Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 05/17/1988 City of Kent City Council Meeting Agenda 5 - / 7- g8 Office of the City Clerk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA w Council Chambers City of Kent May 17, 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. PUJ.LIC COMMUNICATIONS --�A. Oath of Office for Police Officers -4� � Presentation to K-9 Thor ,@-- Proclamation - Pride in America Month American Planning Association Award Presentation 2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS _,1r-� Formation of LID 333 Formation of LID 334 3 . CONSENT CALENDAR _A! Minutes Bills Segregation - LID 316 - Resolution I M ,.._ Bill of Sale - Water Main Extension Acceptance of Central Ave . Storm Drainage Project Green River Pipeline Agreement Extension Drinking Driver Task force Donations 4 . OTJUNR BUSINESS Council Chambers Remodel fn� Regulatory Standards for Adult Entertainment - Ordinance Josey Glenn Preliminary Plat Sanctuary #3 Final Plat_ ��rran F51 +� 5 . BI .Nlt+ycr/Adm rvies 6 . ORTS CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS 0/ Citizens wishing to address the Council will , at this time, make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly q/ heard . I A. OATH OF OFFICE FOR POLICE OFFICERS B. PRESENTATION TO K-9 THOR C. PROCLAMATION - PRIDX' IN AMERICA MONTH f D. AMERICAN PLANNING AS�rbCIATION AWARD PRESENTATION Kent City Council Meeting ire Date May 17, 1988 Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: L. I .D. 333 - TRAFFIC SIGNAL 72ND AVE. SE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set for the public hearing on the formation of L. I .D. 333 for a traffic signal at 72nd Ave. S .E. The City Clerk has given the proper legal notice. ama 'fhe Director of Public Works a&*%- reviewedthe scope of improvements. g 3 . EXHIBITS:Memorandum from the Director ofof Public Works and a vicinity map J1 fL� ti b 'd�` f t� L,e,a % IQl- ,(y 2 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff , Examin r, Commission, etc. ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT: CLOSE HEARING: A 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: � 1�, Councilmember moves , Councilmember 41 seconds the City Attorney be directed to prepare the ordinance creating LID 333 . DISCUSSION: ACTION: 1 Council Agenda Item No. 2A DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS April 5, 1988 TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council FROM: Don Wickstrom SUBJ: LID.,333 -eTraffic Signal at 72nd Ave So/S. 180th St. Resolution No. 1166 adopted by City Council on April 19, 1988 established May 17, 1988 for the public hearing on LID 333 . All of this was the result of a petition received in October 1987 and subsequent contact with property owners which indicated sufficient support. ! PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT The project is the installation of a traffic signal including the required work to interconnect the signal with the other City signals for proper coordination. PROJECT COST The total project cost is estimated at $130, 000. The project will be funded 100 percent by the L. I. D. METHOD OF ASSESSMENT The assessment is based on property size, location of the property with respect to the new signal and other alternate outlets from the area and potential use of the property. All properties which require use of the intersections at 190th/West Valley Highway, 188th/West Valley Highway and 72nd/180th St. for access are included in the L. I . D. boundary. The assessment calculation is based on square footage with several adjustment factors . 1. The assessment rate varies with the properties closer to the signal being higher. 2 . Parcels #1 and #3 have alternate access which does not require use of the interse�—coons- mod. Therefore a portion of these properties is deleted from the assessment calculation. i Mayor and City Council RE: LID 333 - Traffic Signal at 72nd Ave S/S 180th St. Page -2- 3 . Parcels #4 and #13 received approval from the City to allow a greater amount of office space than would normally be allowed under the zoning code. With the higher density of office space these properties will generate approximately twice the number of peak hour trips. Therefore a weight factor of 2 was applied to their assessment calculation. 4 . A portion of the project area is being assessed for the signal at 190th and West Valley Highway. Now that 72nd Avenue is connected through to the north, additional properties in the project area can use the West Valley Highway signal. Since the service areas for both of the signals is the same, all properties should pay for both. This can be accomplished in the new L. I.D. The $12, 824 . 41 assessed within the project area under L. I. D. 328 for the West Valley Highway signal is redistributed to everybody in the new L. I .D. , then a credit is given to those assessed under L.I.D. 328 . PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENT Upon Council passing the Ordinance confirming the final assessment roll (after completion of the construction) , there is a 30-day An---which_ any portion or all of the assessment can be pai without interest charges. After the 30-day period, the balance is paid over a ten_ year period wherein each year' s payment is 1/loth of the principal plus interest on the unpaid balance. The interest will be what the market dictates. NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT With the heavy traffic flow on S . 