23 , 1988 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Planning Commission minutes, May 23 , 1988, staff
report.
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission May 23 1988
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to adopt the recommendation of the Planning Commission and to
direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance implementing
t_he zoning code amendments upon approval from the Department of
Ecology.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4B
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
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
TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members
FROM: Brad Collins and Philip Morley, Planning Consultants
SUBJECT: DRAFT ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
The designation of zones for hazardous waste treatment and/or storage
,- facilities is mandated of local jurisdictions by State law (RCW 70. 105
and WAC 173-303) . A copy of the specific requirements of RCW
70. 105. 225 is attached to this briefing memorandum. If the City does
not submit Zoning Code amendments for facility zone designation by June
30, 1988 , the State will preempt the City's local land use jurisdiction
over hazardous waste facilities. We are requesting that the Kent City
Council approve the Planning Commission's recommendation for the Zoning
Code amendments, direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance
adopting the zoning code amendments to become effective subsequent to
the Department of Ecology review, and direct City staff to forward the
approved Code amendments to the Department of Ecology for review and
approval prior to June 30, 1988 .
By complying with State law, the City is not permitting hazardous
substance land uses for the first time in any zone. To the contrary, a
review of existing hazardous substance locations within the City of
Kent shows that a large number of land uses in most of the City's
zoning districts have hazardous substances. To date, both hazardous
substances and wastes have not been well regulated.
Attached are draft zoning amendments for hazardous waste facility zone
designation. The primary directive that has been followed in the
development of the draft amendments is to be stringent, where
practical, in the permitting of hazardous waste treatment and storage
facilities. These amendments accomplish several things:
* Meet the State deadline for avoiding preemption of local land use
authority in regulation of hazardous waste treatment and/or
storage facilities.
* Begin the regulatory process of existing as well as future
hazardous substances and wastes (under these new regulations,
hazardous wastes will not be ignored in local code requirements
nor permitted to be improperly processed and handled by private
industry generators. )
* Set out site development standards and other performance
standards, which are much more stringent than existing Kent Zoning
Code requirements and the State siting criteria, to be used in the
permit process for hazardous substance land uses.
There are three essential changes to the Kent Zoning Code proposed for
hazardous waste facility zone designation. First, 15 new terms are
defined as related to hazardous substance or waste regulations.
Second, use descriptions are added to all non-residential zones to
specify permitted accessory, conditional, and special uses. These use
descriptions rely on hazardous substance and waste quantity limitations
and provisions for new performance standards. Third, new performance
standards that are consistent with State requirements are added for
hazardous substance and/or waste uses.
The regulation of hazardous substances and wastes is a relatively new
responsibility for local government. In fact, few land use planners
have extensive knowledge of hazardous waste management, and few
hazardous waste managers have adequate knowledge of land use controls.
It is, therefore, important to understand the following distinctions
for hazardous waste facility zone designation:
* hazardous waste (15 . 02 . 179) vs solid waste and sewage
* hazardous substance (15. 02 . 175) vs hazardous waste
* the processing or handling of hazardous substances (15 . 02 . 178) vs
a facility for treating or storing hazardous wastes (15 . 02 . 098,
15. 02 . 181 and 15. 02 . 182) ;
* hazardous waste treatment and storage (15. 02 . 181 and 15 . 02 . 182) vs
disposal
* on-site hazardous waste treatment or storage facility (15. 02 . 184)
vs off-site hazardous waste treatment or storage facility
(15. 02. 183)
* principally permitted uses (specified uses meeting the purpose of
a given zoning district) vs accessory uses (15 . 02 . 005) vs
conditional uses (15. 02 . 090) vs special permit uses (15 . 02 . 500) vs
special uses in a combining district (15. 02 . 080) , all of which may
be permitted uses.
Finally, it should be understood that the City of Kent, through a
facility zone designation grant from the Department of Ecology, is
helping to draft model language for use descriptions and site
development standards that can be used by local jurisdictions in the
regulation of hazardous substances and wastes.
From the preliminary review by the Planning Commission at its work
session on May 16th, the .draft amendments were reviewed at the public
hearing to be scheduled for May 23rd. The City Council has received
the Planning Commissions recommendation on the draft zoning amendments
for hazardous waste facility zone designation in early June with time
to review the amendments prior to the June 30, 1988 deadline for
submittal to the Department of Ecology. The Department of Ecology will
review the amendments within 90 days and return them to the City of
Kent for changes and/or adoption within another 90 days (i. e. , within
180 days from June 30, 1988) .
MD:BC:PM:ca
060388
HazardouB 4leate Briefing Memorandurn
May 9, 1988
Page 3
?one On-Site On-Site On-Site• On-Site tit. -'Site On-Site Off-Site
Dist <5000 # 5.5000 # c10000 # >10000 # __fMOO # >20000 H Facility
-------------------------------------------- --------------------
A-1 A C
------------------------------------------------------------
RA
AG-------------------------- ---------------------A---------C-------------
R1
MR-----------=------ ------ --- ------------------- -------------------------
MCC A
CC A
DC A
CM-I A C
CM-2 A C
GC A C
O A
MA A C
M 1 A C Stl
M2 A C SU
----------------------------------------------- -------------------------
M3 A C C
Su
Ilazardous Waste Rlanigenunt 70.105.230 -
(5) The department shall consult with retailers, trade (4) The iniliol designation of zones shall be completed
•%socialions, public interest groups, and appropriate and submitted lit the department by .little 30, 1988. 1 o-
lds of local government to encourage the development cal governments play from tittle to time amend their
of voluntary public education programs on the proper designated zones.
handling of hazardous household substances. (5) Local governments without land use zoning provi-
(6) Local hazardous waste plans shall be completed lions shall designate eligible geographic areas within
and submitted to the department no later than .little 30, their jurisdiction, based on siting criteria adnpled in ao-
1990. Local governments may from time to time amend cordance with RCW 70.105.210. The area designation
the local plan. shall be subject to Idle same requirements as if they were
(7) Each local government, or combination of conlig- zone designations.
uous local governments, shall submit its local hazardous (6) Each local government, or combination of conlig-
waste plan or amendments thereto to the department. Molls local governments, shall submit its designalion of
The department shall approve or disapprove local haz- zones or :lnlendnu:nls Iherclo to the department. The
ardoos waste plans or amendments by December 31, department shall approve or disapprove zone designa-
1990, or within ninety days of submission, whichever is lions or amendments within ninety days of submission.
later. The department shall approve a local hazardous 'pile department shall approve eligible 'lone dcsign:ttions
waste plan if it determines that the plan is consistent if it determines That the proposed zone designations are
with this chapter and the guidelines under subsection (4) consistent with this chapter, Idle applicable siting crite-
of this section. If approval is denied, the department ria, and guidelines for developing designated zones: Pro-
sltall submit its objections to the local government within vided, That the department shall consider local zoning in
ninety clays of submission. However, for plans submitted place ;is of .lanuary I, 1985, or other special silu:llions
between January I, 1990, and June 30, 1990, the de- or conditions which may exist in the jurisdiction. 11' ap-
parlment shall have one hundred eighty days to submit proval is denied, the department shall slate within ninety
its objections. No local government is eligible for grants days from the date of submission the facts upon which
under RCW 70.105.235 for implementing a local haz- that decision is based and shall submit the statement to
:trdous waste plan unless the plan for that jurisdiction the local government together with any other comments
has been approved by the department. or reconuncndalions it deems appropriate. The local
(8) Each local government, or combination of conlig- government shall have ninety days after it receives the
uous local governments, shall implement the local haz- statement from the department to make modifications
rdous waste plan for its jurisdiction by December 31, designed to eliminate the inconsistencies and resubmit
991. the designation to the department for approval. Any
(9) The department may waive the specific require- designations shall lake effect when approved by the
ntcnls of this section for any local government if such department.
local government demonstrates to the satisfaction of Idle (7) The department may exempt a local government
department that (tie objectives of the planning require- from the requirements of this section if:
nlents have been met. 11986 c 210 § I; 1995 c 449 § 6.1 (a) Rcgulaled go:ultiliCs of hazardous waste have nol
Sever9hillly-19115 c 448:Sec nolc following IWAV 70.105(105. been generated within the jurisdiction during file two
calendar years immediately preceding the calendar year
I2C'W 70.105.225 Local governments to designate during which the exemption is requested; and
ones—Departmental guidelines—Approval of local (b) 'pile local government can demonstrate to the sal-
zgovernment zone designations or amendments—Ex_ isfaction (it' the departrlent that no significant portion of
emption. (1) Each Boca( government, or combination of L•lnd within the jurisdiction Can meet the siting criteria
contiguous local governments, is directed In: (:t) Dent_ adopted in accordance with RCW 70.105.210. 1 1985 c
onslralc to the satisfaction of the department that exist- 448 § 7.1
ing -zoning allows designated zone facilities as permitted ticrcra6iljly—I'1H5 c 4.IH:See note following RCW 70.10.00,
uses; or (b) designate land use zones within its jurisdic-
tion in which designated zone facilities are permitted RCNV 70.105.230 Local governments to submit letter
use.,;. The zone designations shall be consistent will) (lie of intent to identify or designate zones and submit man-
stale siting criteria adopted in accordance with RCW agement plans—Deparintcol to prepare plan in event of
70.105.210, except :is may be approved by the depart- failure to act. (1) I?ach loell government is directed to
merit in accordance with subsection (6) of this section. submit lit the director of the department by October 31.
(2) Local governments shall not prohibit the process- 1997, :t letter of intent slating that it intends to (a)
ing or handling of hazardous waste in zones in which the identify, or designate if necessary, eligible zones for des-
processing or handling of hazardous substances is not ignalcd zonC facilities no later than June 30, 1988, ❑rid
prohibited. This subsection does not apply in residential (b) submit it complete local hazardous waste manage-
zoncs, ment plan to Idle department no later than .tune 30,
(3) The department shall prepare guidelines, as if)- 1990. The letters shall also indicate whether these re-
lropriate, for the designation of zones under this section. quiremenls will be completed in conjunction with other
The guidelines shall be prepared in consollalion with Io- Ioca1 governments.
cal governments and shall be completed by December (2) II' any local government fails to submit a letter as
31, 1986, provided in subsection (1)(1)) of this section, or fails to
(19147 Laws) [Ch.711.105 WAY—p 91 _...
C I T Y O F K E N T
H A Z A R D O U S W A S T E
T R E A T M E N T A N D S T O R A G E F A C I L I T Y
Z 0 N E D E S I G N A T I O N
A M E N D M E 14 T S T O T H E
Z 0 N I N 0 C O D E C I T Y O F K E N T
Prepared for :
CITY of KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
220 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH
VENT, WASHI110TON 98032-5895
Prepared by :
COLLINS & ASSOCIATES and
._, MORLEY & ASSOCIATES
MAY, 3.98e
5. 02. 097 DANGEROUS WASTES
Those wastes designated in WAC 173-363-070 through 173-303-103 as
dangerous wastes. This may i.ncl.ude any discardel-J, useless, unwanted, or
abandoned substances, including but not limited to certain pesticides,
or any residues or containers of such substance:-; which are disposed of
in such quantity or concentration as to pnEe a substantial present or
potential hazard to human health, wildlife, tnr the environment because
such wastes or constituents or combinations of =:uch wastes :
A. have short -lived, tO):i.0 properties that may cause death,
injury, or illness or have mutagenic, t.eratogenic, or carcinogenic
properties or
H. are corrosive, e;:pl.osive, .flammable, or may generate pressure
through decomposition or other means.
A moderate risk waste is not a dangerous waste_
15. 02. 098 DES7GNATE'D ZONE FACILITY
Any hazardous waste facility that requires an interim or final status
permit under rules adopted under Chapter 70. ] (iti RCW and Chapter 173-303
WAC and that is not_ a "preempted facility" as defined in RCW 70. 105. 010
or in WAC 173-303; a hazardous waste treat.m�-nt. and/or storage facility -
is a designated =one facility.
15. 02. 133 EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS WASTE
'those wastes designated in WAC 1'73-J0'3-0'70 through 173-303-103 as
extremely hazardous wastes. This may i.nClude any dangerous waste which
A. will persist in a ha=ardour form for several year`; or more at
a disposal site and which in its persistent form
1. presents a significant environmontal hazard and may be
concentrated by living organisms through u fo(-ki chain or may affect the
genetic make-up of man or wildlife and
2. is highly toxic to man or wild.l :ite,
a. if disposed of at a ha--ardous w,�:;te disposal site in such
quantities as would present an e;:treme ha=ard to man or the environment.
15. 02. 172 GROUNDCOVL:R ( Relocate Section 15. 02. 1.75 here )
15. 02. 174 GUEST COTTAGE ( Relocate 1-3)ec t.inn 1_`;. C :'. 180 here)
15. 02. 175 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE
Any liquid, solid, gas, or sludge, including any material, substance,
product, commodity, or waste, regardless of gijanti.ty, that exhibits any
of the characteristics or criteria of ha_arrlous waste as described in
rules adopted under Chapter 70. 105 RCW or in WAC 173-303-090, 173-303-
101, 173-303-102, or 173-303- 103.
5-1G-88 2
15. 02. 176 HAZARDOUS 5Ui1STA.1ICE. FACTt.'L'TY BI.1F'PL_l( _''Mlr
A. setbact- area between th_• hazarduuc. tsnce .land use facility
boundary and the nearest point of the ha_:.)rdou•c substance land use
.._property line, nece-_�nnry t.(, provldo added p; otection to adjacent land
uses or re•_ources of heln_1:1 C i.a1 tt_e. All h3=ardouc waste treatment
and/or storage facili.tiec wtict m3intoi.n at 1eaZI a 50 foot buffer =one.
15. 02. 177 HAZARDOUS SUR'�TAHCE LAND USE
--------------------------------------
Any use which i.�, ptir mi t.ted under t he Kent Znni ng Code and which includes
" a designated =ono facility or thk:c prucc•--:_in, or handling of hazardous
substance as defined herein.
- 1.5. 02. 178 HAZARDOUS SUDISTAMCE PR(• CESS11IG OR IIAHD1.IHG OF
The compounding, Lreat.filer,t., martuEacturc, cy:,thesis, use or storage of
hazardous cubEtancc•::: i.n 0:cce:�_•_ of the foiIowing amount= in bulls
quantities; : 5, 000 pound. of •solid ha=ardou- :::ub�tances; 500 gallons of
liquid hazardous cubctance ; and 650 cuhic t_et of gaseous hazardous
substances.
15. 02. 179 IIAZA.RDFIUS WASTE
Any dangerous and e;:ti•em el.y hazardous w3_i c•, including substances
composed of radioactive and ha-zardou_ compcnenti:�. A moderate ri.sR: waste
is not a hazardous wa te.
15. 02. 1BO HAZARDOUS WASTE F'SCIL1'1'Y
--------------------
All contiguous land and ltructures, :,I her appurtcnancec, and
improvements on the land used for rec;. cii.n9, storing, treating,
incinerating, or disposing of hazardou_ wad -t,-.
15. 02. 181 HAZARDOUS WASTE STORAGE FACTLITY
A.ny designated cone facility which ho.ld� hazzii -.Ious wasto for a temporary
period not to e;:c<_ead t.'i.ve this does r. t include accumulation of
hazardous waste by the generator on the cite of generation, as long as
the generator complies with thra applicable rc-luirements of WAC 173-303-
200 and 173-303-201 -
15. 02. 182 HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMPHT FACTLTTY
Any designated -one facility which prac.e•sees hazardous- wa_te by
physical, chemical, or biological means to mn):e such waste nonhazardous
or less hazardous, safer for trans-port, amcnohle for energy or material
"" resource recovery, amenable for _torago, or L-tndllr:ed in volume.
5-16-8b 4
15. 04. 005 AGRICULTURAL - A -1
C. Accessor1_L.I�es
5. ---For permitter! uses, h)a_ardoua-> ulr;l'ance land use;:,
including on -site hazardous wacte L'.reatment. and/or storage facilities,
which do not accumulate more than 20, OOQ pounde of hazardous substances
or wastes or any combination thereof at any one time on site, subject to
the provisions of Section 15. UL'. lt5ii, e;:cept oft - i to hazardous wat3te -
treatment and/or storage fac::ll.itieo wl",ich are: nut permitted in this
district.
D. Conditional llc•
1 . - -For perms. Ltod uraca acces:i;ory ha:_.-jrdous substance land
uses which accumulate more than 20, 00!1 Lwund_ of hazardous substances or -
wastes or any combinatior, t.htreci: at any one tio _ on site, subject to
the provieinn2 of Section 1 `_',. Os, i150, e::cept of 1. si.t.e_ hazardous waI2:tC
treatment and/or storage as :ilit:la•c which ui e niit. permitted in this
district.
15. 04. 010 RESIDE11TIAL AGRICULTURAL •- RA
C. Ac_c_e_s2ort'- 11. es
5. 10thef accessory usc- and buildings customarily
appurtenant to a permitted use, ] except for on-_1.te hazarous waste
treatment and/or storage- faciliti.e:> wY,i.ch are n,:,t. permitted in
residential zones-.
15. 04. 015 AGRICUL-TURAL (A.H _RAL - AG
B. Accessor1_11ses
4 For permitted uses, hazardous •ubii:Lance land uses,
including on-site hazardous waste treatment and/cr etorage facilities,
which do not accumulate more than 20, 000 pounder of hazardous substances
or wastes or any combination thereof at any one Lime on site, subject to
the provisions of Section 1.5. 08. 050, except off -site hazardous waste
treatment and/or storage facilities which are nr.,t. permitted in this
district. --
D. Conditional ll• es
4. For permitted u2es, accessory hazardous substance land
uses which accumulate more than 2!a, !100 pound:- o.t hazardous substances or _
wastea or any combination thereof at any one t.1111e on site, subject to
the provisions of Section 15. 08. 050, except oft-mite hazardous waste
treatment and/or --to.rage fari_.lities which are not permitted in this
district.
5-16-88 5
15. 04. 090 NEIGHBORHOOD CCII]VUHTDIC1_ COMMF..F.Ca AI- -- HCC
C. Accessory_llc_e_s
1 - For permitted uc tee, hazardous �zuh:etance land uses,
» including on-site hazardous waste Lreatment and/or storage facilities,
which do not accumulate more than 5, 000 pounds ut hazardous Substances
or wastes or any cambinati.on thereof at any onc- time on site, subject: to
the provisions of Section 1.5. 00. 050, e::cept ot.f - ;Ate hazardous waste
treatment and/or storage :fac:ilitieE which are not permitted in this
district.
15. 04. 100 COMMUNITY I::OMMI:RCIAL -- CC
C. Accessor l)ses
1. For permitted hazardous -utosL'ance land uses,
including on-site hazardous waote treatment anc.t /nr- storage facilities,
which do not accumulate mare than S, 000 pounder of hazardous substance--
or wastes or any comhi-nation thereof at any one time, on site, subject to
the provisions of Section 1.5. i.)ti. 050, except off - Zi.te hazardous waste
treatment and/or storage faci.l.ities which, are noL permitted in this
district.
15. 04. 110 DOWNTOWN COMIICPC'IAI.. - DC
U Accessory_lle
1 For permitted uses, hazardous sub_Aance land uses,
including on-site hazardous waste treatment and!�-r storage facilities,
which do not accumulate more than 5, 000 pounder or hazardous substances
or wastes or any combination thereof at: any one: I. Lme on site, subject to
the provisions of Section 15. 08. 050, es:cept. oft mite hazardous waste
treatment and/or storage faci]J ties which are nrA permitted in this
district.
15. 04. 120 COMMERCIAL. PIAMIFAC'I•LIR1Nii- 1. - GM - 1
D. Acc_e_ss_or_y_U•_e,
1_ For permi.ttOd uaC--:z, hazardous Huh trance land uses,
- including on-site hazardous waste treatment and/ur storage facilities,
which do not accumulate mnre than 10, 000 pound .- of hazardouc substances
or wastes or any combination t.hc•reof at arty one: time on site, subject to
the provisions of Sc-ction 15. 08. 0.`.;0, except off -cite hazardous waste
treatment and/or storage faci.lit.ie- which ure n:.L. permitted in this
district.
D. Conditional 11: e
3 For permitted uses, accessory ha--i3rdous substance land
uses' which accumulate more than 10, 000 poundc of hazardous substances or
wastes or any combi-nation thereof at any or•,c tiro(_ on site or which
handle more than 20, OOO ponndO of cuh::Lances or wastes or any
combination thereof on _=ite in any '30 day period of time, subject to the
provisions of Section 35. 08. 050, e::cept off-c:Ltc• hazardouc waste
treatment and/or ELtnrage fact which nr,a nr,I. permitted in this
district.
15. 04. 130 COMML•:RCIAL I•1AIMPAC1'UR11M .' - CM-2
11. Accessor1_Use_
1. For permi.tte:1 [rse�, hazardous siibsi:ance land uses, -
including on-site huzardouc ,taste treatment storage facilities,
which do not accumulate more t.han lr], 000 pounds of hazardous substances
or wastes or any combinati,:rn t.hereuf at any one• Lime on site, subject to
the provisions of Section .15. 0f1. li50, e,:cept. off -.cite hazardou::; waste
treatment and/or storage f:acili ti.e_s which artz• nc�t permitted in this
district.
D. Conditiona.l
----------------
3. For pt� rioti t.t._d I sa ;acceLL iz:or;: h;-I:_aardous subr.t.ance land
uses which accumu.1 a Le tha.,r, lll, 00o pounds c. r hazardous suhstances• or
wastes or any cornbi:n:ation the-reo2 at any one timc: on mite or which
handle more than 20, 000 pounder of h:,- avduu= suh:::Lances or wastes or any
combination thereof on its_ in any 30 dcay pc r.io,l of time, srubjeet to the
provisions of Section•, 15- 0U, Ll`J0, c•::ci•pC off-aitr: hazardous waste
treatment and/or ctc,rage 'facilit.i.e which are r.c,i: permitted in this
district.
15. 04. 140 G1=MCRAL COMMERCIAL
-----------------------------------
C. Accessory lJ=es
1.. For permitted hazardous W-L-tance land uses,
including on-site hZIZardOu:z wads• treatment and.'or storage facilities,
which do not accumulate more than 10, 000 pound:z of hazardous substances
or wastes or any combination thu, rt:cof at any one Lime on site, subject to
the provisions of Section 15. Oa. 050, c-s:cept oft -rite hazardous• waste
treatment and/or etoragti• fucil.ltir_s which are r,i,t permitted in this
district.
D. Condi.tior,a] U::e:-
----------------
3. IKE-nnels. 1
4. For permitted substance -Land
uses which accumulate more than 10, 000 pounder or hazardous substances or
wastes or any combination tht:r eof at any one L i fao on mite or which
handle more than 20, 000 pc.undc of h- 3_ardou-L cfih, tnnce::; and wastes on
site in any 30 day period of time, subject tc-, IJ.,- provisions of Section
15. 08. 050, ev.cept off-rite hazardouc waste treatment and/or storage
facilities which arc, not. permitted in this di lri.ct.
15. 04. 150 PROP�SSIOIIAL ATID OPPT.CI_ - 0
Q. Accessory_t_2o,_:
1 For permitted f.i• �s, 1,acardotas cut.,atance land uses,
.including on-cite ha:ardcuo waetce t.reaLment and/or storage faci.liti.ec,
which do not accumulate mare than 5, 000 pounder if hazardous substance
or wastes or any comhinatic,n thercol:: at any oni. time on site, subject to
the provisions of Section 15. fit]. 050, e;:cept. off -cite hazardous waste
treatment andlor etf-rage facili.tic-_ which are not permitted in this
district.
7
15. 04. 160 AGRICULTUPAL IHDLIETRIAL - MA
B. Accessor1_lJee=_
4. For l:,errnitted uses, h:azarilous suhi:tance land usee,
i.ncluding on-mite hazardous waste Lreatment aru1 c,r storage facilities,
which do not accumulate moil t..han 20, 000 pounds of hazardous substance::
or wastes or any cornhi.nation thereof at any onv time on site, subject to
the provisions of Section 1 `_i. 1-)B. 050, e�:c:ept of -A ti_ hazardous waste
treatment and/or storage fuciliti,ns which art• not permitted in this
district.
D. Conditional lls e
----------------
4. For permitted accecsor; hazardous substance land
uses which accumulate more than 20, 000 pounds of hazardous substances or
wastes or any combination thereof at any one t.i.na on site, subjecL to
the provisions of Sor_tion 15. n8. 05r?, e%ceps: of t i to hazardouc wacte
treatment and/or storage facJ .Litieo which are nC,t permitted in this
district.
15. 04_1701IfDIJSTRY AL_PA RK.___M 1 _nP_M 1 _C
---- --- ---------- ---- -- - -- -
D. Acc_e_ssory_Us e_
G.
For permitted uses-a, hazardous' =_ul,_,Aance land uses,
including on-site hazardous waLe treatment and!nr storage faci.litie�•,
which do not accumulate morn th-Lin 20, 000 pound:_ of hazardous substances
or wastes or any combination thereof at arty one time on site, :subject to
the provisions of Sectior' 15. 013. 050; off•-cite waste treatment
and/or storage tac1.1iti.e_: are nl;t permit. ic d Ln this distric-L, o;:c.ept
through a special usia combining di--t.rict.
E. Conditional Usc_
----------------
3. [Carloading and di�tribut:ion :fa : ilitie rail.-truck
transfer stations. ]
4. ( ManllfaCtui•ing of llc,.11lt. ]
5. For permi. t ted nscs, accessory h�-i.:ardous substance .Land
uses which accumulate more than -'n, 0nO pOundls c, I` hazardous suhs.t.ances or
wastes or any combination thereof at any one t. i ou._• on site, subject to
the provisions of So tion 15. n8. 01,0; off-site l:u_:ardous waste treatment
and/or storage faci.li. ti.e� are iiot fermi l. kc•:I in Ili._-- district, e;:cept
through a special U'e COmb:i.n:i.1-11L) di ::;t.ri.cL .
15. 04_0180--LIMITEU_IHDUSTRTAL___H _'
C. Acceoso_r_1_Us2
6. For permitted u0e , hazarrdouc euh tance land uses,
including on-mite hnzardou!n vut;te t.rentmc•nt anti/or •storage facilities,
which do not accumulate more than 20, 000 pound:.: of hazardous: :substances
or wastes or any combination t.h=•rc:•nf at any our time on site, subject to
the provisions of ecl:icn 1`_'. 01]. O`',n; off-=ito h,: ardour wastc treatment
and/or storage facii.l ti.e arc• not permi t.t-ad in this district, ev.cept
"'" through a special arcs cOfilbiciirtg .1'i :_trict-
E. Conditional
----------------
4. [ Manufacturing
5. ( Automobile or_rv.ice centers, wit) or without gasoline
males. ]
6. For 1;,=rmitt.ed u: c•s, accessory h❑-.,idouo •oubstance land -
uses which accrlmralatt? more than 20, 000 pound irt ha-ardoue: cuhstances or
wastes or any combination lhcr_of Lit. any one t.i.m = on site, subject to
the provision2 of Section AS. 08. 050; off-si.te h�_ardous waste treatment
and/or storage fac:ilitie are not pt-rmlttc.d in I I''AEe district, e,:cept•.
through a special use combinlog di.:=:+_ rice.
15. 04. 190. �Erlr•_RnL IticllsTrtlnL - 11J
-----------------------------------
B. Acccsscii— Uses
5. For }-,._•rmi tAc:-•1 .Land
Including on-site l,azardouo waote treatment and/ jr storage facilities-,
which do not accumulate more than 20, 000 pound: of hazardous ubctances
or wastes or any combination thereof at any one lime on site, subject to
the provi_ions of Section 15. 0La. U50, es:cept off -oite hacardous waste
treatment and/or storage facilities- which arc• a conditional use in this
district.
E. Conditional l.l::�e
----------------
9. For }.aermitt.L"d u_ceo, ucct=:_sory I; a_ardous oubetance .land
uses which accumulatk_ mare than '_'0, C.i00 pouj-,do of hazardous substances or
wastes or any combination th,_reoE at any one t.i :u_ on site, subject to
the provisions of Section 1`.5. 0B. Ci50, o:c=_ef t o.f# �J.le ha-iacdou•o waste -
treatment and./or Storage iaci. li t.i.cc which. :jt o :i ronditiona.l rase in this
district.
10, off-ci.te ha^airlou wae.t.e and/or storage
facilities, subject to the pro =1a1 t- ,_t-C,r,L ,f �3tAt ,, ls. 08. 050.
15_04. 200-_SPECIAL-IJSE_COMCIPI'LtIG_U1 3TrtIC'f-__` lJ
-- ------ --- -- ------ -- -- ----
A. Use Subject_to5pecLml-Uoe-CombJ.niri -Iictrict-R_egul._tions
II-- -CE..amErle= of ucL� cul.,ject. t.o rc:•. i.ew deccribed above would
include, but are riot limited to, tf,e :fo.l.lowi.ng :
a. Cc.,mmerci.al uses : sport-:_ ctadiumc, rodeos,
falrgroundE;, e;:hibition or -,n e•ntior, haL.lc, m._•r-_handise mart-, drive-in
theaters.
b. r7pecial. prc-hlorns posed by :
refineries, nuclear power generating Plante, ai :,{,ortr-, hel.ipr:arts,
sanitary land fills, extractive i.nciu�trj.,E�c, 1 :.c. l tcJ waste inc-inerator or
energy/resource recovery facility.
e. lla--ardolic. wn.:-te2 : off--it.- hacardouc waste
treatment and/or storage .faci. 111.1e in M. and M2 di.stricts only, subject
to the provisions of Sraci_icn 15. nrl, n5o. _..
S-iG-B£i 9
15. 08. 020 SPECIAL Pl_RMIT
C. Ga_ol.ine Service Station-: ( with or wi. thout retail convenience
grocery-soles)
12. Motor C'u_els. Ouar•,tity limitation_ on hazardous substance
land uses including on-sites hazardous: wact.a: treatment and/or storage
facilities shall not apply to motor fuol,-z that moll be motored or, site for
-the permitted use.
15. 08. 050--PCRFORMAFICI'-STAIlDAR1)S
--------- ------------ ---------
A. Performance St.andard� Defined
------------------------------
[Performance standard_ deal with. . . ro.ierred to as "dangerous
or objectionable elements" :
1 . Moi.Se, vibration, nr glare.
2. Smoke, dust, cdor, or other fora: ..f air pollution.
3. Heat, cold, or dampnecc. 1
...• 4. Hazardou•_ substances or waste .
C. Location- Where• r)c t.ermi.nati.onc are to be Made for Enforcement
--------•----------------------------------- ----- ----- --------------
of Performance Standards
[The determination of the er:icterrce of any dangerous and
objectionable elements shall be made at the .location of the use creating
the same and. at any pol.nts where the e::istenrr_ of such elements may be
more apparent ( herein referred to a= "at any paint" ) ; provided, however,
that the Measurement of performance standards for noise, vibration,
odors, glare, or hazardou_ substances or wa_ 1.os shall be taken at the
following points of
1. In all districts: : at the property .Lines or lot lines, ] or
2. In a11. di.st.r.ict- : ai. the buffev _nne cetbacl: .Line for any
hazardous substance lama ust:- fact Li. Ly which, must be at Least 50 feet
from any property line.
D. Dan.gcrnu• _and_Clb�cs t::innaL.le_Elcment._
5 H_a_^ardo_us_ c uhat.anccc or waEtet:�. No release of hazardous-
substances or wade_, ac can contaminate any watccr supply, interfere with
bacterial processes in sewage treatment, or oth,a:-WiSe cause the emission
- of dangerous or offensive eli_mentc shall he hip: mi tted, at any point into
any public sewer, pri.vnte r.•_•wage di .pocal sy: !m:_1. � , watercourse or water
body, or the ground, e�:cc-pt .in accordance Britt; standards approved by the
Washington State Department of Ecology or ether appropriate state or
federal agency. The �revelant E,rovi.eions: of .C.xJera.l, state, and local
laws and regulations -hall. apply, and compl_i�;rice shall. be certified by
" applicants for permits under the Zoning Cade, City of F:ent. The
following site development standard:z •ohal..l. apply :
a. Hazardous wactc faci.li.t: shall meet the Location
Standards for Siting Dangernuc Waite Management: Facilities in Washington
"" as adopted in WAC 1?D-303-235 ;
5-16-88 10 -
b. IhstanC.e land uee facilities shall be
located at. least :
1 ) 200 f t. from un>_t.ab- Le soilo or slopes which are
delineated on the "Ilazard Aron Development. L-imit.ations" map or as may be _
more precisely determined per Section 15. 08. 22,1. 11;
2 ) 200 f L. from thcr cirdi nary high water marl: of
major or minor streams or lakes which are dr-:1ir,eated on the "Hazard Area
Development Limitations" map or as may be mcr•_ precisely determined per
Section 15. 08. 224. 8, ehoreIines of stat,.c -aide significance, or
shorelines of the state;
mi.. from public. parks, public recreation
areas or natural prc:Lerves, or ❑t.ate or fedcrrLil wildlife refuges ;
9 ) 5U ft.. from any prr)pt_r 1.y Line to serve a•.- an on-
site hazardous substance _Land u_e facility b'ufi•_r zone;
5) 500 ft_ anti ion ft . (rom a residential zone and
a residential unit rc�:;p& _tivoly ; and
6 ) `1()rl t t. from a pr:l),I is gathering place or
agricultural land/zone, in the came of = ,.,Jr,-agricultural hazardous
substance land use facility ;
C. Ilazardou_ st b!Ltance land u_e facilities shall not be
located in a 100-year floodplain ;
d. IIa:_ard,:,u stibstance ].and „se facili.tiec which are
not entirely encIo_ed within a building cha] L provide a Type I : Solid
Screen landscaping in the hazardous cuhctance facility buffer zone -'
required by subsection b. 4 ) ;
e. Aboveground hazardous stth,:tance land use facilities
shall be con0tr tic te-d with containment contrcpl:J which will prevent the
escape of ha ardouss sul)-l.an-.c•r-: and/or w:nc_.le in the event of an
accidental release from the facility and ahaII meet federal, state, and
local design and conr_,truct..ton requirements ;
f. Underground hz,=nrdoue aut, t.ance land use facilities
shall meet federal, stat.a, and Iacal design and construction
requirements ;
g. Ilazardouc substance .land u_Zec shall comply wi.th
Article 80 of the Uniform Fire i'nde ac rev.iced in .1''_l88 and thereafter ;
h. llazardnu:- substance .land u_es shall provide for
review and approval by the Eent Fire Depart.nu:•nt at hazardous substance --
spill contingency plan [or immediate implem�_ntation in the event of a
release of hazardous :-ub_tnnce- or %i�et:ec at. i h facility ;
i. ilazardnue zubctance land i-_-ec shall be required to
use traffic routes which do not. go through re_idlential zones; and
J . Iazardous cuhatance land uE�s•s in the O, MCC, CC, and
DC zones shall be entirely enclosed within a building.
In case of conflict between any of these site development
standards and the development standards of E-poc.i.fic zoning districts or
other code requiremc•nto, the more rectrictivc• requirement shall. apply.
-••5-16-88 11
15. 09. 100 VIOLATION,
----------------------
C. Continued Enforcement
-------------------------
Whenever a hazardous: substance land use is determined to be in
"-violation of this Code, the City Attorney may order the violator to
remove the violation within a specified period of time. In the event
that the City Attorney determines there is imminent danger to public
--health, safety, or welfare or to the environment, the City may take
direct action to remove the violation and sub-7equently may recover all
costs and penalties from the violator.
i
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 7, 1988
N Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: EAST VALLEY STUDY - ZONING CODE. AMENDMENT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Based on the East Valley Study completed
in Match by the Planning Department, the Planning Commission has
recommended several amendments to the zoning code The proposed
amendments include: (1) establishing a landscape corridor along
East Valley Highway, (2) changing the front yard setback in the
M2 zone, (3) instituting screening requirements for dock high
loading areas in M2 and M3 zones, (4) establishing transition
area requirements in the East Valley and (5) clarification of
solid waste use regulations .
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff report, Planning Commission minutes and
recommendation.
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission, May 23 , 1988
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember W ao moves, Councilmember seconds
to adopt the zoning code amendments recommended by the Planning
Commission and the direct the City Attorney to develop an
ordinance implementing same.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION: --f�
Council Agenda
Item No. 4C
EAST VALLEY STUDY:
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE VALLEY FLOOR PLAN
AND
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE KENT ZONING CODE
Public hearings before the Kent Planning Commission
will commence on the East Valley amendments begin-
ping April 25, 1988 . Separate hearings will be held
on the amendments to the Valley Floor Plan and the
zoning ordinance.
Kent Planning Department
April 18 , 1988
EAST VALLEY STUDY:
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE VALLEY FLOOR PLAN MAP
Kent Planning Department
April 18, 1988
As a result of the East Valley Study completed in March 1988, the Kent
Planning Department recommends several changes to the City's existing
Valley Floor Plan Map and Zoning Ordinance. This report describes the
recommended changes to the Valley Floor Plan Map; a separate report has
been prepared for the recommended zoning amendments.
A. Background
The Valley Floor Plan is one of four subarea plans adopted by the Kent
City Council . As its name implies, the VF Plan applies to that area of
the City which is located in the Valley (minus the area covered by the
Central Business District Plan) . The VF Plan consists of goal , objec-
tive, and policy statements and a generalized land use plan map. As a
subarea plan, it complements and clarifies the more general policy of
the City-wide Comprehensive Plan. Adopted in 1979 , the VF Plan was
most recently amended in 1987 in conjunction with the West Valley Study
amendments.
The East Valley study area comprises only a portion of the geographic
area covered by the VF Plan. The boundaries of the EV area include the
U.P. Railroad tracks on the west, S . 180th Street on the north, the
Kent city limits on the east, and S.R. 167 and S. 228th Street on the
south, (SEE, Map 1) . This area totals approximately 1950 acres, or
about 3 . 0 square miles.
The East Valley study is the eastern complement to the West Valley
study which was completed by the Planning Department in September 1986.
The West Valley zoning and plan amendments were adopted by the City
Council in March 1987 . At the time the West Valley amendments were
approved, the directive was given to undertake a similar policy ana-
lysis in the East Valley area. Together, the East and West Valley
study areas comprise approximately 4160 acres (6 . 5 sq. mi. ) , and con-
tain nearly all industrial zoned land located north of the central
business district.
B. Existing Valley Floor Plan Map: East Valley Area
The current land use classifications of the Valley Floor Plan map are -
shown on Map 2 . In addition, the plan map is described in detail in
Section IIIA of the East Valley Study document.
Essentially all of the valley lowland is designated for industrial land
use. Two different industrial classifications are found in the EV
area: Industrial Park (IP) and Industrial (I) . These designations
roughly correspond to M2 and M3 zoning classifications, respectively.
1 ..
The Industrial designation permits the broadest range of industrial and
manufacturing uses, and may be thought of as a heavy industrial classi-
fication. The Industrial Park designation allows a more limited range
of industrial uses and also implies a higher level of development
standards than the Industrial designation. This distinction is further
defined through zoning standards for the M2 and M3 zoning districts.
East of the Valley Freeway (SR 167) , the slopes of East Hill are desig-
nated RA - Residential Agricultural. This designation is a low-density
transition type classification which is typically characterized by
rural residential uses. It also is applied to environmentally con-
strained areas such as wetlands and steep slopes where low-density land
uses are preferred.
As discussed in the East Valley Study, several applications have been
made over the past two years to expand commercial opportunities in the
EV area. These applications have been denied for the most part because
of conflicts with the industrial classifications of the Valley Floor
Plan. In addition, the RA designation east of SR 167 conflicts to some
degree with existing zoning, and does little to guide future land use
decisions in an area which is coming under increasing development
pressure.