180th St. it is very difficult to enter the roadway from 72nd Ave S. or turn left into 72nd Ave. S. With the ever increasing amounts of traffic the situation will only become worse. Several of the developers in the area recognized this problem and petitioned the City for the installation of a traffic signal in an effort to protect their property value and promote their developments. As an example of the need, the developers of the new ,Centerpointe project at the southeast corner of the intersection, have ToI-cT--us -that the lack of a signal at the intersection is discouraging prospective tenants. They view the signal as being very important for the success of their project. Mayor and City Council RE: LID 333 - Traffic Signal at 72nd Ave S/S 180th St. Page -3- PROJECT SCHEDULE Property Owner Meeting March 25, ' 1988 Resolution by City Council April 19, 1988 Public Hearing May 17, 1988 Passage of Formation Ordinance June 7, 1988 Ordinance in Effect July 7 , 1988 Construction 1988 i I 1 te N/A ,V.Y� .,�AN io, C3 P� tj ;;;ji ASSESSMENT L A N NUMBER(TYP) EST VALLky I.c WC4, 16 70.cr A me I -'188TH- �S� it If A 'C w II:1 e :1 1' ..bs 10, 4 .'1 41 -1-333 1,e �kvr�o I 72ND AVE S. AND S. 180TH ST TRAFFIC SIGNAL l� r Kent City Council Meeting Date_ May 17. 1988 Category Public Hearincrs 1. SUBJECT: L. I .D. 334 - DERBYSHIRE NO. 7 SANITARY SEWERS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set for the public hearing on the formation of L. I .D. 334 Derbyshire No . 7 Sanitary Sewer Improvements . The City Clerk has given the proper legal notice and the Director of Public Works will review the proposed scope of improvements . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from the Director of Public Works and a vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc. ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT: CLOSE HEARING: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: - Councilmember moves, Councilmember _seconds the hearing be cl , ed and the City Attorney be authorized to prepare the ordinance creating LID 334 . DISCUSSION• IIZ ACTION: Council Agenda Item No . 2B DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS APRIL 5 , 1988 TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council FROM: Don Wickstrom RE: LID .334 :- Derbyshire #7 Sanitary Sewer (121st Avenue, 122nd Avenue and 276th Street) Resolution No. 1167 adopted by City Council on April 19, 1988 established May 17, 1988 for the public hearing on L.I .D. 334 . All of this was the result of a petition received in March, 1988 and subsequent contact with property owners which indicated sufficient support. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Sanitary Sewer Improvements (/Yl D/}%������1 VAI J Description: Includes the installation of 8-inch sanitary sewers, 6 inch side sewers and related appurtenances. 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 PROJECT FUNDING This project is proposed to be 100% L. I.D. financed. The estimated cost is $135 , 200 . There are 26 lots included; therefore, the assessment per lot is $5, 200. _ i L. I.D. 334 Page 2 METHOD OF ASSESSMENT Each property serviced is being assessed. Since each lot is a single family residential lot each receiving one service, the benefit is equal for all parcels. Therefore, the cost is evenly spread over all lots within the L. I.D. PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENT Upon Council passing the ordinance confirming the final assessment roll (after completion of the construction) , there is a 30-day period in which any portion or all of the assessment can be paid without interest charges. After the 30-day period, the balance is paid over ten year period _wherein each year' s payment is 1/10th of the principaT-'�us-interest on. the unpaid balance. The interest will be what the market dictates. NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT The project location is a developed residential area composed of single family lots on septic tanks. For years, it has been known that the septic systems in the general Derbyshire area function poorly or not at all. However, previous attempts to install sewers have failed. It has been reported that within the Derbyshire area that some residents have made illegal connections to the storm drains to avoid the consequence of a failing septic system. Residents report that there is raw sewage on the surface of the ground and that septic odor is a real widespread problem. The Seattle-King County Department of Public Health has identified various failing septic systems within the general area. These problems are a threat to everybody who lives in the area. Most of the problems are not repairable and are expected to become worse and more widespread. The only economically feasible alternative is to install a public sewer system. �.�_................... _.,...... _� ... ..._ _. ... .___�.. L. I.D. 334 ` . Page 3 II It is our understanding that one house within Derbyshire No. 7 has been vacated by order of the Seattle-King County Health Department until sewers become available. It was estimated that for this particular house the cost of a septic system reconstruction would exceed the cost of the sanitary sewer LID assessment. As the situation deteriorates further, more people will probably be removed from their homes. Knowing the severity of the problem, property owners within Derbyshire No. 7 came to the City to request sanitary sewers. The Engineering Department requested that a petition be circulated. A petition for sewers was received with 22 signatures out of 26 properties which was sufficient to proceed with the formation process. I..,, REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL This proposed• L.I.D. is outside of the City limits but is within the City' s sewer franchise area. However, final approval of this specific project by the King County Boundary Review Board will be required. To satisfy the Review Board, the City will require each person applying for a. sewer permit to execute a "Petition for Annexation and Declaration of Covenant" . This means that in the case of an annexation attempt the property will be counted as a "yes" vote and once enough covenants have been signed an annexation could proceed. The covenant procedure is an alternative to ° requiring actual annexation pr. or to formation of the L.I.D. and expedites the sewer installation. i .w PROJECT SCHEDULE Property .Owner Meeting March 31, 1988 Resolution by City Council April 19 , 1988 Public Hearing May 17, 1988 Passage of Formation Ordinance June 7, 1988 Ordinance in Effect July 7, 1988 Construction 1988 i W r4. 8S' -V z p•'�,'Vr l 135.Z1 — 13C.,.21 9 d' � N N 8 8 _. 2 �j m r 9 az5o r ot'�o 8 f 9. °ono onao q Jgop ~S•S O 135 1 j 135.ao 3u 23 __135.�',0 0 SO 30 O 330.19so_ssJw 1 t 6.7 b 1 P ;�•s l; ;, S, E. 2 7 4T H ST. — y 8i.4s 90 :�0 90 s's o w p HS.St Ito b 30 TA° LI.D. 0UNDAR �— I 25 # +1 zsSz: - t'7�" I m a 1 (9 19 ? 0 21,40' ^ . a 2 a o1p0 i N p160 ° I 02�0 0010 ,+ .a `• E rr.t.s 0190 p100 ;Ovp'!�0 I leas n ...ice n to3.34 IY.yr• � , �— - N 7's' I S` P ' _ 24 # _ice # —�4—'P i 7 © '° a ,\ # �17 ,. M 13 6, 2 . V h 3 I 3 0 tiy� r -, a '.a g 10 'yy { P,a , o/,•: I f ,190 1'CW 0020 ? ESSMEo ", 0310 0900 o� W 11 ° ;7 103.2 PROPOt AS NUMBSR f - �.ti 1 �1 j> `� ,��y8 I 2@3 SANITARi SEWER M 1 � o � 32�� ,b�,�'• ° 29 �� Im � 24 a o 03 . N , _6p � p v O •• �li,•1S °• I o 014D OZ 0010 l q 01 �p9n' c ti ^, ;0290 I Il_, , :f11 1 n 3.23 0 �^ 9p n w 110 NIB�S,t'fJ" NeB°S'v'29"w 2 --'d� NA °S'9'L 9 �t rIp "� pl`p ® # I• PAW M L'9 # m ' n.@2*5 ® #33 �:�, 0 2gm� � a, o= h, 1�!siGNf' o\ o93p 41 `=W m Mao ° n2� �= 004u o •pETITIC„1 b 1y 1nS'S 110 ;�> I,0 ^ f!'t9^W °.1i.1•�",•, N!e•52't fi" w ,L=... • y'.w U v N!B su'S' P °^ # 12 U # i° •i: 0 26 I 21 #Uz60 of � sn v 14 � M ,, 34 a. 27 26 5 110 s-` Sa ,y°� 01�0 V. ova° 4-,Ae !slzs tipQ �p � ..9,> zs-zs 1' OOsO _ c •NO ' '��' P3. S•9 A9.96 r = S 90. 0-1 A.s. •76y9 — �If lltel Rf,l U,�t eJ 1 le)e�,l.ee fe t 11e1111 a e1 feleeetfe111�H Itee Rl�felElee ullel ne6 111110 .% S \ N E . 2:76TH .57. 1",1 .r , iS �dv r S'dyo iy /l fs /� 61. 86 s 6 1, � _.. ry _\ ro '� 1.3 1 2 1 I - 1 0 9 _. o a yl- ! T. MANHOLE .. 0//0 0/PO 009U ' Q 0070 0170 ursJ ce80 -401 432 •,o Jo •30 .VBB' t1�•Il w i09; /1 (�1 O~ /J°ri i'T 22 Lqi330 ;�0 29 28. + t 27 > . 26 0�; 25 •-4 Y" °0300 . 90Oy9o )tlo OtbO kiOtf° ° +° xti(/� 23B� 547E 70 31,/ g1.11 CS SI q °L30 ci� a h19 S E 276TH PL 'p, - . 4 w PROPOSED LLD, S y; S o l a. 7 o v 0.:�>° <• SANITARY SEWER 57 1 is "• �� { 4•10 �� ; 30. I �I 32 DERBYSHIRE NO. 7 0� w - :i •id I 121ST & 122ND AVE 276TH ST. T _ 7.ra:,...L. . e 3—/0-88 19 57 58 4 6 0�� /Vl�r r.11'.n 1'p� u\ +-1 • ... CONSENT CALENDAR 3 . City Council Action: { ( Councilmember �1110 9 moves, Councilmember seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through G be approved. Discussion Action 3A. Approval of Minutes . Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of May 3 , 1988 Nam: 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 - 60280 $258, 560 .09 5/2/88 60285 - 60760 573 , 216 . 61 $831,776 .70 Approval of checks issued for payroll : Date Check Numbers Amount 5/5/88 103714 - 104320 $608 ,790. 22 Council Agenda Item No . 3 A-B f Kent, Washington - May 3, 1988 ,.._ Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7: 00 p.m. by Mayor Kelleher. Present: Councilmembers Biteman, Dowell, Houser, Johnson, Mann, White and Woods, City Administrator McFall, t City Attorney Driscoll, Associate Planner Fred Satterstrom, and EE Public Works Director Wickstrom. Also present: Police Chief Fred- eriksen and Fire Chief Angelo. Planning Director Harris and Finance Director McCarthy were not in attendance. Approximately 150 people were at the meeting. i PRESENPATION Employee of the Month. Mayor Kelleher announced E that Tony Thiessen of the Kent Senior Activities Center has been chosen as the May Employee of the Month. He noted that in addition to his _.. regular duties , Thiessen has been instrumental in setting up several programs with the Center and the Kent community. f PROCLAMATIONS National Public Works Week. The Mayor read a proclamation declaring the week of May 15-21 , 1988 as National Public Works Week in the City .