C. Proposed Amendments to the Valley Floor Plan: East Valley Area
Based on the discussion of issues and options contained in the East
Valley Study, the Planning Department staff recommends the following
amendments to the Valley Floor Plan. Please note that the number pre-
,, ceeding the amendment discussion corresponds to the number shown on Map
3 :
1. Reduction of Industrial designation.
The area indicated in Amendment Area #1 is currently desig-
nated Industrial. The staff recommends that this area be
amended to indicate an Industrial Park designation. This
-• change would better conform to existing zoning since the
boundary between M2 and M3 zoning is the Burlington Northern
railroad tracks. This change would also have the effect of
containing the heaviest industrial uses to that area between
the UP and BN railroad tracks north of S. 212th Street.
2 . Commercial designation at S. 180th/EV Highway.
The area indicated in Amendment Area #2 is currently desig-
nated for industrial purposes. However, the current land use
pattern as well as the existing zoning in the area is com-
mercial . The Planning Department recommends that this area be
changed to indicate a Commercial designation on the Valley
Floor Plan map. The proposed boundaries of the Commercial
designation correspond to the limits of existing GC zoning in
this area.
2
3 . Commercial corridor along south East Valley Highway.
The area indicated in Amendment Area #3 is currently desig-
nated Industrial Park on the Valley Floor Plan map. This in-
dustrial designation exists despite the fact that the south
part of this amendment area is currently zoned for commercial
use (GC) . The Planning Department recommends that this area
be changed to indicate a Commercial designation on the Valley
Floor Plan map. As discussed in the East Valley Study, this
change would better respond to development pressures in the
area while serving to provide an improved visual quality to
the south end of the East Valley corridor.
As a comprehensive plan amendment, the precise depth of the
Commercial designation is not specified at this time. It is
anticipated that a zoning implementation effort will be com-
menced following the adoption of these plan amendments, and
the depth of the commercial designation will be defined
through this process.
4 . Office designation east of SR 167 between 208th/212th Streets.
The area indicated in Amendment Area #4 is currently desig-
nated Residential Agricultural on the Valley Floor Plan map.
However, the site was rezoned several years ago for a mobile
home park. The site has been graded and is generally flat
except along its eastern boundary. The Planning Department
recommends that this area be changed to indicate an Office
designation on the Valley Floor Plan map. As discussed in the
East Valley Study, this change would be consistent with plan
policies while maintaining compatibility with low-density use
in the vicinity.
5. Single-family designation east of SR 167 .
The area indicated in Amendment Area #5 is currently desig-
nated Residential Agricultural on the Valley Floor Plan map.
The Planning Department recommends that this area (which con-
sists of two parts, as shown on Map 3) be changed to indicate
Single Family Residential designation on the plan map. This
change would be consistent with current land use patterns and
zoning in the area. Further, it removes the "holding zone" --
connotation of the current RA designation.
6. Multifamily residential designation east of SR 167 .
The area indicated in Amendment Area #6 is currently desig-
nated Residential Agricultural on the Valley Floor Plan map.
The Planning Department recommends that this area be changed
to indicate a Multifamily Residential designation on the plan
map. Approximately half of this area is presently zoned for
multifamily residential, with the other half zoned for single-
family residential. Single-family use generally is not com-
patible with the industrial and commercial manufacturing uses
in the vicinity. Even multifamily residential use will re-
quire protection from adverse impacts of industrial use.
3 _..
Map 1. EAST VALLEY STUDY AREA
97
S.
r
m
r
20STI. ST
r
3
r
W
J
J
6
>
Ai11 6
v
3
c JHNES ST. 407H.
c W
w ' MEEKER ST. dc�l a
x =
WIll19 ST. r
v
'O
w S.E. 2S8T . ST.
Kent Planning Department 3/88
4
I
I i
E Map 2.
EXISTING VALLEY FLOOR PLAN:
EAST VALLEY STUDY AREA
r -- -.-.
I Industrial
IP Industrial Park
F_ RA Residential Agricultural
Ric-
li
Kent Planning Department 3/88
Xrcr ns
r
r' ---r
---
RA_
,. !`
Ir 1 L—
-, - RA _..
"-- P.__
\ T�
I
h
S 1fl0 T
+ rT
I J
I ,
T--
�i —
I
1 7 —
r Map 3.
p STAFF RECOMMENDED
VALLEY FLOOR PLAN MAP:
,. ,. C h EAST VALLEY AREA
IND Industrial
IP Industrial Park
C Commercial
14-- O Office
� SF
Z MF Multifamily Residential
_ SF Single Family Residential
RA Residential Agricultural
Y IND
—�- i F
IP
Kent Planning Department 3/88
r
----......_ .L:..
---- 4
i.. JL73—.212
--_Sr
I
-- SF ------
5
IMF--J t -L
1P -7
ai IND z
MF
:5 158 ST - - -_�
e t ICI
Numbers indicated on the map
4-- III r �� Note: corr
areassdiscussed lin thisdmret LI
port. G �
i
EAST VALLEY STUDY:
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE KENT ZONING ORDINANCE
Kent Planning Department
April 18, 1988
As a result of the East Valley Study completed in March 1988, the Kent
Planning Department recommends several changes to the City' s existing
Valley Floor Plan Map and Zoning Ordinance. This report describes the
recommended changes to the Zoning Ordinance; a separate report has been
prepared for the recommended Valley Floor Plan Map amendments.
A. Establishment of a Landscape Corridor along East Valley Highway
One issue arising from the East Valley Study is the need to improve
the visual character of the Study Area. Landscape treatment along
the major arterial bisecting the Area is a case in point. East
Valley Highway shows a mix of zoning classifications with varied
landscaping standards, and therefore a disjointed pattern of
landscape treatment. (See page 39 of the East Valley Study. ) The
objective of this proposal is to establish a uniform landscaping
treatment along this major arterial, thereby improving visual
quality and establishing a better transition from street to private
property.
The Zoning Code already has such a provision for Highway 167 and
Interstate Highway 5. This proposal would add a similar section
covering the East Valley Highway.
Staff Recommendation:
Add to 15 . 07 . 040 General Landscape Requirements - All
Zones, as follows:
P. All property abutting East Valley Highway
between S. 180th Street on the north to the SR
167 overpass on the south shall be landscaped to _..
a minimum depth of fifteen (15) feet unless a
larger area is required elsewhere in this
chapter.
B. Establishment of Flexible Front Yard Setback Regulations in the M2
(Limited Industrial) District
One change resulting from the West Valley Study was enactment of a
flexible setback (minimum yard) standard for the M1 (Industrial
Park) District. This standard ties minimum required setbacks to
the classification of the adjacent street. The less intensively
used streets in the M1 require a lesser setback than streets
carrying major through-traffic flows. More recently a similar
approach has been instituted in the Multifamily Transition Areas
7
associated with multifamily residential development.
The East Valley Study identifies the need for a flexible front yard
setback requirement in the other industrial districts. The
flexible standard allows more options for site layout, and
encourages location of large-scale parking areas outside of the
front-yard setback. (See pages 39-40 of the Study Report. ) In
addition, the flexible approach provides for larger yards where
they are most needed, adjacent to more intensively used arterials
and collectors.
Staff Recommendation:
Amend 15 . 04 . 180 (E) (3 ) M21 Limited Industrial
District, Development Standards, Yards.
Delete present paragraphs (a) Front Yard and (b) Side
yard on flanking street of corner lot. Substitute
the following:
a. Front Yard. The minimum front yard (setback)
shall be related to the classification of the
adjacent street. This classification shall be
determined by the Kent Transportation Engineer.
The setbacks are as follows:
i_ Properties fronting on arterials and
collector streets shall have a minimum
setback of 40 feet.
ii. Properties fronting on local access
streets shall have a minimum setback
of 30 feet.
b_ Side Yard on flanking street of corner lot. The
minimum side yard on the flanking street of a
corner lot shall be related to the
classification of the adjacent street. This
classification shall be determined by the Kent
Transportation Engineer. The setbacks are as
follows•
i_ Properties fronting on arterials and
collector streets shall have a minimum
setback of 40 feet.
ii. Properties fronting on local access
streets shall have a minimum setback
of 30 feet.
8
C. Institution of Requirements for Screening Dock-High Loading areas _.
in the M2 (Limited Industrial) District and the M3 (General
Industrial) District.
The West Valley Study recognized the negative impacts of poorly
screened dock-high loading areas on the visual quality of
development and the streetscape transition. As a result, the
Zoning Code was amended to add special standards to the M1 zone for
screening dock-high loading areas which face the street.
The East Valley Study found similar problems with unscreened or
poorly screened dock-high loading areas facing the street. (See
page 40 in the East Valley Study. ) As most industrial land in the
East Valley is zoned M2 or M3 , it is not covered under the current
dock-high screening requirements. This proposal would provide for
screening requirements in the M2 and M3 districts similar to the
existing requirements in the Ml.
Staff Recommendation:
Add to 15. 04 . 180(E) (8) , Limited Industrial District,
Development Standards, Loading Areas:
b_ Earth berms and landscaping shall be provided
along street frontages as necessary to screen
dock-high loading areas from public rights-of-
way. Berms shall be a minimum of 30 inches in
height. Landscaping located on the berm shall
conform to Type II landscaping described in
Section 15. 07 . 050 (C) , Visual Buffer.
Add to 15. 04. 190 (D) (9) , General Industrial District,
Development Standards, Loading Areas:
b. Earth berms and landscaping shall be provided
along street frontages as necessary to screen
dock-high loading areas from public rights-of-
way. Berms shall be a minimum of 20 inches in --
height. Landscaping located on the berm shall
conform to Type II landscaping described in
Section 15. 07 . 050 (C) , Visual Buffer.
D. Establishment of Transition Area Requirements in the East Valley
The East Valley Study Report discusses the need to buffer `
residential areas more effectively from adverse impacts of
industrial development, reducing the conflicts between dissimilar
and potentially incompatible land uses. (See pages 40-41 of the _..
Report. ) One mechanism for such in the current Code is the "Yards,
Transitional Conditions" development standard applicable to all
three industrial districts. This standard specifies a 50 foot
setback of industrial development from a residential district
9
containing a density of two or more dwellings per acre, or from a
proposed residential area indicated in the Comprehensive Plan.
A more comprehensive approach to buffering residential areas from
incompatible development is found in Zoning Code Section 15.08.210,
Transition Area Combining District. This mechanism provides for
buffering residential areas from both commercial and industrial
... uses. It includes a number of factors in addition to building
setback: building height, length, size and separation; principal
access; landscape screening; glare; and hours of noise generation.
These standards were adopted as a result of the Valley Studies
Program (1979-80) and currently apply only to a portion of the West
Valley Area.
This proposal would extend the Transition Area Combining District
requirements to the residential sections of the East Valley Study
Area. Such additional areas in the East Valley would be added to
the areas shown on the Transition Area Combining District Map,
which appears on page 126A of the Zoning Code.
Staff Recommendation:
Amend Section 15. 08 .210, Transition Area Combining
District Map, to include the residential and adjacent
areas of the East Valley. The attachment shows the
areas proposed for addition to the Map.
E. Clarification of Solid Waste Issues
1. Designation of "Solid Waste Incinerator Facilities" as
Requiring a Special Use Combining District.
A special issue addressed in the East Valley Study is the
potential siting of a solid waste incinerator in the Valley.
This issue arose from King County' s siting studies for a "mass
burn" facility to process solid waste collected regionally.
Two East Valley sites are among the County' s list of
"finalist" sites to receive detailed consideration.
Siting of a regional solid waste incinerator in the Kent
Valley raises a number of serious land use, health and
environmental concerns. (See pages 46-49 of the Report. )
While the concerns are numerous and significant, the current
Zoning Code makes no specific reference to solid waste
incinerators.
A solid waste incinerator appears to fit the illustrative uses
••_ subject to Special Use Combining District requirements. These
provide special controls for "certain uses which do not
clearly fit into other districts. . .which are of such unique
character to warrant special attention in the interests of the
City ' s optimum development and the preservation and
10
enhancement of its environmental quality. " The Special Use
Combining District mechanism would provide for Hearing
Examiner and City Council consideration of siting such a
facility, and provide for special standards and controls
appropriate to the use. A Special Use Combining District
application is treated as a rezone request and if approved
becomes an overlay zone.
The Special Use Combining District approach best provides the
local review and control necessary to protect the City's
interests. However, the Zoning Code needs updating explicitly
to identify "solid waste incinerators" as subject to the
Special Use Combining District regulations.
Staff Recommendation:
Amend 15 . 04 . 200 (A) (8) (b) Special Use
Combining District, Uses subject to Special
Use Combining District Regulations, as
follows:
b. Special environmental problems posed
by : refineries , nuclear power
generating plants , airports ,
heliports , sanitary landfills ,
extractive industries, solid waste
incinerators.
Add to 15 . 02 , Definitions, as follows:
15. 02 . 499 Solid Waste Incinerator
The processing of solid wastes by means of
pyrolysis refuse-derived fuel, or mass
incineration within an enclosed structure.
These processes may include the recovery of
energy resources from such waste or the
conversion of the energy in such wastes to
more useful forms or combinations thereof.
This definition refers to City-wide or
regional scale operations and does not
include solid waste incineration which is
accessory to an individual principal use. "
2 . Establishment of Solid Waste Recycling as a Conditional Use in
the M2 (Limited Industrial) District and a Principally
Permitted Use in the M3 (General Industrial) District
Related to the issue of siting a solid waste incinerator is
that of storing, separating and/or processing solid waste for
recovery of recyclable materials. The current Zoning Code
does not directly address this type of use, and needs
clarification. Substantial traffic, noise generation and
11
material stockpiling are characteristic of this use, which
make it suitable for a heavier industrial district.
Staff Recommendation:
Add to Section 15 . 04 . 180 (D) Limited
Industrial District, Conditional Uses, as
follows:
(88) Source separation and recovery of
recyclable materials for solid wastes.
Add to Section 15 . 04 . 190 (A) General
Industrial District, Principally Permitted
Uses, as follows:
22 Source separation and recovery of
recyclable materials from solid
wastes.
Kent Planning Department
April 13, 1988
12
FED'II
i
i
r
Map 4.
EXISTING ZONING AND
_ J PROPOSED TRANSITION AREA
COMBINING DISTRICT
I EAST VALLEY STUDY AREA
C L
ill :,/'
�__ M2
r I—t--_r--•
I I — M3 General Industrial
-- -- — M2 Limited Industrial
—; �" ---
Ml Industrial Park
�, r CM Commercial Manufacturing
RA
GC General Commercial
1 Ij MHP Mobile Home Park
MRM Medium Density Multifamily
MRG Garden Density Multifamily
R1 Single family Residential
RA Residential Agricultural
Kent Planning Department 3/88
LIM
-
Ir
12
-.�
I RA
14 Ri
- -- -. _- - CM
20
�� — � — — -- -- 1MHP 1 _
Li I
GC MRG
Proposed Transition Area --"
;�j—ill -_t o L Combining District
f Jl loll _l L J (not to scale)
;J 1
7
-- -- -- fill
� _ _ y{
13
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING OF MAY 23 , 1988
REGULATORY REVIEW
1) AMENDMENT TO ALLOW PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITIES IN THE COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT (RR-88-1)
Mr. Peter Curran, representing the Berg estate, requested that the
Regulatory Review of Public Storage Facilities in the Community
" Commercial Zoning District (RR-88-1) be continued to May 31, 1988.
Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the Regulatory Review on Public Storage
be continued to the May 31 meeting. Commissioner Rudy SECONDED the
motion. Motion carried.
EAST VALLEY STUDY:
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE VALLEY FLOOR PLAN MAP (Continued)
Mr. Satterstrom presented a map of Areas 5 and 6 and cross-section
illustrations of slope gradients 1100 feet north of South 208th Street
and 500 feet south of 208th Street. The Planning Department proposes
that Area 5 be designated Single-Family Residential because of the
environmental constraints in the area and because existing development
-• is single family residential. The Planning Department proposes that
Area 6 be designated Multifamily Residential.
w Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the public hearing be closed.
Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the Planning Commission adopt the plan
" for Areas 5 and 6 as recommended in the East Valley Study and the staff
report. Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried
unanimously.
EAST VALLEY STUDY;
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE KENT ZONING CODE
Mr. Stroh presented the five recommendations for changes to zoning.
A. Establishment of a Landscape Corridor along East Valley Highway.
The purpose of this amendment is to establish a uniform
landscaping treatment and thereby improve the visual quality and
establish a better transition from the street to the private
property.
Staff Recommendation
Add to 15. 07 . 040 General Landscape Requirements - All Zones, as
follows:
" P. All property abutting East Valley Highway between South 180th
2
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING OF MAY 23 , 1988
Street on the north to the SR 167 overpass on the south shall
be landscaped to a minimum depth of fifteen (15) feet unless
a larger area is required elsewhere in this chapter. _
B. Establishment of Flexible Front Yard Setback Regulations in the M2
(Limited Industrial) District The front yard setback requirement
would be 40 feet along arterials and collector streets, and 30
feet on local access streets. This would actually tie the setback
to the classification of the adjacent street.
Staff Recommendation
Amend 15. 04 . 180 (E) (3) M2, Limited Industrial District, Development _
Standards, Yards.
Delete the present paragraphs (a) Front Yard and (b) Side yard on
flanking street of corner lot. Substitute the following:
a. Front Yard. The minimum front yard (setback) shall be
related to the classification of the adjacent street. This
classification shall be determined by the Kent
Transportation Engineer. The setbacks are as follows:
i. Properties fronting on arterials and collector streets
shall have a minimum setback of 40 feet.
ii. Properties fronting on local access streets shall have a
minimum setback of 30 feet.
b. Side Yard on flanking street of corner lot. The minimum side
yard on the flanking street of a corner lot shall be related
to the classification of the adjacent street. This
classification shall be determined by the Kent Transportation
Engineer. The setbacks are as follows:
i. Properties fronting on arterials and collector streets
shall have a minimum setback of 40 feet.
ii. Properties fronting on local access streets shall have a
minimum setback of 30 feet.
C. Institution of Requirements for Screening Dock-High Loading areas
in the M2 (Limited Industrial) District and the M3 (General
Industrial) District.
Because dock-high doors have a significant visual impact, this
additional landscaping requirement would provide better screening
and a much higher quality of the visual impact.
3 _..
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING OF MAY 23 , 1988
Staff Recommendation
Add to 15. 04 . 180 (E) (8) , Limited Industrial District, Development
Standards, Loading Areas:
b. Earth berms and landscaping shall be provided along street
frontages as necessary to screen dock-high loading areas from
public rights-of-way. Berms shall be a minimum of 30 inches
in height. Landscaping located on the berm shall conform to
-- Type II landscaping described in Section 15 07 050 (C) Visual
Buffer.
Add 15. 04 . 190 (D) (9) , General Industrial District, Development
Standards, Loading Areas:
b. Earth berms and landscaping shall be provided along street
frontages as necessary to screen dock-high loading areas from
public rights-of-way. Berms shall be a minimum of 20 inches
in height. Landscaping located on the berm shall conform to
Type II landscaping described in Section 15. 07 . 050 (C) , Visual
Buffer.
D. Establishment of Transition Area Reguirements in the East
Valley
This is a more comprehensive approach to buffering residential
areas from incompatible development.
Staff recommendation
Amend Section 15. 08 . 210, Transition Area Combining District Map,
to include the residential and adjacent areas of the East Valley.
E. Clarification of Solid Waste Issues
1. Designation of "Solid Waste Incinerator Facilities" as
Requiring a Special Use Combining District.
Staff Recommendation:
Amend 15. 04 . 200 (A) (8) (b) Special Use Combining District, Uses
subject to Special Use Combining District Regulations, as follows:
b. Special environmental problems posed by: refineries, nuclear
power generating plants, airports, heliports, sanitary
landfills, extractive industries, solid waste incinerators.