-- of Kent. Public Works Director Wickstrom announced that there would be an open house at the City Shops and in the Engineering Depart- ment, as well as a display in the lobby of City Hall . The Mayor encouraged citizens to visit the displays . t r Older American Month/Senior Center Week. The Mayor read a proclamation declaring the month t of May, 1988 as Older Americans Month and the week of May 8-14 , 1988 as Senior Center Week in the City of Kent. Robyn Bartelt of the Senior Center noted that there would be various L special activities during that week and invited everyone to visit the Center. Kent Community Clinic Week. A proclamation was read by Mayor Kelleher proclaiming the week of May 2-6 , 1988 as Kent Community Clinic Week in the City of Kent. The proclamation was presented to Dee Moschel of the Kent Com- munity Clinic. Ms. Moschel thanked the Mayor, Council and staff for their encouragement during the past five years, and announced that there will be an open house at the clinic on May 5 at 3: 00 p.m. She invited the public to attend. f CONSENT CALENDAR WHITE MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through L be approved. Houser seconded and the motion carried% - 1 - k May 3, 1988 MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3A) Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of April 19, 1988 and authorization to correct the minutes of April 51 1988, on page 5, as follows: 1989 Community Development Block Grant Funds " . . . . ( 3 ) allocate 6% of planning and admini- stration. . . . " BANNER Gary Cline, Principal of Mattson Junior High, introduced students Corey Berger, Michelle Pritchard, Mike Bain and Chris Lenhart, who - belong to the Mattson Students Against Suffer- ing and Hunger Club. The students explained that they are a partner school with a village in Ethiopia where they are building a school through Save the Children. They noted that their share of the proceeds from a Walkathon would go to building that school , as well as to helping out local food banks. Cline stated that the students have a 4 ' x 8 ' banner regard- ing the Walkathon which they would like to hang in Kent. Since the City has had a moratorium on banners for some time, it was suggested that the reader- board at Kent Commons be used, and Dowell offered the use of his billboard on Canyon Drive. It was noted, however, that the banner is already made and would be up for only one week on James near East Hill Elementary. WHITE MOVED that the Council give permission to place the banner for a one-week period for this one-time only event. Woods seconded and the motion carried. WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3J) LID 316 94th Avenue Water Main - Segregation of Assessment. AUTHORIZATION for the City Attorney to prepare a resolution authorizing the segregation of the assessment of a parcel involved in LID 316 , as approved by the Public Works Committee. SEWER (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3F) 1985 Sanitary Sewer Rebuild. ACCEPT as complete the contract of Shoreline Construction for the 1985 Sanitary Sewer Rebuild Project and release of the retainage after receipt of the necessary releases from the State. 2 - May 3, 1988 SEWER (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3G) Del Webb Sanitary Sewer Pump Station. AUTHORI- ZATION to transfer $18, 400 from the Unencumbered Sewer Funds to the project fund to cover cost overruns in the project. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3H) Del Webb Sanitary Sewer Pump Station. ACCEPT as complete the contract with Harlo Construction for the Del Webb Sanitary Sewer Pump Station project and release of retainage after receipt of the necessary releases from the State. STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3I ) Willis Street Improvements. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign an agreement with the State to incorporate the State ' s planned 1989 over- lay of Willis Street in the City ' s Willis Street Improvement project, as approved by the Public Works Committee . SURPLUS PROPERTY Surplus Property - 102nd S.E. and S.E. 240th. This date has been set for a public hearing on the sale of a 50 ' x 50 ' parcel located in the vicinity of 102nd Avenue S.E. and S.E. 240th which the City has declared surplus . The City Clerk has given the proper legal notice. The Mayor declared the public hearing open. There were no comments from the audience and no correspondence has been received. WHITE MOVED to close the public hearing. Woods seconded and the motion carried. JOHNSON MOVED that the hearing be closed and a call for bids be aythor- ized to offer the property for sale with a mini- mum acceptable bid being the appraised value. Woods seconded. Motion carried. REZONE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3D) Kantor Recreational Vehicle Park. ADOPTION of Ordinance 2776 rezoning the Kantor Recreational Vehicle Park from M2 , Limited Industrial , to MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential, with certain conditions as approved by the Council at its meeting on April 19 , 1988. COMBINING DISTRICT (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3E) Kantor Recreational Vehicle Park. ADOPTION of Ordinance 2777 approving the Kantor Recreational Vehicle Mobile Home Park Combining District to allow development of a recreational vehicle park with certain conditions as approved by the Council at its meeting on April 19 , 1988. 3 - May 3 , 1988 FINAL PLAT (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3L) Sanctuary No. 3 Final Plat No. SU-87-2. - AUrHORIZATION to set May 17 , 1988 as the date for a public meeting to consider the Sanctuary No. 3 Final Plat No. SU-87-2. The site is located at 4802 So. 216th Street between 42nd Avenue South and Frager Road. ANNEXATION ZONING LeBlanc Annexation Zoning - AZ-87-5. This is the first hearing to consider the Hearing Exam- iner ' s recommended initial zoning of the LeBlanc Annexation No. AZ-87-5 . The property is approx- imately 15 acres in size and is located south of S.E. 232nd Street and east of 112th Avenue S.E. The Hearing Examiner has recommended zoning of MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Resi- dential (with a maximum density of 12 units per acre ) for the LeBlanc Gardens area and R1 -9. 6, Single Family Residential (minimum lot size 9600 sq. ft. ) for the remainder of the site. The two conditions recommended by the Hearing Examiner are outlined in her findings and recommendation dated March 23 , 1988 (revise•3 ) . Fred Satterstrom of the Planning Department noted that the second public hearing on this matter will be held on June 7, 1988: Greg McCormick of the Planning Department described the area and noted that it was annexed into the city in June of 1987 . He also noted that this property was involved in 1985 in a Comprehen- sive Plan Amendment request by the property owner which requested an amendment from the existing single family density to a multi- family designation. This was reviewed by the Hearing Examiner and Council and approved. The Mayor declared the public hearing open. Dennis Dague, 11218 S.E. 234th Place, read from the Hearing Examiner ' s Findings and Recommenda- tion as follows: 1. The City of Kent Zoning Code gives the undersigned no discretion with respect to recommendation for zoning on newly annexed land. Specifically, Kent Zoning Code Section 15.09.055 D indicates "the decision of the 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. 4 - May 3 , 1988 ANNEXATION ZONING 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. Dague noted that the Hearing Examiner was man- dated to make that recommendation. He said he felt that they had had a non-hearing, since it was predetermined what the outcome would be, and that he intends to advance this to the Attorney General . He suggested that the Code -. be changed to allow more discretion to the Hearing Examiner. Dague also noted that there was insufficent notification of these hearings. He said that Park Orchard School knew nothing of the hearing until he told them, and that the residents of the housing area directly across the stret were not aware of it either. He said that one of the people who is on the mailing list did not receive their notice and suggested that the notification procedure for hearings and Council meetings be changed to include notification to the principals of the closest schools , as well as the PTA presidents and the school district. Dague then stated that the Planning 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 periphery, which could be done with single family development. He stated that the Plan- ning Department could make recommendations to take care of trees or to put up additional barriers with trees , but they have no force of law; developers often look only at profits. The real issue is the building of multifamily units in a single family neighborhood, and that it should not be allowed. He noted that the school district had contacted the Planning Department in 1985 and in 1988 regarding the lack of sidewalks, the narrow roadway and lack of shoulders making the area dangerous for pedestrians. Dague suggested that the LeBlanc Annexation be developed as a park, and that if multifamily units are built there, a full EIS be required of any builder. He suggested that - 5 - May 3, 1988 ANNEXATION ZONING the LeBlanc Annexation be zoned only for single family homes consistent with the single family zoning in the surrounding community. Warren Tuttle, 11208 S.E. 235th Place, stated that he is opposed to multifamily zoning. He said he agrees that it seems the Hearing Exami- ner was bound by law to recommend as she did. Upon the Mayor ' s question, City Attorney Driscoll explained that the Council can, upon hearing public testimony, make a determination that may be different from the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner; however, the Council would need to articulate the reasons for the change in the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner. Upon Tuttle ' s question, Driscoll confirmed that the Hearing Examiner is bound by what the Comprhensive Plan provides , which is according to State law and subsequent City ordinance. Tuttle stated that the main concern of the residents of the area is the welfare of their children. He noted that 112th Avenue S.E. is very narrow, and that cars have to stop to let children walk down the road. A daycare center has added to the traffic congestion and speedin is a problem. 