4
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING OF MAY 23 , 1988
Add to 15. 02, Definitions, as follows:
15. 02 .499 Solid Waste Incinerator
The processing of solid wastes by means of pyrolysis refuse-
derived fuel or mass incineration within an enclosed structure.
These processes may include the recovery of energy resources from
such waste or the conversion of the energy in such wastes to more
useful forms or combinations thereof. This definition refers to
City-wide or regional scale operations and does not include solid
waste incineration which is accessory to an individual principal
use.
2 . Establishment of Solid Waste Recycling as a Conditional Use in the
M2 (Limited Industrial) District and a Principally Permitted Use
in the M3 (General Industrial) District.
Staff Recommendation:
Add to Section 15 . 04 . 180 (D) Limited Industrial District,
Conditional Uses, as follows:
u Source separation and recovery of recyclable materials for
solid wastes.
Add to Section 15 . 04 . 190 (A) General Industrial District,
Principally Permitted Uses, as follows:
22 Source separation and recovery of recyclable materials from
solid wastes.
In response to Commissioner Stoner, Mr. Stroh stated the required
landscape corridor along East Valley Highway would apply to new uses as
well as to expansion of current uses, e.g. , adding to a facility. He
confirmed that a request for variance through the Board of Adjustment '
would be an avenue of relief from the requirement.
Commissioner Stoner MOVED and Commissioner Greenstreet SECONDED the
motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried.
Commissioner Rudy MOVED that the Commission accept staff
recommendations A. B, C, D, and E. Commissioner Stoner SECONDED the
motion. Motion carried unanimously.
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PLAN AMENDMENTS - CONTINUED
Mr. Harris submitted into the record correspondence from Burdic Feed
Inc. and Northwest Metal Products Company.
5
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 7, less
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT. EAST VALLEY STUDY - AMENDMENTS TO VALLEY FLOOR PLAN
MAP
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Six changes to the Valley Floor Plan Map
have been recommended by the Planning Commission as a result of
East Valley Study. These changes recognize opportunities for
commercial growth in the East Valley corridor while designating
and protecting the slopes east of the Valley freeway for single
family residential use. The Planning Commission held several
workshops and two public hearings on these changes .
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo, cover memo from Mayor Kelleher, East
Valley Study, staff report to Planning Commission, April 18,
1988, staff report addendum, May 17, 1988, Planning Commission
minutes, April 25. 1988 and May 23 , 1988
- 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission May 23 1988
(Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc . )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A pNei
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to adopt the recommendation of the Planning Commissionjand to
direct the City Attorney to develop a resolution implementing
the amendments to the Valley Floor Plan.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4D
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
June 3 , 1988
MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members
FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO VALLEY FLOOR SUBAREA PLAN
On May 23, 1988 the Planning Commission recommended amendments to
the City of Kent Valley Floor Subarea Plan as a result of the
East Valley Study.
Attached are the requisite documents and information which need
to be forwarded to the City Council to implement the plan map
amendment. These materials include:
__. Cover Memo from Mayor Kelleher
Resolution W989
Staff report to Planning Commission
Planning Commission minutes (4/25/88 and 5/23/88)
CA:ca
Attachments
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
DATE: June 1, 1988
TO: City Council President Z
White and Council Members
FROM: Mayor Dan Kelleher
SUBJECT: SUBMITTAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION ON
THE EAST VALLEY STUDY AMENDMENTS _.
As per RCW 35A. 63 . 072 and City Council Resolution #989, I am forwarding
to you the Planning Commission's recommendation on the East Valley
Study amendments. These amendments relate to revisions to the City's
Valley Floor Subarea Plan.
The Planning Commission held two public hearings on this matter.
Hearings were held on April 25 and May 23 , 1988 . At the May 23rd
public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to amend the Valley Floor _
Subarea Plan to permit commercial in certain areas, office, single
family residential and one small area for multifamily.
The specific recommendations of the Planning Commission are outlined in
the attachments to this memorandum.
Also, as per RCW 35A. 63 . 072 and Council Resolution #989, within 60 days of receipt of the Planning Commission' s recommendation, the Council at
a public meeting shall vote to approve or disapprove as modified the
subarea plan amendment. • The Council may also refer it back to the
Planning Commission for further proceedings.
Attached to this memo are the following:
1. Council Resolution #989
2 . Report on Valley Floor Subarea Plan map
3 . Planning Commission minutes -
JPH:ca
Attachments
Pigs
���, 7,te C����
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City of YKent,
Washington, concerning the procedure for City
Council review of recommendations of the
Planning Commission for the Kent Comprehensive
Plan.
WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.060 directs every City to direct its
planning agency to prepare a comprehensive plan for anticipating
and influencing the orderly and coordinated development of land
and building uses of the code city and its environs; and
WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.070 sets forth specific requirements
for notice and public hearing by the planning agency concerning a
comprehensive plan, or successive parts thereof; and
WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.071 and RC41 35A.63.072 provides for
transmission of comprehensive plan recommendations, and
consideration by the City's legislative body in public meeting of
those recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the City of Kent has established a Planning
Commission to conduct public hearings pursuant to Chapter 35A.63
RCW; and
WHEREAS, it is a disservice to the Planning Commission
and the members of the public who appear at Commission hearings
for the Council to accept and consider information not before the
Commission, and to conduct supplemental hearings; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.072, within sixty
days of receipt of recommendations for the Comprehensive Plan, the
City Council will consider the recommendations at a public meeting.
Section 2. At the public meeting the Council will also
consider such other written submittals that are filed with the
City prior to the public meeting, concerning the recommendations
of the Planning Commission.
Section 3 . Following the public meeting the Council
shall vote to approve, or to disapprove, or to modify and approve
as modified, the comprehensive plan. The Council may also vote to
refer the comprehensive plan back to the Planning Commission for "
further proceedings, in which case the Council shall specify the
time within which the Planning Commission shall report back its
findings and recommendations on the matters referred to it.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent Washington this �7L day of rN 1983.
Conc rred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this
day of 1983.
r ,
ISABEL HOGAN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JEN, N CIT CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
P. -STEP DiJULIO, CITY ATTORNEY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
Resolution No. 999 , passed by the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, the �L day of 1983.
(SEAL)
MARIE JS , CI CLERK
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
May 17, 1968
-° To: Kent Planning Commission
From: Fred N. Satterstrom, Senior Planner
Subject: East Valley Plan Amendments/Report on Areas 5 and 6
" At the April 25, 1988 public hearing on the proposed East Valley plan
amendments, the Planning Commission had some concerns about Areas 5 and
6. (A map of the plan amendment areas is attached. ) This report
...• addresses the basis for the staff recommended land use for these two
areas, as requested by the Planning Commission.
It should be noted that the Planning Commission acted favorably on
areas 1-4 at the April 25 , 1988 public hearing. However, action on
areas 5 and 6 was delayed until the May 23 hearing.
Area 5 - East of SR 167
Existing Plan: RA (Residential-Agricultural)
Existing Zoning: RA and R1-12 . 0
Proposed Plan: SF (Single-family Residential)
Area 5 is composed of two parts: 1) a narrow strip of properties lying
north of S. 208th Street, and 2) a large block of properties located
south of S. 212th Street. The present Valley Floor Plan designation
for all of area 5 is RA (Residential-Agricultural) . The existing
zoning in the area is low-density residential, either RA or R1-12 . 0.
The Planning Department is recommending a SF (Single-family Resident-
ial) designation for the area. This recommendation is based on three
primary factors.
" First, the existing character of area 5 is low-density, single-family
residential. The prevailing land use pattern is large-lot residential.
There is a semi-rural character to the area, particularly north of S.
208th Street where small barns and pasture are associated with some
homes. The Planning Department consulted the 1987 land use database
(LUST.GEO) and found 18 residences on 26 lots of record north of S.
208th Street, and 40 on 73 lots of record south of S. 212th Street.
The next largest land use is undeveloped or vacant land. No other type
of land use was inventoried in this area.
Environmental constraints constitute the second factor. Area 5 has
some steep slope areas which severely limit potential development.
Figures 1 and 2 , attached, are cross-sectional diagrams which illus-
trate the slope across area 5 in two places: 1) 1100-feet north of S.
208th Street and 2) 500-feet south of S. 212th Street. Slopes
lying north of S. 208th Street generally rise rapidly from SR 167 and
flatten out near 92nd Avenue SE. South of S. 212th Street, slopes
rise less steeply at first but then reach gradients of 28-36% in some
places. Slopes of 15-25% are considered to have high limitations for
development; slopes between 25-39% have severe limitations for de-
velopment; and, slopes in excess of 40% are considered unbuildable.
A third factor in the staff recommendation for SF on area 5 is the
"holding zone" connotation of the present RA designation. The RA plan
designation together with its zoning equivalent (i.e. , the RA zone) are
not intended to be a permanent type of land use classifition. The RA
zone purpose statement speaks to this; it is considered to be a holding
or transition zone. The Planning Department feels that area 5 should
be given a more permanent type of plan designation, such as SF, and
allow later zoning studies to determine the appropriate R1
classification.
Area 6 - Multifamily Area south of S. 218th Street
Existing Plan: RA and IP
Existing zoning R1, MRG, and MRH
Proposed Plan: MF (Multifamily Residential)
Area 6 is a rectangular shaped area lying between S. 218th Street and
S. 228th Street, and running along the foot of East Hill. The present
plan designation for this area is split, with most of the area in the
RA designation and a smaller portion designated IP (Industrial Park) .
Current zoning is mixed, with about one-third of the area zoned for ~-
single-family residential (R1-7 . 2) and two-thirds for multifamily
residential (MRG and MRH) .
The staff recommended MF (Multifamily Residential) designation would
join the MRG-zoned land along S. 218th Street with the MRG/MRH-zoned
land lying to the south. As mentioned in the East Valley study, the
area lying immediately to the south of area 6 has experienced much ~
recent multifamily development. For the most part, a MF designation
merely recognizes the existing zoning pattern but, it also recognizes
that area 6 is a potential expansion area for multifamily development.
It should be noted that the primary access of development in this area
will be from the East Valley Highway corridor. This should mitigate
the adverse effects of increased traffic on the single-family area to
the east.
Map 3 .
1 ST.\
STAFF RECOMMENDED
�—
f VALLEY FLOOR PLAN MAP:
EAST VALLEY AREA
�.. L
IND Industrial
IP Industrial Park
C Commercial
O Office
- MF Multifamily Residential
—3 SF SF Single Family Residential
RA Residential Agricultural
LU
J a
1 P a -- I rr
--� ,J — Kent Planning Department 3/88
s_212 sT._
,Z 1
Tj -- - _
� 3 _I
IP '" - --
-
I -- - _]-
�P I 4 \ — ;-
F
` \ o
G
� c
O S
O
N o
5 ° «
i
_ C ro
o
o
0 0
� r
fi
N �
N W
rt
26,
� o F _ems
-SN
The Industrial designation permits the broadest range of industrial and
manufacturing uses, and may be thought of as a heavy industrial classi-
fication. The Industrial Park designation allows a more limited range
of industrial uses and also implies a higher level of development
standards than the Industrial designation. This distinction is further
defined through zoning standards for the M2 and M3 zoning districts.
East of the Valley Freeway (SR 167) , the slopes of East Hill are desig-
nated RA - Residential Agricultural. This designation is a low-density
transition type classification which is typically characterized by
rural residential uses. It also is applied to environmentally con-
strained areas such as wetlands and steep slopes where low-density land
uses are preferred.
As discussed in the East Valley Study, several applications have been
made over the past two years to expand commercial opportunities in the
EV area. These applications have been denied for the most part because
of conflicts with the industrial classifications of the Valley Floor
Plan. In addition, the RA designation east of SR 167 conflicts to some
degree with existing zoning, and does little to guide future land use
decisions in an area which is coming under increasing development
pressure. -
C. Proposed Amendments to the Valley Floor Plan: East Valley Area
Based on the discussion of issues and options contained in the East
Valley Study, the Planning Department staff recommends the following
amendments to the Valley Floor Plan. Please note that the number pre-
ceeding the amendment discussion corresponds to the number shown on Map
3 :
1. Reduction of Industrial designation.
The area indicated in Amendment Area #1 is currently desig-
nated Industrial . The staff recommends that this area be
amended to indicate an Industrial Park designation. This _..
change would better conform to existing zoning since the
boundary between M2 and M3 zoning is the Burlington Northern
railroad tracks. This change would also have the effect of
containing the heaviest industrial uses to that area between
the UP and BN railroad tracks north of S . 212th Street.
2 . Commercial designation at S . 180th/EV Highway.
The area indicated in Amendment Area #2 is currently desig-
nated for industrial purposes . However, the current land use
pattern as well as the existing zoning in the area is com-
mercial. The Planning Department recommends that this area be
changed to indicate a Commercial designation on the Valley
Floor Plan map. The proposed boundaries of the Commercial
designation correspond to the limits of existing GC zoning in
this area.
2
3 . Commercial corridor along south East Valley Highway.
The area indicated in Amendment Area #3 is currently desig-
nated Industrial Park on the Valley Floor Plan map. This in-
dustrial designation exists despite the fact that the south
part of this amendment area is currently zoned for commercial
use (GC) . The Planning Department recommends that this area
be changed to indicate a Commercial designation on the Valley
Floor Plan map. As discussed in the East Valley Study, this
change would better respond to development pressures in the
area while serving to provide an improved visual quality to
the south end of the East Valley corridor.
As a comprehensive plan amendment, the precise depth of the
Commercial designation is not specified at this time. It is
anticipated that a zoning implementation effort will be com-
menced following the adoption of these plan amendments, and
the depth of the commercial designation will be defined
through this process.
4 . Office designation east of SR 167 between 208th/212th Streets.
The area indicated in Amendment Area #4 is currently desig-
nated Residential Agricultural on the Valley Floor Plan map.
However, the site was rezoned several years ago for a mobile
home park. The site has been graded and is generally flat
,•, except along its eastern boundary. The Planning Department
recommends that this area be changed to indicate an Office
designation on the Valley Floor Plan map. As discussed in the
East Valley Study, this change would be consistent with plan
policies while maintaining compatibility with low-density use
in the vicinity.
5. Single-family designation east of SR 167 .
The area indicated in Amendment Area #5 is currently desig-
nated Residential Agricultural on the Valley Floor Plan map.
The Planning Department recommends that this area (which con-
sists of two parts, as shown on Map 3) be changed to indicate
Single Family Residential designation on the plan map. This
change would be consistent with current land use patterns and
zoning in the area. Further, it removes the "holding zone"
connotation of the current RA designation.
6. Multifamily residential designation east of SR 167 .
The area indicated in Amendment Area #6 is currently desig-
nated Residential Agricultural on the Valley Floor Plan map.
The Planning Department recommends that this area be changed
to indicate a Multifamily Residential designation on the plan
map. Approximately half of this area is presently zoned for
multifamily residential, with the other half zoned for single-
family residential. Single-family use generally is not com-
patible with the industrial and commercial manufacturing uses
in the vicinity. Even multifamily residential use will re-
quire protection from adverse impacts of industrial use.
3
I
EI
100 T
rZ
i +
}� ` IP Ll
jTj
— Map 3.f ,
I a [' PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
�I ---� 1 VALLEY FLOOR PLAN MAP:
_ I EAST VALLEY AREA
I I I , I' I
- III - _1A I I 1 I �1
I1 . .. r IND Industrial
IP Industrial Park
C Commercial
0 Office
MF Multifamily Residential
SF
{ I SF Single Family Residential
I
r --
I,�_` RA Residential Agricultural
IND _
(
Kent Planning Department 3/88
0
—
�
�-
11II 1
==�;Pl
yl I IND
MF
--
-- IMP
g :a :; ;I
q 1• r. IIII ;
r
Note: Numbers indicated on the map I.
correspond to plan amendment
+! ,. areas discussed in this re-
port.
I�Y6.; -•{ .� -�� � Illy { !I ili� ; �4 ,-��� �?���� � IIN I,
r11 1 ;,,,,l. Ir{
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING OF MAY 23 , 1988
REGULATORY REVIEW
1) AMENDMENT TO ALLOW PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITIES IN THE COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT (RR-88-1)
Mr. Peter Curran, representing the Berg estate, requested that the
Regulatory Review of Public Storage Facilities in the Community
Commercial Zoning District (RR-88-1) be continued to May 31, 1988 .
Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the Regulatory Review on Public Storage
be continued to the May 31 meeting. Commissioner Rudy SECONDED the
motion. Motion carried.
EAST VALLEY STUDY:
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE VALLEY FLOOR PLAN MAP (Continued)
Mr. Satterstrom presented a map of Areas 5 and 6 and cross-section
illustrations of slope gradients 1100 feet north of South 208th Street
and 500 feet south of 208th Street. The Planning Department proposes
that Area 5 be designated Single-Family Residential because of the
environmental constraints in the area and because existing development
is single family residential. The Planning Department proposes that
Area 6 be designated Multifamily Residential.
Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the public hearing be closed.
Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the Planning Commission adopt the plan
for Areas 5 and 6 as recommended in the East Valley Study and the staff
report. Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried
unanimously.
EAST VALLEY STUDY;
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE KENT ZONING CODE
Mr. Stroh presented the five recommendations for changes to zoning.
A. Establishment of a Landscape Corridor along East Valley Highway.
The purpose of this amendment is to establish a uniform
landscaping treatment and thereby improve the visual quality and
establish a better transition from the street to the private
-•. property.
Staff Recommendation
Add to 15. 07 . 040 General Landscape Requirements - All Zones, as
follows:
P. All property abutting East Valley Highway between South 180th
2
RENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 25, 1988
The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by
Chairman Robert Badger at 7 :30 p.m. on Monday, April 25, 1988, in
the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT;
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
CERTIFICATE OF APPOINTMENT
Chairman Badger presented to Commissioner Forner the Certificate
of Appointment to the Planning Commission.
APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 29 , 1988
Commissioner Martinez MOVED and Commissioner Ward SECONDED the
motion to approve the minutes of the February 29, 1988 Planning
Commission public hearing as printed. Motion carried.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT AWARD FOR
STUDY ON 20 PERCENT REDUCTION
The Kent Planning Department has received a merit award from the
Washington Chapter of the American Planning Association and the
Planning Association of Washington for the study recently
completed on the multifamily reduction issue.
Chairman Badger opened the public hearing.
1
Planning Commission Minutes
April 25, 1988
EAST VALLEY STUDY:
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE VALLEY FLOOR PLAN MAP
Mr. Satterstrom presented the six amendments to the Valley Floor
Plan Map. The East Valley study area contains approximately
1,950 acres, or three square miles. The boundaries of the area
include the Union Pacific Railroad tracks on the west, South
180th on the north, the Kent city limits on the east, and S.R.
167 and South 228th Street on the south. '�;-®
The valley lowland is designated for industrial land use. There
are two classifications for these uses, M2 and M3 . East of
SR 167 the slopes of East Hill are designated Residential
Agricultural. Staff believes that the RA designation does little
to guide future land use decisions in this area.
The Planning Department recommends the following six amendments
to the Valley Floor Plan.
1. Reduction of Industrial Designation
The area indicated in Amendment Area #1 is currently
designated Industrial. The staff recommends that this area
be amended to indicate an Industrial Park designation. This
change would better conform to existing zoning since the
boundary between M2 and M3 zoning is the Burlington Northern "
railroad tracks. This change. would also have the effect of
containing the heaviest industrial uses to that area between
the UP and BN railroad tracks north of South 212th Street.
2 . Commercial Designation at South 180th/East Valley Highway
The area indicated in Amendment Area #2 is currently _.
designated for industrial purposes. However, the current
land use pattern as well as the existing zoning in the area
is commercial. The Planning Department recommends that this
area be changed to indicate a Commercial designation on the
Valley Floor Plan map. The proposed boundaries of the
Commercial designation correspond to the limits of existing
General Commercial zoning in this area.
3 . Commercial Corridor Along South East Valley Highway
The area indicated in Amendment Area #3 is currently
designated Industrial Park on the Valley Floor Plan map.
This industrial designation exists despite the fact that the
south part of this amendment area is currently zoned for
commercial use (GC) . The Planning Department recommends
that this area be changed to indicate a Commercial
designation on the Valley Floor Plan map. As discussed in
the East Valley Study, this change would better respond to
development pressures in the area while serving to provide
an improved visual quality to the south end of the East
Valley corridor.
2
Planning Commission Minutes
April 25, 1988
As a comprehensive plan amendment, the precise depth of the
Commercial designation is not specified at this time. It
is anticipated that a zoning implementation effort will be
commenced following the adoption of these plan amendments,
and the depth of the commercial designation will be defined
through this process.
4 . Office Designation East of SR 167 Between 208th/212th Street
The area indicated in Amendment Area #4 is currently
designated Residential Agricultural on the Valley Floor Plan
map. However, the site was rezoned several years ago for a
_ mobile home park. The site has been graded and is generally
flat except along its eastern boundary. The Planning
Department recommends that this area be changed to indicate
an Office designation on the Valley Floor Plan map. As
discussed in the East Valley Study, this change would be
consistent with plan policies while maintaining
compatibility with low-density use in the vicinity.
5. Single-family Designation East of SR 167 .
The area indicated in Amendment Area #5 is currently
designated Residential Agricultural on the Valley Floor
Plan map. The Planning Department recommends that this
area (which consists of two parts, as shown on Map 3) be
changed to indicate Single Family Residential designation on
the plan map. This change would be consistent with current
land use patterns and zoning in the area. Further, it
removes the "holding zone" connotation of the current RA
designation.
6. Multifamily Residential Designation East of SR 167
The area indicated in Amendment Area #6 is currently
designated Residential on the Valley Floor Plan map. The
Planning Department recommends that this area be changed to
indicate a Multifamily Residential designation on the plan
map. Approximately half of this area is presently zoned for
multifamily residential, with the other half zoned for
single-family residential. Single-family use generally is
not compatible with the industrial and commercial
manufacturing uses in the vicinity. Even multifamiliy
residential use will require protection from adverse impacts
of industrial use.
Lawrence Campbell, Architect, asked for clarification of the
terms "Industrial Park" and "Industry" . He suggested that the
Planning Department note the difference between the area on the
hill above the toe of the slope and the valley area. He felt the
land east of the freeway is not suitable or marketable for single
family dwellings. He felt there is enough difference between
the character of this area and the area further up on the hill
that it would not fit into the single family designation.
3
Planning Commission Minutes
April 25, 1988
Harold James, owner of a six-acre parcel south of 212th and east
of the Valley Freeway Project and the wetlands area, feels that a
Garden Density Multifamily Residential designation would be
appropriate for this area. He did not feel that traffic would be
much greater with this designation than with the Single Family
Residential designation.
Gary Young, Polygon Corporation, 4020 Lake Washington Boulevard
NE, Suite 201, Kirkland, Washington 98003 , stated that Polygon
Corporation is presently planning the development of the Valley
Freeway Property identified as Area #4 . He submitted a letter
dated April 25, 1988 to the Commission and for the record. He
verbalized support of the staff recommendation relating to their
property. He felt that either office or commercial use would be
suitable for this property. A professional noise evaluation
indicated the property is unsuitable for residential development
but suitable for office or commercial use. The Valley Freeway
off- and on-ramps intersect with South 212th at the edge of this
property. A new street into this potential development could be
constructed at this intersection. He pointed out that there is a
shortage of land designated for commercial and office use that is
located near a freeway interchange. He concluded by stating that
the development of the Valley Freeway Property should meet the
needs of the community and the market place. If it is found at a
later time that there is significant commercial need for this
property, they would like to present this request to the Planning
Commission at that time.
Commissioner Rudy asked if the adjacent property would have the
same noise problem. Mr. Young responded that the adjacent area
had not been analyzed, and he did not know if there would be a
reflection of noise. The decibel level on the Valley Freeway
Property was found to be approximately 70 DBA.
Commissioner Stoner asked how the cemetery would be buffered from
this development. Mr. Young felt that the trees and rockery
would have a buffering effect on the cemetery area. Commissioner
Stoner asked if there would be consideration for providing
parking for those who wish to visit the cemetery. Mr. Young
responded that the entry street would be on a public street and
that people would be able to park on the street and in the
parking area of the development for short-term visits. The
proposed development would most likely be two or three stories
high. He pointed out that the cemetery is located at a higher
elevation.
Mr. Satterstrom explained that the term "Industrial Park"
corresponded roughly to M2, and that the term "Industrial"
corresponded roughly to M3 . He pointed out that the
Comprehensive Plan does not affect the exact zoning boundaries.
4
Planning Commission Minutes
April 25, 1988
Commissioner Rudy asked why the long narrow strip along the
freeway was designated as Single Family Residential. Mr.
Satterstrom responded that the strip is currently designated
Residential Agricultural. Staff believes now is the time to
give it a more permanent designation. There are residential
areas adjacent to 405 and I-5 which were developed after the
freeways were built. The strip is adjacent to a single family
area higher on the hill, Evergreen Hills Plat. If the land were
flatter, not adjacent to single family, and did not have
environmental constraints, a higher land use designation might
have been appropriate.
Mr. Badger and Commissioner Forner asked about the possibility of
the light being synchronized at the Valley Freeway Property site.
Mr. Morris responded that the light is controlled by the State,
not by the City of Kent, and is located in a limited access area.
In order for adjacent property to obtain access to this
intersection, it would be necessary to go through both the State
and the City to obtain an access permit at the signalized area.
He realized that there had been accidents at this location. Part
of the cause of the backup could be the timing of the signal, but
he felt he could work with the State regarding this matter. He
did not forsee a significant capacity problem. Commissioner
Forner expressed concern about emergency vehicles reaching this
area. Mr. Morris felt that the Valley Freeway could be used
easily in the afternoon.
Chairman Badger wondered if there would be sufficient
landscaping on the site to take care of the visual problems of a
two or three-story building. Mr. Satterstrom responded that
there would be natural vegetation with woods wrapped partially
around the site. Trees along 208th would help to screen the
development from the roadway.
Commissioner Biteman asked whether this area would be used
strictly for offices or if commercial use would be part. of this
development. Mr. Satterstrom explained that office designation is
proposed, but office zoning allows be up to 50 percent commercial
uses with a conditional use permit. Commercial zoning would
allow more flexibility, but staff did not propose commercial
because of its incompatibility with the residential area.
Commissioner Ward asked if staff would reconsider the
designation. He expressed concern about buffering. Mr.
Satterstrom responded staff believes the site proposed for
office is flatter, more accessible and is already graded and
ready for development. Also, office zoning would be compatible
with the surrounding area. Mr. Ward felt that this site was not
removed from the industrial area, which is the entire area on the
opposite side of the freeway.
5
Planning Commission Minutes
April 25, 1988
Commissioner Biteman pointed out that much of the West Hill is
multifamily and wondered why this area was not the same. Mr.
Satterstrom responded that the multifamily designation would not
relieve the problems that exist in this area. Along 92nd Avenue
there is a view over the valley that would be considered by many
as an amenity.
Mr. Campbell felt that this area is similar to an M2 zone and
wished United Truck Lines could expand into this area.
Mr. James stated that there are two slopes and that his rezone
proposal included slopes no greater than approximately 16 per
cent. He felt he could get a viable garden density development
without touching the slopes.
Chairman Badger responded that the proposed PUD ordinance is
again under consideration and that this proposed ordinance could
grant density credit for the slopes.
Commissioner Rudy asked Mr. James if another entry into the area
had been considered. He responded that this had been considered
and that it is impossible because the hill that separates the
property is wet and very steep.
Commissioner Stoner MOVED and Commissioner Ward SECONDED the
motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried.
Commissioner Rudy MOVED that Number 1 Reduction of Industrial
designation be approved as recommended by staff. Commissioner
Greenstreet SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Stoner MOVED that Number 2 Commercial designation at
South 180th/EV Highway be approved as recommended by staff.
Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried
unanimously.
Commissioner Ward moved that Number 3 Commercial corridor along
south East Valley Highway be approved as recommended by staff.
Commissioner Greenstreet SECONDED the motion. Motion carried
unanimously. "
Commissioner Martinez expressed concern about the breadth and
depth of the area. Chairman Badger explained that the precise
lines are defined when the area is zoned. Mr. Harris added that
generalized lines are intentional when dealing with the
Comprehensive Plan, but are defined when the zoning is
determined.
6
Planning Commission Minutes
April 25, 1988
Commissioner Rudy MOVED that Number 4 Office designation east of
SR 167 between 208th/212th Streets be approved as recommended by
staff. Commissioner Stoner SECONDED the motion. Commissioner
Greenstreet suggested that numbers 4 , 5 and 6 be studied more
carefully before making a decision. Commissioner Stoner pointed
out that the Number 4 site is a bare site that is isolated from
the area around it. She did not envision it as a single family
residential site. She did not feel that this site would be
suitable for multifamily use because of the freeway and lack of
buffering. She did not see any other appropriate use for the
property. Commissioner Forner was concerned about the traffic
generated. Discussion followed regarding the turning lanes.
Commissioner Greenstreet felt that office buildings at that site
seemed to be natural but felt that these would impact the
residents in the area. He suggested extra time to consider the
situation. Commissioner Stoner asked what King County had
planned for the land east of the single family area. Mr.
Satterstrom responded that low-density single family is planned.
Commissioner Ward suggested that the motion be amended in order
to further study Numbers 4, 5 and 6. There was no second to that
suggestion.
Chairman Badger called for the vote: five voted for the motion
and three against the motion. (Commissioners Biteman, Greenstreet
and Ward) . Motion carried.
Commissioner Stoner MOVED that Number 5 Single-family designation
east of SR 167 be approved as recommended by staff. No second
was made.
Commissioner Ward MOVED that Numbers 5 and 6 be set aside for
further study. Commissioner Greenstreet SECONDED the motion.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Forner asked for additional rationale regarding the
Rl designation. Mr. Harris responded that this additional
information would be presented at the next Planning Commission
public hearing. Commissioner Rudy was concerned about the single
family designation acting as a holding designation so the zoning
could be changed at a later time.
Commissioner Stoner amended the motion to read Numbers 5 and 6 be
set aside for the next public hearing (May) . Commissioner
Greenstreet SECONDED the amendment. Amended motion carried
unanimously.
EAST VALLEY STUDY;
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE KENT ZONING ORDINANCE
The public hearing was opened by Chairman Badger.
7
Planning Commission Minutes
April 25, 1988
Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the ordinance text be continued to
the next public hearing in May. Commissioner Rudy SECONDED the
motion. Motion carried.
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
The public hearing was opened by Chairman Badger.
Commissioner Rudy MOVED that the Central Business District be
continued to the next public hearing in May. Commissioner Ward
SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
Commissioner Forner asked if she could share at a future time the
process Everett used to acquire rights of way for the future
transit system.
Commissioner Ward suggested that the Planning Commission write a
letter to City Council regarding the 20 percent reduction.
Discussion followed. Commissioner Badger stated that he would
write a letter and have it ready for all the commissioners to
sign.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Ward MOVED and Commissioner Rudy SECONDED a motion
to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. The meeting was
adjourned at 10: 25 p.m.
R ectfully submitted,
Jam P. Harris, Secretary
8
Kent City Council Meeting
n \ Date June 7, 1988
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT: ADULT ENTERTAINMENT
ESTABLISHMENTS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The proposed amendment to the zoning code
defines adult entertainment establishments, adds them to the list
of adult uses, and regulates their location with respect to
protected uses . The Planning Commission recommended these
changes at their public hearing on May 31, 1988 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Minutes of Planning Committee meeting, May 31, 1988,
staff report to Planning Commission, May 10, 1988 and May 31, 1988
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission
(Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc . )
5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember 9 ✓ moves, Councilmember —seconds
to adopt the zoning code amendments recommended by the Planning
Commission relative to adult entertainment establishments and to
-- direct the City attorney to develop an ordinance implementing
same.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4E
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
May 31, 1988
access to the site. The variance would be in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of the Master Program.
-.. Grace Studer, 25607 West Valley Highway, felt that the public welfare
would not be preserved and that it would affect her everyday life. She
was concerned about evacuation of the area in case of an emergency and
felt that the additional cars from the development would impact Meeker
Street. She did not feel that the area should be developed with that
degree of density.
Dan Smith, owner of Smith Farms, 26614 68th South, pointed out that a
dairy farm is located close to the proposed development and their
special system of utilizing manure might be objectionable to some of
_ . the residents.
Donna Stewart, 26407 West Valley Highway, stated that she realized that
the entrance met the emergency requirements but felt that one access
road would be insufficient in case of an emergency. She submitted a
petition requesting the variance be denied. She mentioned talking with
several firemen who agreed that an additional road would provide
greater access in case of an emergency.
Mr. Harris stated that the Police and Fire Department Chiefs had
reviewed this issue and their concern was about the width and paving of
the road. He read from the record the Fire Department' s comments.
Commissioner Martinez MOVED and Commissioner Rudy SECONDED a motion to
close the public hearing. Motion carried.
Discussion followed regarding the issue of one access. Mr. Harris
pointed out that the variance has only one issue, that of paving the
dike that is underneath the bridge.
Commissioner Biteman MOVED that the Commission approve the request for
a variance to allow the placement of an impervious surface within the
shoreline setback area. Commissioner Rudy SECONDED the motion. Five
commissioners approved the motion, Commissioner Stoner abstained.
Motion carried.
AMENDMENTS TO ADULT USE REGULATIONS
Mr. Satterstrom presented a memorandum from Sandra Driscoll, City
Attorney, regarding the regulations that relate to time, place and
manner of topless dancing. A memorandum from Rod Frederiksen, Chief of
Police, was presented regarding the Roadside Tavern and the City of
Bothell 's experience with the amount and types of crime that were
involved in this type of business. Also included was the verbatim
excerpt from the City Council meeting of May 3 , 1988. In 1982 the City
2
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 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
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
May 31, 1988
To: Planning Commission
From: Fred N. Satterstrom, Senior Planner
Subject: Revised Staff Recommendation on Adult Cabarets
After coordinating with the City Attorney's office on this issue, the
Planning Department staff has a developed a revised recommendation on
the adult cabaret zoning amendment. First, the definition has been
changed from an adult cabaret to an "adult entertainment establish-
ment. " Second, .adult entertainment establishments have been added to
the list of adult uses. And, third, libraries are proposed to be added
to the list of protected uses.
Planning Department staff will further explain the proposed amendments
at the continued public hearing on May 31.
The revised staff recommendations are as follows:
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 characteri-
zed 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 custom-
arily 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.
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
-, May 10, 1988
To: Planning Commission
From: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Subject: Proposed Zoning Code Amendment: Adult Cabarets
The Mayor and City Council have recently directed the City staff to
develop land use regulations relating to adult (topless) nightclubs
or cabarets. This action emanated from the recent proposed topless
"pop-shop" on West Hill near the Fred Meyer store.
The City of Kent presently maintains land use and locational regula-
tions for adult theaters and bookstores. These regulations were
adopted in 1986 and require that such uses be located a minimum of
1000-feet from four types of protected uses: residential zone dis-
tricts, churches, parks, and schools. However, these regulations do
not currently apply to adult cabarets.
Based on the testimony of persons at the City Council meeting of
May 3 , 1988, and the City's own study of adult uses (November 1982) ,
these types of uses have some adverse land use impacts which need
to be mitigated. One of the primary ways to mitigate their impacts
is to properly locate these uses in the City. This may be accomplished
through zoning, as was done for adult theaters and bookstores.
Therefore, the Planning Department recommends that the following defi-
nition of "adult cabaret" be added to the list of definitions in
Section 15. 02 of the Kent Zoning Code:
Adult Cabaret is a commercial establishment which presents
topless dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators,
or similar entertainers and which excludes any person by
virtue of age from all or any portion of the premises.
Further, staff recommends that adult cabarets be added to the defi-
nition of adult uses in Section 15. 02 . 008 of the KCC. By so doing,
adult cabarets will also be subject to the distance requirements
mentioned above and detailed in Section 15. 08 . 270.
y r R rT
d d D 0 0 >K O n
P b !i 1 C g O 1 N J In P N P K W g N N O G1 7 A N 1
b N y q
J \ 6 G O q C p n q n oO N N r K n j N O N O r
q N 1 a O Y •r q q N �C ••'p O 1 O N 6 q N -1 J � "'I C •"I K� �V
m r d r S 1 R O 1 K n 0 J O^ry �P b •J S b S S N S � S 9 G
pp V O O q q q q q q ^ q n l
000 n i° qq N O �� > n �qO snip CVI L n L Oi
^
o
�O ( l O O '� S•� 'p 1 n q
p O +�','.n uq q On0 qq faN D O. 1 O. qq a6
v H 9 n g S T
' q n J Nil T C n N q
J n Y N p N IO J� r.W V P C O '.' q n -r �K ~ � r K
q ••� o p q q �•C r •� �3 P N n N or
MO r n n O d N vl J O In n 3 7 n v
S t a t 2 q b 't H S Y O nl q O O a n O r !1
1 T y P r 3 r C y n N n A q O ^ n n n r ao
n n n
qo nq y s s v c n q J a
EN v -i ^ .N. •-� nPg
r.p A p �_ -_� D V N A L nLL `•C Jn q A
1 G N N � •�
C.
W 1V n O q q� p n O yqj m yCi •y q P LL I j K n N � �{ �N N
K n_O O
r K N N j o x
O N
nq 1g1 �b N0 l�ngdn `^ 7T � N0 Kq GO N
O
1 . J q N• d q O r b N 7 G r n � N K r' N
I[ Sr N O Sy n
jg �O ;r p
ma d O y 3 P 6; A.. 6 P g n N a O n q n n C O S
l nN wb ~ N yOngK qq J_ •R SS 1 l7 ? l
q q
�N lK�nr.O nj1 Nb NN � 11d q 6 •l p �
n y 7 1 O N J N n 9 N ^
P� qn a s N 3 1
O
n n� n J l
� l 3 N r
O lG• �O D.ON Oq q`< G• N � �< 1
Lr 6--`� -h 1a-". •a•K 'r x1n xOr a jb n bn •.Ox SmI0
-• \ a -O q O q N P O S 01 S•'•O q 0 J S < O O a -1
V N p N n a -� N .N.. D •-•q q`0 9 r9 n K N K ± K
\ SC Kb1r a r O 1SN yd Q O 6S ds
m •.] r n ,.q N L K q V O a D O q K^ K 1 r• (n 0 . -
K •"'q N O n+S
y 1 r�.n vq rn bno
t0 r n 6 n C 0 0 N N V I C •w r q K l P n r q
K^ K• O i „K• r. J V l O,n q q O b r r. C P n
O V b b r O r O J y . r q 0 i 3 q S p W C1
O> On0 •-1 AO WN JnD� A 1. 0 .
N1nq O N61p —• N •-• drgq pl •--`
N C � O b S J q 6 n 6 q q p a d�W• N q r J 6 q O
, O O q n •n r i n O N O O 1 1 q • O• N q
K N j K N C N 1 D n n -�1 M n n
0 . n K K N K n K v a qO c q o q N n
Kpr dS016 O OOq r•��dC C yN JtGfa INnC ON7N P cIK p
n� Onp onqo
M 7 1 1 1 a -+
0 oKb n �=qn q 0
og1 , Nnl „ r nqK oq n o < -�
a J r g S S d K n K 9C N y N C n q
L A r a IC K J S S S n� 0o n N O •. N O� „v r1 No oogo 3sNgn-.. q nn
_.. „ qNv rN C c c c1 q a vl Halo W i q n 1a Pn o. o
1r N NN A On;� C p n K n OJN n q q 0
n q K 10 n 0 b a a b n 1 3 n n O g y �` d O r 0 1 b • O b no P N
S 1 Vq O 70 SI Pn Sp K'� 1 ao J ao dJngN P� C)O•
q O W N. n 6 n Q. r b L K q J 1 S q 0 n O P r.n > > n u q 1 y
cx c 3 ? I�'r�o o i�� m i01 ngingc
's x "C ± q q q• s Y n
7 A ST K q qqr+n N > Rq Olr q K�NN 00
IOn OS6 n nK =O a ORq 10... nOr.O .C.. �• ••{
..• OSp SO
10d O p0 � I r xObOq � Mq i�Vl± 1NN
1 N V K T 0 0 {n 1 0 0�"'" N O
I nJi• SK1 + d ar ONq ; ' J, _N dnN O �7 rNN �nm nq1
q q S n c o s x n q o s 3 s a o
m m P� o v ^ � a ^c o I o u �y P µ•..�'� " I°i m g q � °:� �N o n n K` Iqr`
1 N q 9 b 0 •.. P C 1 O N g n O q q j j N Y.� n r .q.•q O N + S
... O1 N . r �S�J ITSgN N q AO • K r'O1N
+ N v O N n 0 Q r ^ r �j 6 N r d a < 6 O A S O N S
q a T q q n
+^� nr��A � p0 � � nHU �� rK�1A ,i•r`�1 r Nq 1n OJ .+
6 a0 K 1 � Oq � O nr� rb � �O rr` ^ n OOr
nPN O.TS1p 0; + IyNaN R< nY RO nN n N aµ , 6 'q
O q q M 6 P q K y N -, r r ±•�
n n N O
o. q N n J N N
q K q J S q 1 J N a q q r n N r q
O 0 1 7b r N t q 40 j.N
n 0 P`C O P r A 1
rR+ q Va rS 1 On 01 -yN -I.7b J 00 N rq rq
� ON dq Or 33, N00 Knq n1 °' anq OC » ? rp•n
v b n o b K M J N 3•'•• •� n �uCi Kq ..a Kn fn'1 1S0 N 6 r C N g R
1 SN N 3 An J P O rq N N n 0 O .� F ^ D.V ±
I q
O 1 a H q q• y Y x 7 > ;1 ;OII n a 0 a + n O n q S p g J
d o 1 r 0
d o+M C b n 1 r n O' A n q n O n V I
• fi n O N O q •1 O r O n O O N � = r N q q N R N Y k K O
0.
..•. � � n o 3 n � d o ^` R C S In R n N r r q
w N +i W 1 d N µ N 1 O10 ++n•`�
� N A q q`v 1 `•f 'o q 1� O � n � ��� r q S S N n r[f w n O �
I'
. ;1
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 7, 1988
Category Bid Opening
41. UBJECT: SURPLUS PROPERTY SCENIC WAY
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening for sale of the surplus
property on Scenic Way was held May 18 . One bid was received
from Jack Bigford in the amount of $3 , 300. The bid exceeds the
minimum required bid, therefore it is recommended the bid be
accepted and the staff proceed to transfer ownership of the
property.
3 . EXHIBITS•
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: r, �
Councilmember moves, Councilmember l�tJ seconds
that the bid in he amount of $3 , 300 be accepted and staff
proceed with transfer of ownership in the surplus property in
the vicinity of 520 Scenic Way.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No . 5A
SI I BE 222 81
�^ a 222 el
8 224 81 l " uu{ 8E 22181
8 221 PI 1
BE22d81
Ke ty Hall _ Lo�;atioln Map
o Ice Station 3 BE2a261
v Kenl '
Library � 82348I �qp.,� norlalP rk "
It 238 at
Cloud Ef 'z u E2 49
Junes 81 -
» - 241it—
listen 81
un
r•' .; " > WT siri ne ' r Ir 11 92/a9 9E244Bam81 .iIlh 81
r _ CL " N
yy MeeNer6t �'//d� �
' J ow• E6 p aS e€4�L
It 6 _ d r Cs 1pus Park
..Jrco
h yvh
q Wolnut
•• n Mapleple
HI
828181 52E261 Ln 2 ^�
_ k 1 in �Q
/ ' O
8 Zee el 1AU
" N•,. 'r i .1 � e
Ln
DECLARE AS SURPLUS
0-FOOT STRIP VICINITY
�• ' ' 520 SCENIC IJAY
F rRA1SAL.S'
- A FULL SERVICE APPRAISAL COME
_ i
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 7, 1988
Category Bid Opening
1. SUBJECT: SURPLUS PROPERTY 102ND AVENUE SE AND 240TH
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening for sale of the surplus
property on 102nd Ave. SE and 240th was held May 26 . One bid was
received from 0. F. Benecke in the amount of $3, 350 which meets
the minimum required bid. It is recommended the bid be accepted
and the staff proceed to transfer ownership of the property.
.3 . EXHIBITS•
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember QOW moves, Councilmember L J seconds
that the bid in Qhe amount of $3 , 350 be accepted and staff
proceed with transfer of ownership in the surplus property in
the vicinity of 102nd Ave . SE and 240th.
DISCUSSION: YLAD
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No . 5B
0
8188SI N I
0 r
.... 820281 200 SI e
4
820891
820831 207 P1
44
. 521781 u
N 8 713 PI
J
6
fir
821881 a
1,
B 218 SI
Y,1. ffi � . °22081 < 01 _
y N 8E 22281
,rf.: 1 822461 � N NSE 221 SI
i. 8227 P1 a eE 22881
?a� a 22" BE 22 is
Ke t Hall _ b
y ry � � BE 2,1LB1
°1 olice Station 6E 2a261
�p N
Ke
..� t Library 8234at e n 144v.11 nornlle,Prk F 3 33
t N .�( < x N 8278 • N
a I u C < a QBl
Jemee 8l C V
'.� at 8 241 f-- t,
�. O 61 WTem rums n _�. r I Il 821u
r < V IIh 81 2 a r r u L kk BE 21J
a , J _ N e �-
W Me So
J owe • --7 rn/ H q•�qv' b; 8€t16
c I' Hen a �� � ' -- - C°niD g w
r C
Ibar a rpul Perk 3
n
ti E 1'
w S I
H Mac �I� LIN U°
Walnut
2 IJePIe at
82818t N 2 SI
`.Location Map ',
0. 111 rIS288si N
E
Liz
uu8 277 81 '
' 2
". PROPERTYAT "
n240.th, and• 0'nd:= =
OLYMPIC APPRAISALS
.. A PULL SERVICE APPRAISAL COMPANY 'i�
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 7, 1988
Category Bid Opening
1. SUBJECT: SMITH STREET IMPROVEMENTS (FIRST TO JASON)
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening was held May 19, with five
bids received. The lowest responsible bid in the amount of
$590. 900.7.2 was submitted by West Coast Construction. �Lt—Ir�
recommend" the bid be accepted and contract awarded to West
Coast Construction.
3 . EXHIBITS: Bid summary and a memorandum from the Director of
Public Works
4. RECOMMENDED BY: St ff
(Committee, Staff,, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRE $590, 900.72
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Se Attached Memo
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION,;/
Councilmember QdM moves , Councilmember seconds
-Lhat the bid in t e amount of $590, 900.72 from West Coast
Construction be accepted for Smith St. improvements (First to
Jason) be accepted.
DISCUSSION: ✓W
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No . 5C
CDI� I� i e•r wT�
o a m nz
o3 i
N _ N t0 O m -•N
to N m 01 r N N r J N -i
m V N f C C -•CP A
to (D w 3 co w 3 J m
m -i cn v 0) O to D m
.... D N N o rn N 3m
1 =
A
00 O
O C
m
o m . M v J w A A Cn F j z 0 O m
z • s w J o m C m •m o tow m
o • o D ,� j a 9 z 0 a 3 0- win z
Ot Oi m O O"O m 0 000 LM
N
a w w a
�. N NC1 O ztG D
o J r J rr a �to a
m l+ m -
J C M m
M tv + O m.0 n c < C+ JC ci z -••m a m J J
A
N N N m • O J fit" O O
ID
J Z J Z N m m
O O Z m to
�.m �.M m
a a m z
� 9
C
CD J
p rtV+
r
O A O O _
N W N O w O N [T O 'S Ln t7
N V O O to 'o O n A E
Ln N O O O O N [n O m N
C)
O C) O
Z O
bf M ls•f 4•1 M bf M M fYl n C
ui 0, a o
01 0) 01 N m A O
N 01 •--' O N A A A O D
C) rn m o o cwi, o o
V N O O N O O t0 O J
N N O O O O O O O C+ O
Z
M M /a'f b H bf M C D
rF O
V A O Z
W O t0 O
O
N O N O N O O 0 Z
N O O O N O O m Ln
A
C
C7
0 i
M b'r M M M M M O C-
e+ O
N W G Z
rn w w w w to
A A A A N O n O
w O O V V O 3
al O O N w O O
V O O O O O O J Z
N O O O O O O CT n
M 64 M M M M H
C
0� J
N
• C+ O
O O O -Z
N O w O W W O -1
O O _ N
- R)
O O O O O n D
O O O O O O p m C.L
C)<
o m
6T to +M 64 H i4 bf h �ti
n O N O Z
A O O w w N O
-• w w N N A O n
w O A O w O 3 Z
N O O O O w O O n
C
O O O O O O O J
O O O O O O O A
a �13
o N Im n z
r-" s CD
to m 3 O 3 = ...
m N a
1 O CD - N
W W N
m OAl O A W t0 O h m
(T N r 0 a m
--4 n o r m < -a .
N lC C(D Z Z S
N N 0 t+ O
O
d m
o w m
3 J ? N ? < V V rD N rD w O -1
O rD 0 h ro Vl tT 10 (T Z N O 3 Vf
`a m + ton a+ a rn .. co o <
y j W(A w ? f? ' o O rD
D a = n c
StQ O O rD --4(n -1 N rD Z
w -i J O • O O O r+
n -1 ti rD
eD on
rD
m r0 N (DD fD O
0 -� 0O �.m
0 CD
N 3 r
o D 0
c
rf m
0
W W J N �Z
N O N
fli :r �.•-I O
O 0 A
O tr O O O O O rD
--i --1CD
a
Z O W
N N w ,O •-I r
A
'CO oO io in y a
O V N O
co A N 3 Z
W V O tli O
AO t�Tr O O O O O r+
O
Z
to to b d"r H C a
c+ O
Z
W J N
Vt W co ;n -S.00
O N OD O r Z
O O rT O O rD
Ln ..
A
C
n
M M M M 44 O
r+ O
cc m
N m A _ N
A W O C ,--i
Oi O O N O Z
0 o O o o
tw b+ 61 +n to
c
r+r
_ o
W � Z
Ol N Qr ,O �.
O O O O O n ;c a
O O O O O rD
--1
r-•O m m
r+ CD
C
N N w 2
� 10 O
IV J 1p V O D
N V N 3 Z
O� N O O OCD
O O
C
O O O CD O e+
CDO CD
1+ W N
O (D rt T
m w N O l0 O] V O1 j tT A W Z D 3 2
to
m r N C) N •--' J N A C w •rt z
m c o v
a O O o m co
V�i n a t0 D m
m m C D o <
N o
c D D w
rD
m r r c y O e 3
3 D m m 3 z _M v
_rt N m
0 rF C
O C
can -1J 3N cD
L 3
rD w w a C rD Z rD r N too m
z > > a w & a m w m WN z
C 3 (D (D rD N N r+ (D rD O j n W J co y
3 3 3 3 rt ( rt •O
m a a a ai ri (n o(o rt <
a o z z om
�f N rD rD rt 'S C n N
fp •'-( -i J N rD rD
j n(DD v
a
V D n J 0 0 frtD
N 3 D O (D
rt t0 _ D Jc C N I N
3 a m J i N Z rt N O w w
E <.m
(D O rt O j
o m n n art
Z �
C N
w
rt
bs �,•. to b+ M (w e» a+ 6+ err �•'*
c
w
°'
O W O O N Z H
CDC)O N N -� In -' co m CD O
O C [T O to O A to O
O O O CDO O to O O O O (D n N •�
.� D
O n W
Z O
61 61 !» 69 61 6•I 6? 6'f bf b'f M rt C)(D C
W N (T w 0-I r
C W N N O (T Cl tT co W O
O Cl (T N O N W N O
O O O O O Vi N m A O V O O
C
O O O O O O cn O O O
O O o C O O O O C O O rt O
rn •Cl
rto
to W w C w Z
CD C w _ CD o
CD O N N -' Nr V O O pC
O O to V A N O C (D Z
O O m O N O V fr O O O (D Ln
C
n
en s+ to to b+ br ',+ to er. ('•' C+ o
w cn a z
V1 Ol N N C Ut N A C m D O
O O to w A w (� O C 3
O O N O lTi m O C m C
C O O O O to cn O O O w Z
0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (•+•c�
to to to b+ M to 6n 4a M 6•r bs
c
w
w .
rt n
0
w c w vz
O N W O C
O O W O O
�
O O C) to W O v O O O O .'O>
D
O O O C CD (n O O O O m m K
o
C.mm
Z A
en r+ En a,n bf av M M M bs b+ o r
w v a o z
W N W D• O
o N N N m A N N N C _
C fn to V o m W A O O to O O
C o C O ClV Oc O O
C
O O O O O O In O C O O
O O O O O O O O O O O rt
W ;V
O rt T M
m a z
w w w W N N N fD N N N 3 O •"� ""
m w N o tD co V z rn A z �03 x
o m w
rt m m r H 1
N N o rt m
m m N m
a a D n O N O N V tC < •m-f ....
n x rD
fn n n C t, C ~
_(D
ID C' C
O G
m
v E> n A 3 D J c•3
co d a d d •n •M z -t '* m d z to d m
o rt c.,. c' O c.. n n M d d o- d CO w z
c.,. (D c n .•s •c rD m = < w e •v o �, W o --i
CD z v, o v, z o 0 rD w n o i to
n rt n rt of rt W C d -n a
rt M com < a S rD 0- o <
d O d d CD << N
fp LSD J n N >
to Z < 3 d n w 0 n J m
M (D rD d 0 Z X 0 w 0 M
m(D IDrD rD rt o n d
X rt Z w n fl H
d o £ n o
O 4e�•tD N O O N
a TSK c > C
N d 0 0
to (D o 0
C m
en er+ V+ fn bf bs b+ bn e» 6+ v
A o
N W
rtn
w o o to 0
CD co o tD o 0 o
0 0 0 o V o 0 o J � v
0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o rnD c m
Cl (D Cl O
y � n
Z O W
!» M bf b'f b'I 61 6•f M M M rt n fnn C
�•,� -• A tD d C-I r-
N N N W W N --
N W N N O O to
CD CD ODN _ O CD O Z
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n
O O O O O V N O O o
C O O O C N O O O C rt O
Z
Ns er+ to b+ �++ trs ♦,+ yr 6+ b+ c n
A tD -i
co N W �•CD
J rt CDw _ (D O CDZ
O O O
O O O O V m W O O O J•O
O O O O W O to O C C o Z
O O C o O O O O O m y
A
C
n
61 b1 br f!f M M M t» 61 !Yf �y,C
A N A N W O co , d 2
Ot A V N W-� n
A C to m W N O O O O
C O O O co O O O
C o O O N A O O O O C •-+
O O O O tT O O O O C Z
O C O C o C o O o C Cf n
fn M (R bf 6M 6'f f/f f» M 4M
_ C
A W
W N (T •..
rt n
N to N C o (D �Z
tr O O O
O O O O Di O O O O O -1 •N-(O
O O O O O O O O A
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C o rD n K
-�
o
C)m m
z x
M M df M 6'f M M M N M 0,nr.
W Cl A W d O Z
N N mO W N lti O •.
A O V N O O O
O O O CD O N O O C CD 3 Z
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o n
c
O O o C o O O C C C
O Cl O O O O O O o O rt
i
w- X
.... CD p N 2 0-
W O A A A J A W W W W W 3 O
CD
-I
m O A W N �D 40 V Oi Cn A Oa _
to rt O m - N ,
m N O� V A N U1 --' ---' r N l0 -' C �
m C) O A A C Go •rt A
m o 0 o a n n o °J a a c a m
z r*t o o to a o
O c z c c 3
Z v y 3 m y
N A
o rt o
o m
v
O Z a j J O j 9 0 O A 0O w m
w
w z a J W rn o 9 w = cN z
a m n < o ro n r a co O -+
0 m o c rU w fi Z n fD 3 O N
o n > rt a rt m w 0 a
C n O m�G J rt O 0 >
c ra w x m ra = F <
O t0 n O O w o
CD
n rt rt N w t0 �..• O
y ° w w O a) rD
a n m
r o i o s m m CD C+ -' N 0 n
m s o w m o
<
ro n w m '_ w ro
m
rt rt
m �
z � �
rn
H H H H H H H H H
H H C
N N •-" O�
F C)
V A O N W O 0 H
V Z
O O CD G N ClO O -4 p
N O V O O O O O N O O A A S
O O to O O O Cl O O Cl rD C m
f7 N
CD C
- z o
H H H H H H H H H H H H rt m y C
ro a C. a r
O A W W N W N
�O O A A O V A o
O W O O m N O
O O O V N O O O O ICJ O O O n
N O O to O O O O O O O O rt O
.•. rF M Z
H H H H H H H H H H H
_ c n
o �
v W rt O
p V T O W W Z
O O O O O
A co v O O O O cT O O J n
N O O O O O O O rn O O n Z
O O O O O O O O O O m
A
C
O
H H H H H H H H H H H H O C)
a z
.... W A N W -' O
�O
W O m 6 O V m O In V W O
Cn Ot O N co O N O O O O O
N N O N O O O O O O O O C
Oi Cn O O O O O O O OO O O 2
rr O C O O O O O O O
H H H H H H H H H H H
_ C
O
W
rtf
O Oi O N N O
O O O C O O 7 Z
O� N O N O O O O T CD CDJ y O
O O O O O O O O C O O n .�
...» o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o ro
C+3
O m
Z A
H H H H H H H H H H H H O r
4- a o z
cc W A N N W O
A l0 A J W tT C m C m oo
W o O W O Cl O O O O O 3 Z
A O O O O O O O O O O O C n
rr O O O O O O O O O O O rt
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rt
h az�
o a
m
o (�D n
to
m m Z twn 'o rn co <•mm-I ....
y (n N O N 3m
a �
3 < 3 m v
A
oo o
o m
m
>o o w m
0 o va M noo, z3 n� v CO0 =
m rn m � E o c0 mo _ coo -1
o
a w > > > N a
o o eN ry
+ 0 w to m coo Sao j ? _.
n x
nZ n � .m -•a m > >
�c 3 ac 3 3 N J 3 � r* •-f
w
0 O
0 O 00 ..
N m N m O m
O 'T N
m �D N
p p E
m
W O
W
O O O
W CD
O O O N W O J Z G
in cn c -n
0 0 0 0 0 0 o (D Z "
'^ a
� m
0 c
en �.•. to s+ to fn en � C') c
o N l0 V tp J Z
w o io J o c
V C O
n m o
O O In O O O c =
0 Cl 0 0 0 0 o f+• p
z
M M bl 4^ N bf M M (A C
N �
V
K
W N N l0 V C C�
O o o w w O j 0
Z
O n fn
O O O O O O O O O (D � � ....
C•
f7
-I N
0 C) 0
b* bs to b•f vs bf bs bs �+ rt -oi
N a -i
co co co
O
W O 00 W A -' O �.
V W A l0 V Vl J O
O fn N O O C
O N O O O O O O O r
o c o 0 0 0 0 0 o rt
to 61 W 61 to M 6+
m
c
A o
M
CD m
N O V O Z
N O
O O O O O O O n Z
O o 0 0 0 0 o m m. ._.
A
m
N bT Hs H 6.1 61 b4 O N
t-F�
C N O) a
rn tp O A _' N p
O� 00 -• A A O -I
w O A v A A O m
07 O O o O 00 O C
O O O O O O O 9+
O O O O O O O P*
Ln o O ^�
O N C I Z I Z (D G l
S -' •yr
C) x
fw* N J C:) C)
J Z
(T rt O rD --'N
l0 N A W .rt
J
«• A
m CT O A w b J m
J J N r r0 DI.m
-{ C) O r m 3< -i
... C) N � T N 7 rr
N rt O O f C 3
rD Z Z O v
N N A
� t0 rt O
a o 3
m
< L
N Z Vr � 3 l 3 Z 70 A ID OD m
< fD'O rD .C N O . o F d "O d W H Z
< V V CD N rD CD O -I
J rD 0 rt S rD (T Vl Vl Z N J J Vl
<D rt H CD
H J •�•D �•N •• W n D
D� w wa J r J rt ..� o <
rD a J f) 7
St0 O'S O CD -/N -1(n O C
N ft \M \ S rt S rt N-+. rD rD
O -•J v r+ --
W N ry ry p O
o - W _ F �,m �n 3
J J ID 1 rD <n
rD
c o v v m
0 c D V
�
0 fD O
Z
H H H M H
C.C)
« J O
�.W W
rt �•
N
N •o O "�
O O O O O 0 C'>
O O O O O CD Z
y D
;a
� W
C
H H H H H
W A J N W O
CD r
..... C.ft Oi N �
Z D
v C) W �.
O A co
O (T O O O O
C Z
O O O O O
O O O O O rt O
Z
H H H b1 H M H
C
J
W W W W N CD
C
N C) m co CT A A Z
•Z p
l0 W CD O V O IV O N
C:) C) CD O O O O CD
C.
n
C- C7
H H H H H H H O O O
CD
C
co N CT -' Cl O n
CD A A v O Ul 3
W CT N N Vi Oi V O
C
A W O O W O O J
Cl O O O O Cl O rt
H H H N H
C
J
m
w w w v Z
w o m o o -10
0 0 o c c m z
0 0 0 0 o m m
A
N
- m
H H H H H O n
_ rt
N W d
A A A O
co
m V W 3 m
X O O O O O
C
O O O O O C) C) C) O CDC
rt
--I N rt
OrD
a L - a 0.0 -f
W N N J N V J A W 0 3 2
m W N O 0 W
t0 r N _ N •0,�
J A C a •C+.�
m 3 o rn o m
m i a o CDo m tin t�i, D 'o m (a D m
m m O D O rn W a -i
to D D to J a(b ...
m r r c y o tcc3
D T T = Z N v
rt ti z
o0 o
C
m
CD r r r J J C+0fD c m c� D �c•m
m a a a a rD a .v Cow ...
> > rD a a
C ol N rD (D V1 to e+rD (D O ? O j coo
Crt �
CD a of a 0 0 c) m La f* D
Z 0 O J b. n. (D
(D fD f0 0 O rD fD (D
a
n fl (D � c
3 n z A J a
40 v v n a rD i > >rt
N (D (D rD - t0 rD
N
3 m < o ct v rt Z rn < < _..
£ a m rD
a a
rt n
o Y m o. r7 D rt
a
rt
H H bf H H H H H H bt H
c�
A O
O N W p
rt �+
O W
O O W W -' N N A O O
o a o o o o 6
O Cl O O O O O O CD O O (D Z ,� M
N D
--1
A p
fi •q C
A a r
O W W _' N m -.Z ..
O W W W O A V t0 N tT A y D
O O O w O co O tli O O V1 3 y
O O O O O O O N O O <T O �^
C 2
O O O O O O O O O O O C O `•
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o rt• o
H H H H H H H H H H H
c
W �
V W W V
(T O
O O
O O (J1 O C. A O O t0 rD VI
CD O O O CD O O O O O O O rD
c. _
f7
-1 N
H 0 CD C)
N H H H H H H H H H O O
rt 2 -
W to a i
Ot W N A
O _
V tT N N O Ut V W W V C D
to O (D J O A v A cctD 01 3
O CD (D O O [T N O O V c
O O O O O O O A O O V
C. O O O Cl O O O O O O
H H H H H H H H H H H
c
W �
O N _
rt
N - N CD
m
Ot O CD O
N CD mW CD N O W O, O O W 'S O
O O O O O O C O O O O n Z
O O O O O O O O O O Cl rD m
m
H 0 m
H H H M H is H H H H K
IT a
O
Ot A tT W O N tr tD 00 O N D•--I ^
Ol O O W O fn to W O O N m
N O O O O O O m O O tD a
O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O t'*
CD m (n
O O rt -n 3
W rp W W J W N N N rD
.•.N m O W N O t0 00 V Z (T O 2
o
rt o m -•tn
rD ja N N rt m m
m N N rD fn
m :I- D > D Cl 0 0 -{ -i v <•m-i
to 3 rD
w
-n[ 3
A
O0 O
G
o m
v 0 D n A w D n -1 0') n
a w a w cow a rD D z s �+ m a z Co w m
o rtw• rt > >c,. a B w w w z a v w Cow
w c.•, m e n •--•s c m rD = < 0 c 'o o
3 (D m n rD on o -s On
r+ (+ .
c (+ 3 W =rD rD m e w -n n <
M G O w a3 �n CD W Z Z O
rt rt w D o c w o w ID rD
.._ rD .o c» o n in m
-s < w a z s n ] rD J m
O fD a rD 00 rD
c�m z a rD c n w w o
w z rt_ rD rD rt 0 n
X
.... O w
£ T O n n
w
Qe -'•rD W O O N
-na rt N C = ' E3
S�* rt rt
A 'Z
rD w
O O
rD r3D
rt
Cf b'f b" M
_ C A
A N 3 O
N co N N W CO
rt
p O O O N
0 o o c vo a
0 0 0 a w o w o o c J =
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o -0 n
....., O O O O O O O O O O rD Z .�
'n D
A �
254 c
b9 M 64 en b+ b4 M b•, bs �+ o n e
rt -i
N N O CO 00 co A N w �-• r
...., ...• -. N � l0
N N O N N V l0 O O O y D
O O O O O O O O O O O •-' ~
c Z
O O O O O O O O O O = n Fr
O O Cl O O O O O O Cl rt C
Ia'f M 6n bf fY'1 H M M M b'1
C
., -• Na CD
N �O
rt
O O O O O O O Z A
O O O C v tT C O O O n N
O O O O (n O O O O O rD A S
._• C
n
-1 N
a n
bf bn M 69 M 69 • M 6'f 6•s b'f 0 Z O
N a o w
W Ol N a
O
O A W O w A v C O
Cl
V
O O C M N O O In
O O O O V 00 O C O O O
C
O O O O O O O O O rt
0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 o rt
_ c
A O O_
,• � Du N O
f?
Cl W _ O O W m
O rn ClC O O v A Z
O O O O A O O O
O O O O O C O O O o n 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m
_• A
m
4 r b1 b b+ !a+ b+ M b f w b9 o cn
+ 3�
J N J ? co n
W O � 00 N O
m on m Qi Cn V V O O W
C O O O O N N O Cl V D m
O O O O O O O O O N C
o Cl O O Cl O O O O O
O O O O o O O O C. O rt
_. � O Irt •m3 ._.
D G Z
W (D A A A J A W W W W W W B O --I
m O A W N O to coV 01 In A = �O S .
m w 01 V A N In -' --' r N (O --' • •--I
o o n a a °' n a o n m
< -
i -1 O OOC N < N=
o O Z O < c 3
Z N _(D O
to �
t rt O
O C
v m
M -1 m -fi N -C+3
O_ .'a = •S O n w r rD CD O (D j Z O O A l w m
O w "5 w a N a a T e CN Z
a C. C� < o (D n o 0 a rt m o -I
m O 3 c(D rt n rt 'T O- CD 3 z O fn
o n o J rt w rD o �i
o e w x rD �c = Y =r� <
O rt rt N a _f t0 r+ w
-I l< (D G (D J J O C-) (D O C
r O -/-h rt n c (D Z M d rt 0.
Z -s O -•= 0 (D rt m N S O
(D s o
CD w m' <<_ w m _.
m n a In Z n u,
rt rt
mto
H H bf H fa'f H H M H
o
N � O M y
_ rt
V O O N N CD
O O O O to C O'o
--� N co O O O O Ol O O J Z O
O O o O O O O O 'Cl O n n
O O O O O O O O O O (D Z
<n n.-o
A p
-4 C
H H H H H fsf bf 6'I H M O Cl C
W
° r
O O
O V N l0 tT (>7 O O N N D n
Oi C lD N O' O O O O (li O 3
co O N O O O O O co O o O •-�
c Z
O O O O O O O O O C O ❑ C')
C O o Cl O O O O O O p rt • O
Z
H H H H iN H H H H H H
C
rt
V p V O N N
Cn O W C)
O) W co O Ol CD O O Vi C O Z O
Z N
W O In O O O O C O O O n fn
O O O O O O O O O O O N �� _..
C•
C1
-i to
y• n
tfs H H O O H H H H H H H bf H O
rn rtz -I
O N a
O
W C •--' V 1p pi O W m p
to �O CD O� N O A l0 w 3
V Ul CDt0 O 0 C)01 O Cl O O O O
c
O O O fT O O O O O O O O O
0 0 o C Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 o rt
H H H H H N N 6T H H H
_ C
O
rt
O o to O N W m
O O O O O C Z
W cn O W O O O O rn O O Z M
C p O O O O O O o O O n Z
0 0 0 Cl Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D m _.
z
H H M N H H H H M H H H O N
CD rt -
w
CD o
IV kO Vi V O CD Vt O m O W D-I
O cn O N O O O Cl O O C m
l0 O C O O O O O O do O O O
c
C O O O O C O O O O O O CD O O CD CD O O CD O CD CD CDrt
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
JUNE 11 1988
TO: MAYOR KELLEHER 1AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON WICKSTROM
RE: SMITH STREET IMPROVEMENTS (1ST TO JASON)
Bid opening was held May 19 with five bids received. The low bid
was submitted by West Coast Construction in the amount of
$590, 900. 72 .
The project consists of widening of Smith Street from 1st to Jason
including overlay, rechannel ization, traffic signal revisions and
storm drainage improvements. City funds in the amount of $800, 000
have been budgeted for this project . Additionally, we have
received UAB ( $300 , 000 ) , FAUS ( $150 , 000) and State Overlay
( $ 60 , 000 ) funding . Construction costs are estimated to be
$649 , 000.
It is recommended the bid of $590 , 900 . 72 from West Coast
Construction be accepted.
BID SUMMARY
West Coast Construction $590f900.72
Atcon Construction 613 , 862 . 65
Gary Merlino Construction 648, 484 . 50
R.W. Scott 666, 397 .80
Engineer' s Estimate $703 , 209 . 00
R E P O R T S
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT
B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Al
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
D. PLANNING COMMITTEE
E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
J
n
F. PARKS COMMITTEE
G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
J-
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES oc ��98
May 16, 1988 �- &
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Christi Houser
Paul Mann
STAFF PRESENT: Brent McFall '" \
Tony McCarthy
Mike Webby
Charles Lindsey
May Miller
Tom Vetsch
OTHERS PRESENT: Jackson Carter Arai/Jackson Architects
APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS
All claims for the period ending May 16, 1988, in the amount of $1 ,322,641 .42
were approved for payment.
INTRODUCTION OF CENTRAL SERVICES SUPERVISOR
Finance Director, McCarthy introduced the new Central Services Supervisor, Tom
Vetsch. Tom came to the City after 18 years in the banking industry where he
served in multiple functions, but part of the duties involved that of being a
purchasing agent and the building facility manager. Tom's experience in both
those areas will be vital to the City, in addition, to his expertise in
computerized banking applications.
COUNCIL CHAMBER REMODEL
City Administrator, McFall introduced Jackson Carter of Arai/Jackson
Associates, who presented an updated version of the Council Chamber remodel ,
based upon additional discussions with City Administrator McFall . A copy of
the recommended remodeling diagram plus the remodeling budget totaling $67,000
were presented to the Council Committee.
Discussion following the presentation noted that the changes described could
µ be completed in two months following the award of the contract and that during
the two month interim period, the Council would probably hold meetings outside
of City Hall , possibly in conjunction with meetings in various areas of the
community. It was also noted in discussing the budget that the audio system,
Operations Committee Minutes
May 16, 1988
Page 2
though not included in the $67,000 budget, would be done in conjunction with
the improvements to the Council Chambers; and that any video enhancements
would be negotiated as a part of the upcoming negotiation on the cable TV
franchise for Kent.
Following this discussion, Council member Mann made a motion to accept the
proposal with one change, that being the City Clerk's staff position be
exchanged with those of the department head staff. This item was approved on
a 2 to 0 vote and recommended for a discussion at the Council meeting of
May 17. The architect noted that he could provide revised drawings for that
meeting.
WORKERS COMPENSATION CLEARING ACCOUNT AUTHORIZATION
Finance Director, McCarthy told the committee that the State Auditor's Office
had discovered in reviewing the City's Workers Compensation Clearing Account
that the staff had not obtained a formal approval from the' Council in setting
up this clearing account. The item had been discussed wi.th the committee
approximately two years ago and the initial account was established with a
zero balance. The process calls for Scott Wetzel , the City's Claims
Administrator, to prepare the checks and forward them to the City for approval
by the City's Personnel Department. Following their approval , a check is
issued from the City's main account to reimburse the claims account for the
total amount of the checks. To avoid the possibility or an overdraft it was
decided that the clearing account, which processes claims totaling
approximately $90,000 per year needed an established balance, currently
$2,000. The committee saw no problem with this practice and recommended that
the authorization be shown on the Consent Calendar at an upcoming Council
meeting.
WCIA 1988/1989 EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Assistant City Administrator, Mike Webby explained to the committee that the
68 member Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) had met last week both
Operations Committee Minutes
May 16, 1988
Page 3
in executive session and as a group and decided to recommend that the WCIA go
bare on its excess insurance coverage. Two quotes have been received prior to
the meeting from Cal Union, the current excess insurance provider and Reliance
Insurance Company. The quotes for excess coverage of $5 million were between
a million and two million a year. Based on the fact that the Authority in its
eight years of existence, having paid 3,000 claims, has never paid a claim
over a million dollars and it has no claims currently registered that have a
potential to exceed a million dollars, it was decided to save the insurance
premium providing its own excess coverage. To do this the Authority
established for itself the same excess insurance coverage of $5 million that
would have been provided with a purchase of insurance. The information was
brought to the committee as a point of information following past discussions
with the committee on providing the City's own excess coverage.
TEAMSTER UNION/MECHANIC LEAD WORKER SALARY RECOMMENDATION
At a previous committee meeting the committee authorized the establishment of
a lead mechanic in the Public Works Equipment Rental Division. Following that
approval a study of wages paid such a position was conducted with the Cities
of Auburn, Bellevue, Kirkland, Olympia and Renton. Based on a review of these
cities and with the City's own internal equity for positions, a pay range of
30 is recommended for this position. A pay range 30 places the position 3rd
from the top in the six cities including Kent and is 3 steps above the City's
current mechanics salaries. Based on these criteria, the staff is
recommending that this position be placed in the pay scale at a pay range 30,
which tops out at $2,664 per month. The Committee approved the recommendation.
TEAMSTER UNION-RELEASE OF POSITION JURISDICTION
Assistant City Administrator, Webby explained to the committee that he had
- made a request of the Teamster's Union to release three supervisory type
positions. Two positions were in the Public Works Department and one was the
Field Customer Services Supervisor in the Finance Department. The union
approved two of the requests, the one in Finance and the Operations Computer
Operations Committee Minutes
May 16, 1988
Page 4
Control Room position occupied by George Jett in the Public Works Department,
the other Public Works position was considered by the Union to be not a
supervisor position but a technical position and one they felt that they
should still cover. Based upon this request from the Union, Mike will be
preparing a salary range study for the two positions authorized to be coming
out of the union. It was noted in his presentation that these two positions
supervise other union personnel and that is the prime reason for them being
pulled out. It was noted in the questioning, that the employee benefit plan
for the nonunion members would be approximately the same as if they were union
but a salary study must be done based on the reclassifications.
66F-OlF
OPERATIONS COM14ITTEE MINUTES
June 1 , 1988
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Christi Houser
Paul Mann
._ Steve Dowell
STAFF PRESENT: Brent McFall l' `
Tony McCarthy
' Mike Webby
Charles Lindsey
Priscilla Shea
OTHERS PRESENT: none
APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS
All claims for the period ending May 31 , 1988, in the amount of $994,257.32
were approved for payment.
APRIL SUMMARY FINANCIAL REPORT
Finance Director McCarthy reviewed with the Committee the April Summary
Financial Report. In reviewing the report, he highlighted the fact that
June 1 was a large expenditure day because the City will be paying for the
land acquisition at the library site and paying approximately $2-1/2 million
in debt service payments. He noted in reviewing the investment and debt
schedules that the City had a large investment coming off on June 1 to pay
debt service on 10 outstanding bond issues. He also reviewed the revenues and
expenditures graph noting that the revenue picture was slightly better than
previously reported with an additional $150,000 for program expansion in
1989.
In discussing the April report, Councilman Dowell was desirous in knowing the
impact on utility taxes of potential rate increases by the garbage haulers .
Finance Director McCarthy told the committee that the impact of the garbage
hauler raising the garbage fees approximately $2 per residential customer
results in a rate increase of approximately 27 percent. This should produce
an additional $80,000 in garbage utility tax on an annualized basis. He noted
that approximately half of this amount goes into the General Fund. The other
half goes into the City's Environmental Mitigation Fund and will be used to
subsidize the curbside recycling program.
Operations Committee Minutes
June 1 , 1988
Page 2
RECLASSIFICATION OF BUILDING MAINTENANCE LEAD14ORKER
Assistant City Administrator Webby noted that he had met with Charlie Lindsey
and Frank Klingebiel on a number of occasions to discuss the change in duties
related to Frank 's position. Frank is the City's building maintenance person,
but with the assumption of the building maintenance function by the Finance
Department, a number of additional duties were added to Frank's duties. Frank
performs leadworker responsibility and has assumed grounds maintenance and
additional electrical and heating and air conditioning responsibilities. Mike
is proposing that Frank 's salary be adjusted from a range 24 to a range 27.
This amounts to a monthly increase of approximately $50. The Committee
unanimously approved the recommendation.
CLASSIFICATION OF TEAMSTER'S UNIT EMPLOYEES
As discussed with the Committee at their May 16 meeting, Mike informed the
Committee that he is proposing a salary range for two former Teamster's Union
employees that through negotiations with the Union it has been agreed that
these positions function more as non-Union positions. One position, Scott
Woods in the Finance Department, performs supervisory-type duties over the
meter reading unit which is a part of the Union. In Scott's case, the
proposed rate increase will be from a range 25 to a range 29. The other
position is comparable to an engineering technician position and has been
proposed to be reclassified from a range 27 to a range 28. The Committee
unanimously approved the recommendation.
LEASING OFFICE SPACE
At the request of the Council , City Administrator McFall investigated leasing
options at the Curran Law Building. The proposal was for $11 .00 per square
foot on a 5500 square foot building, for a monthly rental of approximately
$5,000. Brent noted we could obtain other space near City Hall for about half
as much and recommended against the Curran Building option.
Operations Committee Minutes
June 1 , 1988
Page 3
He also noted that Requests for Statement of Qualifications went out for a new
public/private facility either on a City site or other site. These are due
back by July 1 . The Committee concurred with Brent's recommendation in
directing the City's energy to the new building location.
66F-1F
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
MAY 10, 1988
PRESENT: JON JOHNSON GARY GILL
JUDY WOODS KEN MORRIS
BERNE BITEMAN MIKE LEDBETTER
DON WICKSTROM LYLE PRICE
BRENT MCFALL
Tacoma Green River Pipeline #5 Agreement
Wickstrom explained this is a second extension of the agreement
with Tacoma to share in the cost of the project. Wickstrom stated
he still views this source as crucial for our long term supply and
would recommend the City continue with the agreement. Tacoma is
now projecting delivery of water by 1993 from this project. The
Committee unanimously recommended approval for the Mayor to sign
the extension of the agreement.
G.O. Bond for 272nd/277th Corridor
Johnson stated he had asked this be placed on the agenda to
determine if there were any interest from the Committee about
placing a. bond issue on the November ballot for the 272nd/277th
Corridor. Johnson indicated since this is a presidential election
year it would be difficult to pass a bond issue next year .
Wickstrom added that the City is working with the County and other
valley cities in trying to develop a transportation benefit
district and resolve the legal problems . There is also a
county-wide G.O. issue that is being pursued. McFall added that
the City is close to having secured the private sector share for
the westerly portions of the 192nd/196th and 224/228th Corridor
projects through the mitigation agreements. The City does not have
its share for those projects so the funds from a bond issue might
be directed to constructing these projects to relieve some traffic
impacts in the valley. The 277th corridor might be more readily
included in a transportation benefit district. Johnson stated he
intended to add the other corridors in the issue. He added that
perhaps it could be contingent upon other agencies coming up with
their share of the funding. That way we wouldn't issue bonds until
they were actually needed. Woods asked what the position of the
Mayor' s Task Force on Traffic Congestion is on this issue. Johnson
Public Works Committee
May 10, 1988
Page 2
commented he would be discussing this with Jim White who is chair
of that task force. Wickstrom added the task force met last
Friday. At that time, the Mayor presented his proposals to the
task force and there was discussion about the councilmanic issue.
McFall commented the Mayor is concerned about the timing of the two
bond issues. Even though the Council intends to issue councilmanic
bonds in 1989, if the voter issue fails in November the public
might get the impression it didn't matter what they said. Johnson
stated we might be able to avoid this is by letting the public know
there are a couple of ways to fund the projects. One might be the
G.O. bonds and the other would be councilmanic bonds. They need to
know the projects are critical and that councilmanic bonds will not
fund all of the projects. McFall stated the City's CIP anticipates
the issuance of both types of bonds for the projects. Wickstrom
stated the task force also recommended the other funding sources be
pursued at the same time as trying to implement the 277th corridor
project. Biteman moved the pros and cons be developed and brought
before the Committee at their next meeting. Woods asked to add a
friendly amendment to add the recommendations of the Mayor' s Task
Force on Traffic Congestion to the analysis. Biteman accepted the
amendment. In discussion, McFall stated consideration will also
have to be given to the size of the bond issue. While $11 million
is identified in the CIP, that is not sufficient to do all the
projects. . The Committee approved the motion.
Army Corps of Engineers Special Area Management Plan
Wickstrom explained the Army Corps of Engineers is proceeding with
a Special Area Management Plan for the Auburn-Mill Creek area.
Portions of Kent are in that area. This stems from the recent
enactment of the EPA regulations associated with wetlands allowing
only one acre to be filled if property is within a wetland without
a special permit. This affects most of the industrial property in
Auburn. This plan would identify all the wetlands, identify which
can be enhanced and develop an implementation method. There will
be public notices and general meetings.
Stop Signs
Biteman asked for an update of a request he had made to look into
"striping" the sign posts. Biteman stated he thought this would
help reduce the accident rate as it would increase the visibility
of the signs. Johnson asked about making the signs themselves more
Public Works Committee
May 10, 1988
Page 3
reflective. Biteman moved that twelve intersections be selected
using the post striping on six and reflective signs on the other
six. Morris added they did analysis night accidents versus day
accidents. Only approximately one-third of the accidents in Kent
occur at night. Biteman asked about fatalities. Morris responded
there are about 5-7 per year and most occur during the day.
Johnson asked if there were any seasonal correlations that could be
made to the accident rate. Morris responded they had not looked at
that. Morris added the accident rate is fairly consistent at about
100 per month. On a per capita basis that looks pretty bad but
when the volume of traffic passing through the City is considered
the statistic is not quite as bad. The Committee unanimously
approved the motion.
Other Items
Woods asked about maintaining the small orchard on the reservoir
property. She asked that the trees be pruned at the appropriate
time.
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE L
JUN 3 1988
MAY 24 , 1988 CITY OF KENT
CITY CLERK
PRESENT: JON JOHNSON KEN MORRIS
JUDY WOODS PRISCILLA SHEA
BERNE BITEMAN JOHN BUCKLEY - R.W. BECK
DON WICKSTROM SYLVIA BURGES - R.W. BECK
SANDRA DRISCOLL RON VERNESONI - EPA
BRENT MCFALL MARK SHAFFER - CONVERSE
GARY GILL GREG WINGARD
UPDATE ON WESTERN PROCESSING
Gary Gill introduced the consultants present to the Committee.
John Buckley distributed a status report to the members of the
Committee (copy attached) . He reviewed the contents of the
report. Buckley made comment about the level of efficiency of
the stripping system of the air emission procedure. Buckley
stated they have made comments to Puget Sound Air Pollution
Control Agency who is reviewing the procedure with Chem Waste.
Addressing the groundwater testing, Buckley referred to a seep
noted by EPA from the site into Mill Creek. The contractor did
not correct the problem adequately. Greg Wingard has noted this
problem. Another issue is a potential contamination plume
starting to move northwest off the site. In terms of surface
water, Mill Creek seems to be getting cleaner in terms of
contaminants that are being released into it. However, there is
still a question as to what is happening with the sediments.
The only way to determine the level of contamination of the
sediments is to go through another sampling program. The
consent decree covers the cleanup within the site boundaries but
it doesn't go any further down the creek. This issue might
impact Kent due to the development taking place downstream of
the site.
Greg Wingard commented the seep has been controlled with a
retaining wall and have reseeded the area. He commented he has
not seen any results of the sampling from the site yet. Wingard
stated his concern about the plume is that he doesn't feel
evasive steps have been taken. He stated that Standard
Equipment has not been contacted about placement of additional
monitoring wells in Area VII. There has been a request for
barrier wells which is still being reviewed. He stated he has a
serious problem in waiting for the test data to define the
nature of the plume. He felt the existing data would indicate
you would expect to see a plume and that it has a potential for
acceleration. He felt the investigations into the plume should
start immediately.
Mark Shaffer of Converse distributed a map of the well
locations. (copy attached) The well in question is circled in
red. The first time the well was sampled was December, 1987
which showed contamination by four different compounds. The
schematic handout indicates that the middle sampling is what is
showing the contamination. The other monitoring wells in the
north end of the site do not show contamination with exception
of one of the 8M8 series and that is being double checked. The
second page of the written handout list possible sources of
contamination of the 7M26B well. The third page of the written
material lists those things that have been and are being done.
The barrier well in Area VII has been sampled and is clean. He
stated he felt the turnaround time of the laboratory data will
improve with the implementation of an onsite laboratory. Biteman
asked why probes couldn't be put down to determine the
contamination. Shaffer responded that it is probably too deep
for a probe. Ron Vernesoni added it is crucial to get the
barrier wells into Area VI. He stated they have been in
negotiations with Standard Equipment for about a year to get
this done.
Wingard stated there is indication the groundwater is moving
either west or northwest. He commented the barrier well
placement is not ideal . He commented about the concept of the
Area I wells drawing the plume. Ron Vernesoni stated he has
discussed this with Greg for several hours. He added that EPA
and Department of Ecology has a team of 5 hydrogeologists
working on this program.
It was determined this item was for the information of the
Committee and that no action was called for at this time. Gill
stated the City will be pushing for action on this.
REGIONAL WATER ASSOCIATION ANNUAL BUDGET -
Wickstrom stated the City has been participating in the RWA for
approximately 5 years and have been contributing to the annual _
costs of the program. It is proposed that instead of each
member contributing to the costs that a budget be established
and the participating agencies contribute an annual cost. The
City's share would be approximately $8, 100. Woods moved the
City continue participation and contribute its share of the
annual cost estimated at $8, 100. The Committee unanimously
approved. -
ESTABLISHING DATES FOR REVIEW OF 1989 PUBLIC WORKS BUDGET
It was determined the Committee would review the Public Works
Budget at their meeting on June 28 at 3 : 00 p.m.
G.O. BOND ISSUE
Wickstrom stated that he is working with the Valley cities and
county in the formation of a TBD. Wickstrom stated he is
concerned that if Kent goes ahead with a G.O. Issue it could
complicate the implementation of the whole package. Driscoll
explained that currently there is no vote required to form a TBD
only when issuing bonds. That gets into some of the legal
issues. Part of the plan being discussed is going back to the
legislature and have the existing legislation amended to having
to go out to a vote to form the TBD. That may help cure some of
the problems. Wickstrom stated that at the last VTC meeting it
was recommended that the County be the lead agency and that the
City passes a resolution agreeing to participate in the
_.. formationn of a TBD. Woods stated she thought the concept was
to use the G.O. bond issue to provide pressure to get the
project under way. Johnson stated he had hoped the issuance of
the bonds would be contingent upon all the other regional
participation and funding being available. It was commented
that having a TBD to vote on as well as a bond issue could be
confusing to the voters. Biteman asked if we were waiting for
action from VTC. Wickstrom responded that a letter from King
County Executive will be coming to Council with a sample
resolution. McFall stated that if we don't go for a bond issue
this fall we would be facing a very high validation percentage
next year. Woods stated that if proogress is being made she
would be reluctant to "muddy the water" . It was decided to wait
until the City has received the information from the County.
REITH ROAD AND 260TH
Biteman stated he had gotten a call about No Parking on Reith
Road and 260th on the curb. He asked staff to look at it. Ken
Morris will report back to the Committee.
O'ROURKE MATTER
Biteman stated Mr. O'Rourke had contacted him about the survey
problems in an area on Benson. After discussion, it was
determined that it is a civil matter. The residents can have
the area resurveyed but it is not a matter the City can become
involved in. Biteman stated he would refer Mr. O'Rourke to the
City Attorney's office.
STOP SIGNS
Morris distributed a list of the top 20 accident locations in
1987 that are stop sign controlled. Some improvements have
already been made alleviating some of the problems. At 42nd and
212th, a left turn pocket has been installed. A 4-way stop has
been installed at 192nd and 80th Avenue, a 4-way stop at 2nd and
Meeker and a signal installed at 252nd and Pacific Highway S.
Three other intersections have signals planned - Meeker and
64th, 104th and 260th and 216th and West Valley Highway. There
was channelization and pavement marking improvements made at
Lincoln and Meeker. Left turn restrictions were placed at 212th
and Frager and Russell. Morris continued they are currently
going through the police citation records to determine where
there is a high incident of drivers running stop signs. This
will help make a final determination where the striping of the
stop sign posts should be placed. Biteman stated he would be
interested in knowing when accidents occurred as a result of
running the stop sign.
RELEASE OF COVENANTS - THE LAKES
The Lakes development had executed covenants for improvement
which have been constructed. They are asking that the covenants
be released now. Wickstrom asked for Committee approval for the
Mayor to sign the release. The Committee concurred.
UU-1660-XS1-AA
R. W. Beck and Associates
_... CITY OF KENT
WESTERN PROCESSING SITE CLEANUP
Status Report No. 3
SITE WORK
o Approximately 25,000 cyds of contaminated material has been removed from
the site and hauled to Arlington, Oregon. The excavation areas were
backfilled and the groundwater extraction and infiltration systems have
been installed.
o The Groundwater Treatment Plant (GWTP ) building has been erected in Area
VII. Equipment installation is in progress. Surcharge for the air emis-
sion control system has been placed in Area I . The GWTP , including air
emission control system, is expected to be operational by August, 1988.
o Chemical Waste Management (CWM) has applied to Kent for water and sewer
permits. Revised information on the permits has been submitted by CWM.
Kent is in the process of issuing those permits.
AIR EMISSION ISSUES
o CWM has applied to the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA)
for an air quality permit for atmospheric discharge of organic compounds
stripped from the groundwater. The stripped organic compounds are pro-
posed to be adsorbed onto activated carbon. The activated carbon will be
periodically ( 10 hours/day) regenerated with hot air. The organic com-
pounds in the hot air will then be thermally destroyed in an incinera-
tor. We have reviewed the permit applications; our basic concerns are as
follows :
- Air quality modeling was not based on local data or conditions.
- The risk assessment was based only on a single indicator species
(dichloromethane-methylene chloride).
- Air emission allowance for HC1 (acid gas discharge) appears to be
very "liberal .
- No data was presented for the basic assertion regarding performance
of the proposed equipment (methylene chloride adsorption onto acti-
vated carbon.
- The proposed incineration system appears to operate at relatively
low temperatures with a short residence time. In making judgements
on these issues, there is a questions as to whether the proposed
incineration is a "fume" incinerator or a hazardous waste inciner-
ator.
Emission monitoring is not adequately addressed.
We understand that CWM is preparing a response to our concerns.
City of Kent -
Status Report No. 3 Page 2
WATERBORNE TOXIC RELEASE ISSUES
A. Groundwater
o There have been several conceptual changes in the Trustee' s ground-
water remediation plan.
o In early April, groundwater test data became available which indi-
cated a potential contamination plume spreading westward from Area
I into Area VII (location of the Groundwater Treatment Plant) . The
principal indicator species (oxazolidone) was found in Monitoring
Well 7M26B located on the south tip of Area VII (See Figure 1) .
Oxazolidone is a semi-volatile organic chemical found throughout
Area I, generally ranging in concentrations of 1 to 30,000 ppm.
Prior to receipt of the test data, it had been generally thought
that groundwater contamination, other than the "trans" plume, had
remained under Area I and on the east side of Mill Creek.
The Monitoring Well 7M26B data tends to support a hypothesis
that Area I contamination is migrating to the west or north-
west.
- Further analysis of the data is needed to verify the above
hypothesis. EPA has indicated that such analysis should be
complete by the end of May.
- EPA and the Trustee' s are attempting to secure permission
from Standard Equipment to install monitoring wells in Area
VI.
- EPA is also considering installing a monitoring well in the
196th St. right-of-way at the north-west corner of Area VI.
- Installation of these monitoring wells would give valuable
data on off-site contamination migration. _.
B. Surface Water
o Mill Creek is currently receiving contamination from the Area I
site via shallow groundwater migration and seepage. Such releases
will continue until the slurry wall is installed and the ground-
water extraction and treatment system is in operation. A visible
seep was spotted by Greg Wingard recently, coming from the location
of a pipeline that was removed last summer. CWM has recently in-
stalled a bentonite cutoff wall to stop the seepage. The effec-
tiveness of this cutoff wall will be monitored weekly until the
slurry wall is installed and the groundwater extraction system is
operational.
City of Kent -
Status Report No. 3 Page 3
o There is little information on sediment contamination in Mill Creek
downstream of the Western Processing site. The sediments are sus-
pected of being contaminated with heavy metals, although the level
and extent of contamination is not known.
Kent is in somewhat of a dilemma regarding this downstream contami-
nation. Owners of property through which Mill Creek runs may want
to develop their property in the vicinity of the Creek. If Kent
grants permits (i. e. , development rights) and damage occurs due to
sediment contamination, Kent may be involved in any ensuing litiga-
tion because of its knowledge of the suspected contamination. Con-
versely, Kent may be sued if it unduly restricts property develop-
ment in the vicinity of Mill Creek without an adequate basis for
such restriction.
Given the above situation, it may be desirable for Kent to sample
Mill Creek sediments and determine if contamination does exist and
to what extent. This information may be useful to Kent in granting
future permits (development rights). In addition, this information
may be useful in "reopening" the Western Processing consent decree
relative to cleanup of the Mill Creek sediments under Phase III.
_... (1306e)
4
NORTH
e
0
a
AREA RAl(ROAO s
_.. IX '
AREA 416M6
VIII AREA
9M9 X
S. 19stk St.
p�E 1 6
AREA vll •
XV 7M26 AREA
! 15M16 Ill. 13M30 N
•. AREA 01M24 13 M12
VI
15M17 ❑
AREA
•15M15 6M6 1
♦ f
•
AREA •27 •M1 AREA
XI` XIII
M11 AREA •IM2
-• ♦V•
6M4 AREA
rXll"
•1M25 T{
141414
L„ EAST
AREA AREA AREA DRAIN "--�
Onna9e XIV IV Itl :M29
Diunet
3
v 13M13
1`v
FIGURE 2.1
WELL LOCATIONS (APMMX.)
Approx. S 0 100 2001t.
uM �
IV — Remedial Acllon Area
AREA xl Designates Mill Creek Mo'liforul5 WcU5 or C u5W wuI5
- aREA xn Oesignaas East Orein � 131arria WG11• .
'Solid Sylrbel5 - ?a(1`st•in We.,US ♦ Trq�s well
op�rr. 7y�DotS - grop wt-t.as -
• Wmbir4 ba1114W/4YA1Yi WOA
7MZG WELL5
A• 8 G
O
10 '.
'tq }hy ,3 Y• , ' sk, '"S yRtr N T reT >4''l y < i ,£3 :.£ A. tt sRt: t
.?i � zi.,.�T�2 ."-rKz,. <a>..•isr...'"yx.2e£.'"�uc �'�.R '� ` .:«s-.:`r Q�.i�&� _wr. R„
sDISCONTINUOUS LENSES OF SILT N`Q" i
iriinz i :CLAY,AND SAND r i fx
Kh-1 TO 10 FT./DAYK
30
J• :tt+ R `t,� .✓ �i/ g. C3.4 4 S t 'yam
40 FT. y 40
X.
p ..
6 O
� ;: F1NE•MEDIUM BAND WITH��• ...
DISCONTINUOUS SILT LENSES.;:;::;:;;'::::: S0
:::::::•::•::•• Kh-10 TO 100 FT./DAY
100
f
X.
150 FT.
DENSE CLAY AND SILT
Kh-10•2 FT./DAY
(estimated)
SCHEMATIC GEOLOGIC SECTION
WESTERN PROCESSING
Kent,Washington
MIN. 5+ � �IAI IETER STEEL
CA
�QRFHOLE SING, WITH HINC�D
L-CYKING LID }CANDLE
I
THREADED CAP
u
o . ' •o e
+l
e 0• c7
• I
�. °. CEMENT�BENTONfTE GRouT
4" DIAMETER
D WC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40
r: WTTH FLUS14 THZEADEDJOINrr5
a . .4 :
EENTONITE SEAL
N
QO 2 MONTE ?EY FILTIr R
PACK
4" DIAMETEK.
PYG SCREEN
d
THKEA PEP EN C PLUG
.. I
Z_ •
7
cV Source: Western Processing
Remedlal Action Plan
Phase If Documents (1986)
by Landau Associates, Inc.
Modifications incorporated by HDR.
Single Completion
Monitoring Well Detail
not to scale
O o o CD v m
. 0 �, �, m m
. n r
o n. CD
CD
a
CD °
o o com
0-
�. n
° O
cn rn co a- z
0 0o CD --q
cn - w y
CD ' z
ao
o p
cu m z
° CD Q
CO N s
0 fn
O A� co CD
n (n
N C (D �' (D
Q
h m o -0 O
C. �+ o 0 CA
Q 3 3 g co CD co
(D 3' m
n
-n Cl) .. p
-� -v -a D z
CD O O "
m
3 h Y
n CD
O �.
z
cn .. O y
D 3 Z
CD
m m
0 G CD c0 fn
SD�- o' O
.... c _ C
AD m
O.
(Q n
_ O w m
c c co
CD
g a
lw
(D
O -*
n o
=r ,..
cc
CD o a o m c�u °
ca � ° N w �,
CD CD °r-P c o- - - 3
o cn 0
o � Q n
0
:3h 03 :3 :3
> > CD r+
o CL
= 3
cn -, 3 =. -n
3 c
3 Q- ° ° CD
= o
m r« o _
m
D
CD c° -v D
w `n =3 c
< cD (ac
�' � m
a cn
CD cn° m
cn Z
o -�
o0
=
o `D
1 =•
c°
CD
C
� 7
SD CD
cr 3
o CD
3 sv a
�
cQ
(D -* n
3 a D
CD —�
o
O
z
m CD
n.
CD
_ I
O
N Q
O
O O 1 n
0 (D N O
CD S Q O
(D (D
:3 n 3
(D =r (D
O �
O0 CD n
CD 0
CD
CD
Z
Z
--I
K
--` N m
-4 N O
CA) V
GA) p r�o
W