112th Avenue needs improvements now and apartments will add to the problems. He urged the Council to zone the area single family. Ed Smith, 23508 112th Avenue S.E. , urged the Councilmembers to visit the area at 8: 30 a.m. when children are walking to school or 2: 30 p.m. when they are coming home, so that they can see how dangerous this narrow road is . He noted that according to the Planning Commission minutes of February 26 , 1985, City staff would be compelled to recommend multifamily zoning for this annexation. He said he hoped the Council did not feel so compelled. Carol Smith, 23508 112th Avenue S.E. , noted that the resi- dents fought against multifamily zoning in 1985. She said that a local improvement district for sidewalks has been suggested but many resi- dents do not have children and that half of the condominiums are now rentals. Mrs. Smith suggested cutting the number of units from 7 - 12 to 7 - 8 if the real reason is to protect the trees, which would bring in a higher level of condominium which people would live in rather than rent out. Tilak Sharma, 11205 S.E. 235th, noted that he bought his home nine years ago thinking that they would not be living among - 6 - May 3, 1988 ANNEXATION ZONING apartments and condominiums. He noted that fifty people 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 - May 3 , 1988 BUSINESS LICENSE McFall indicated that there are several ways th-a City could regulate this type of activity, and the Mayor noted that it could possibly be regulated under existing law. BITEMAN MOVED that the City Attorney be directed to investi- gate ways of preventing the location of any exotic dancing establishment in the proposed area, and that the matter be referred to the Public Safety Committee. Mann seconded. White offered a friendly amendment making it City- wide. Biteman and Mann accepted the friendly amendment. Upon Biteman ' s question, Driscoll stated that the U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that certain zones must be established, rather than outright prohibiting it. She said that she would research all legal avenues, including putting a moratorium on the permit. Isabel Foot voiced concern about drug activity and robberies in the area. Brian Curran sug- gested more restrictive land use and zoning. Satterstrom explained that the present ordi- nance regulates the location of adult book stores and motion picture theaters, and states that they must be 1000 ' feet from certain pro- tected uses such as single family areas , churches, schools and public parks. Don Barnes, 2907 S. 244th, noted that because of the conflict with Police and Fire and 911 , some of the residents of the area are consider- ing seceding from Kent. He suggested passing a zoning law saying this type of business is not allowed in this area. The Mayor explained that the City must comply with State and Federal laws in regard to zoning, and offered a com- mitment to try to keep this use out. Elsie Hurley spoke in favor of the motion. Upon a question from Robert Hoyt, McFall stated that the standard business license fee is $75 for a new business and $50 for each succeeding year. The Mayor indicated that the City Attorney would explore the possibility of different fees for different types of businesses. Erma Hanson spoke in favor of the motion. Deborah Shaffner stated that many residents of the area are willing to help the Council in any way they can. Don McKinney, Salt Air Hills Com- munity Chairman, asked the Council for their support. White stated that the Council intenis to do everything legally possible to block the establishment. - 8 - May 3 , 1988 BUSINESS LICENSE upon a question from Robert Hoyt, the Mayor suggested that people interested in being con- tacted sign a sign-up sheet. Hoyt suggested a community meeting. Upon the Mayor ' s suggestion, Biteman agreed to incorporate setting a com- munity meeting on this issue into his motion. The motion then carried. APPOINTMENTS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3C) Centennial Committee Appointment. CONFIRMATION of Mayor Kelleher ' s appointment of Russell Dunham to the Centennial Committee to replace Steve Harris. PERSONNEL (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3K) Public Works Organizational Changes. AUTHORI- ZATION to change a part-time accounting posi- tion in Engineering to full time and to reclass a vacant Administrative Assistant position in the Operations Division to that of Administrative Assistant I and to fill that position, as approved by the Public Works Committee. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3B) ,.. Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through May 9, 1988 after audit- ing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 8: 30 a .m. on May 16 , 1988. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 3/28 - 4/13/88 59400 - 59414 59813 - 59836 $187.528.76 4/15/86 59840 - 60243 $966,015.83 Approval of checks issued for payroll: Date Check Numbers Amount 4/20/88 103117 - 103713 $601, 145 .40 REPORTS Council President. Council President White announced that there will be a workshop on May 10 at 7:00 p.m. to review the first quarter financial report and budget projection. White also noted that the Council will meet on May 24 at 7: 00 p.m. in the Council Chambers with the Federal Way School District Board of Educa- tion. 9 - May 3, 1988 REPORTS White noted that the Suburban Cities dinner will be on May 11 in Lake Forest Park and asked that interested Councilmembers contact Alana. He stated that the speaker will be Dick Larson of the Seattle Times. White stated that he had received a letter from Raul Ramos regarding multifamily density reduc- tion and he referred it to the Planning Commis- sion for review. Operations Committee. Houser noted that the last meeting had been cancelled and that the Committee would meet on May 16 at 8: 30 a.m. Public Works Committee. Johnson noted that the Committee will meet on May 10 at 4: 00 p.m. in the Engineering Conference Room. Parks Committee. Dowell noted that the Com- mittee will meet on May 25 at 4: 00 p.m. in the Courtroom. ADJOURNMENT DOWELL MOVED to adjourn at 9: 30 p.m. White seconded and the motion carried. Brenda Jacobeer Deputy City Clerk 10 - Kent City Council Meeting 1N Date May 17, 1988 1! Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: L. I .D. 316 - RESOLUTION DECLARING SEGREGATION OF ASSESSMENT ON 94TH AVENUE WATER MAIN 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution No. • • authorizing the segregation of the assessment of a parcel involved in LID 316, the 94th Ave. water main as approved by the Council at its regular meeting on May 3 , 1988 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution 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. 3C RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, directing the City Clerk to segregate an assessment levied under LID 316. WHEREAS, Anton Sorensen has requested segregation of a certain assessment levied against property within Local Improvement District No. 316, that being Assessment No. 59; and WHEREAS, all clerical and engineering fees have been paid as required by law, and the application being in all respects proper; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 . The City Clerk be and she is hereby authorized and directed to segregate the assessments requested by Anton Sorensen upon application attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 2. The assessment involved is Assessment 59 of Local Improvement District No. 316. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this _ day of 1988. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of , 1988. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF KENT L.I.D. SEGREGATION CERTIFICATE Exhibit I.A Requested y: yo Sr<ns-en Date d/-/4/-#'.'Local imp. District No. 3/ ASSESSMENT No. zfY Owner & Address ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION Original Amount $ 2 917.7`f �p zz-s ?l�iH f tr/� 9� /d �NGYy flya/vy Is) L o fs iVsiPercvr��t�oopr ��'9/�` 87D3/va�7/ if mores ace needed attach description and refer to Exhibit "A" Owner & Address NEW DESCRIPTION New Assessment No. 19- / New Assessment Amt. S7a•4 DOES 130T T.W."DE reR ST I y S/? # 3BLayG ,ft recoew1W trno%r �l f�i/,f7h ,GK1)jin Lof Z ;-�. 3 /r�• ,� o ioaa7/ .. /P/rr �¢u� r /� 87 �u,fin !J✓ 9detP $20.00 Minimum Fee Rec/S / e eived/19�P eceipt 9 if more space needed attach description and refer to Exhibit "8" Owner & Address REMAINDER DESCRIPTION Rem. Assessment No. Original Amt.$ �a�s4 441Qw f^ G /e- ' ATo3/aa B7/ Kid WN t#63 i �jJve.e /r�lo. �✓ if more s ace needed attach description and refer to Exhibit "C" rs a day of per hour - Copy forwarded to City Treasurer and Applicant this Y 19_ less $20.00 fee Approved by Resolution # Total Due : Total Paia --�` /�/o v y�u� �- Property Manager Receipt A 99 The undersigned hereby accepts above terms and conditions and certifies to the correctness herein, (Signature must be same as on application) . SIGNED: `4oru-r wner an or zed re CITY OF KENT L.I.D. SEGREGATION CERTIFICATE Exhibit 1.s equeste by: �a Srr.,sPn Date s'r Loca Imp. D str ct No. 3/ ASSESSMENT No. .S9 Owner & Address ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION Original Amount $ Z 91'1.7`j yZ���/E ¢ !/1//�/Q,� '//i /�ZL- ?9f�1f� 9•>��ld 7 1 G ai�s /� ! C/yG //_ WaGl'V 4S/ �' d .��A 8703/00 07/ rPs�C•cvr ,/u�t�r if more' s ace needed attach description and refer to Exhibit "A" Owner & Address NEW DESCRIPTION New Assessment No. • New Assessment Amt.T S7o•6 6 DOES 170r ING�4oE S,VfeQ 1t= y Gt-en ret7 ofiG �yt rrcor�or /rgs/rr �� /.23 S- sE/P/fr X,6yo3 ioa semi G/N flora' $20.00 Minimum Fee Received eceipt;�G7 9 if more space needed attach description and refer to Exhibit "8" Owner & Address REMAINDER DESCRIPTION Rem. Assessment No. �— 40 . S.P 38G0`f� eem,evtry f(e,->t WN tPa3 i if more space needed attach description and refer to Exhibit "C" rs a day of per hour " Copy forwarded 1tolCity Treasurer and Applicant this less $20.00 fee Approved by Resolution Total Due Qr— Total Paid roper y Manager Receipt M 49 The undersig7herebyccepts above terms and conditions and certifies toness herein, (Signature must be same as on application)SIG -tom' ner an or ur or zed gnat ure CITY OF KENT L.I.D. SEGREGATION CERTIFICATE Exhibit 1.0 Requeste y: Snrns�n a e !'� oca mp. D strict No. 3/ ASSESSMENT No. Owner & Address ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION Original Amount b Z 91 7.7Y ,gl4ler � /E-%Z .!/f/�y/¢�yE //i /�ZZ-S �ss �•.�.� Y afs /. 7Y�r� r iY r S.P X9 D f1_ 'VWAI '9S� �yrifercvn!�ti�t✓or '/r�^'Ak 879031106 07/ if more s ace needed attach description and refer to Exhibit !'A" Owner & Address NEW DESCRIPTION New Assessment No. 9-3 New Assessment Amt. —190-6 c DDES Nor INCLkoE reR ar x y ,/ ¢` 39L�yG fit recor�a� 6ns/ir �f'� /fh SoKnJOn LDf mil. S� 011`8703 ioo a71 $20.00 Minimum Fee Received -L/ /f /1gPP eceipt�G9 if more s ace needed attach description and refer to Exhibit Owner & Address REMAINDER DESCRIPTION Rem. AssessOriginment tmN b S t. L674 1 ,YjLo. 46 (c%u 4PD3/ if more spa ce needed attach description and refer to Exhibit "C" rs a day of 1 per hour - Copy forwarded YtoCity Treasurer and Applicant this Y less $20.00 fee Approved by Resolution 9 Total Due eIL-OD Total Paid- Property anager Receipt 9 94 The undersigned hereby accepts shove terms and conditions and certifies to the correctness herein, (Signature must be same as on application). SIGNED: wna, an or ur ze tgnacure I . ................ r 11 Kent City Council Meeting �1d Date May 17. 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: YAHN RESIDENTIAL WATER MAIN EXTENSION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept < for continuous operation and maintenance the bill of sale and warranty agreement N,fer- of approximately 140 feet of water main extension in the vicinity of 906 Canyon and release of cash bond after expiration of the one year maintenance period. 3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY, (Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc. ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3D 11-5 1- 1 t t E OE RO o / < < < �__ m 5,239t PL m %t I- ST 8, _ 240f ST S�z z Z F i 3 w $ d rn F'rd U.r gA57 HILL _ ELEMENTAF z 1 4 AMES sT Z < Z I a J W s 2415T ST x SCHOOL W O m N N m ; W ;"4' Iu rlU:l.`•`•r. JR.H1. ZQ' < E < rc Z < < e S 242H a: ••I,i..\_�r il_i.l'.` W SCHOOL eUc FIS CED a ST < J ST Y z < < PIONEER Sf-i g < z z E ST ]' S 243RD C O E -+ TEM ERA 7: ST < Mc IL LAN z O w ui in F I- > ST z = 44TH III In -E♦ < SMLT ST z SMITH ST 2: > cc w ENT4 4 ST < ST a '+ MEDICAL w L1.�y.:-, w O z I z F WARD 7;CENTE ;,,!`'Ll;' > _ m �• .r!= .�.,•�`'.` .i L'q ST.JAMES < m SON ST N a ST Z N 1•-REI7Ely.:;;o.•v'y''v tiYQry SCHO m < 20 �'�•,'�•y w 246TH z E ME KERz ST w ST '^ �Jy ci 4. O( "fi t.+'. WETLAND S F w SPL R Z .a E 00 E/ 1- < ST OA ram= q 41p7C OV Q• . qQ k.� . T 247TH m a = W OOWE N ST W < CAII • TACOMA ST �1y .,•J q ST n > 5 248TH ST. #POI 6 5 > OL I m CHERRY PL 1C XMT y AV m CI Hil E E DEAN p i HILL ST `� M �U ary ONic �. 516 a oEANO a ST 167 /cn �y ST x a E MACLYN ST Y• J r�'y y P > TITU N ST w>m > w ;;, L Y SAAR < STSAAR O 3 FEZ O E GUIBERSON STt 1�'�.•�"' AL IN �J!• ir'j a ST WAY U 5E SEATTLE `.'iti .t• .: O S r>L 2 ST w W,Ir• i lE ST1. '1'Icl\�GL1 N > Z U ON•'S>:: < $EAT7 > \(�1 I'\I11� 516 u W O E v•r. < a t.i\. ��r cull. \•1 t•..�.'FF, g 252NC T •�•' < W z O i E CHICAGO ST �J, •v�J1')\ y'(`••. _W RO ST •I RU ELL 1- Y < 6 \ `-'�-�' \\'J•l:`�"i,J.� 'F' .:'� 1•.1\\ NI w ST N V• E > W O \l l 1•p W > i. Y �` Y i CHI G ST O < O / . C Fife to a O ST E LAUREL > �''` �F E SStationz Mp ON O w < OQ S , ,.1•:.,r 1 IField h F,. •/T•1J. M m i O� ST HEMLOCK ST 0 i dxF ,000g m W a w {c>, Q. V E z 3 v ':Fti'\\'!. •, ty > O 3 O CARTER y•� W W I j- I- _j w /�• Police q 1KEN7- <m < MARION z 'n E FILBERT ST wa m a m W >/• �! J•�+�„ Q1Q .■SR.HI. P-O Z J W Z> Y $T y , W W < N a �•.• IJJ rn E rc g wAL Ur ,, m 30 N r " .tA w .�,25 3O - p < MAPLE ST �o`�•+ 11 T - Tri•r15 CIuT,�•.. `9 J4o y ♦.AIliaNT 1„yel t.;3j . N S 259TH ST CLMITFRY "`76 r259TH '•" r� u?::. N ` SCENIC HILL ......... r ' r. ��• ELEMENTARY L gFF'I' ,I SCHOOL ,00 ow c S 1 A LDER LN 1 S 262NO ::- Fq I 5 262N0 261ST -.. ... PI ST ST - {111 r) W j V� ✓ � A O 2Th �XN at I W N m y E`I 266TH Sr ..: f.! SE (/) \1 > .e cFyre�_ SE 26 K m 9 '- YARN RESIDENTIAL WATER 'FAIN EXTENSION Tk C J Al � Kent City Council Meeting Date May 17, 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: CENTRAL AVENUE STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept as complete the contract with Scoccolo Construction for Central Avenue storm drainage - improvement project and release of retainage after receipt of necessary releases from the state. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from the Director of Public Works 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds µ DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No . 3E DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MAY 11, 1988 TO: MAYOR KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON WICKSTROM � 1 RE: CENTRAL AVENUE STORM DRAINAGE (JAMES STREET TO GOWE STREET) The project was awarded to Scoccolo Construction on September 1, 1987 for the bid amount of $793 , 591. 23 . The project consisted of the improvement of the storm drainage system on Central Avenue from James Street to Gowe Street. A project budget of $899, 000 was established with $355, 000 coming from a Public Works Trust Fund loan. The construction costs are $756, 049 . 46 with project costs to date totaling $832 , 168 . 17. It is recommended the project be accepted as complete and retainage released after receipt of the necessary releases from the State. I I Kent City Council Meeting Date May 17, 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: GREEN RIVER PIPELINE NO. 5 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As approved by the Public Works Committee, authorization for the Mayor to sign an extension of the agreement with City of Tacoma for their Green River Pipeline No. 5 project extending the date of delivery of water to 1993 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Copy of agreement, excerpt from the Public Works Committee minutes , . 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. 3F 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. Levu OmCCZ"Or W,%,TS0N & IiON-GTIVY A PROFESSIONAL SIi11VICES COIIPOIIATION I11TIT r1.00 R, �%ItCTIC, 11CITdlINh $EATTi.F.. N%'...111N0 T O\ I)S 104 ,. (206) 447-1000 April 27 , 1988 CITY OFKENT APR 2 9 1988 ENGINEERING DEPT. TO: John Sawyer Frank Currie Judith Nelson Dan Caldwell Don Wickstrom Cary Cline Jim Miller RF: Pipeline 5 Fxtension Enclosed is Tacoma' s proposed Extension to the Pipeline 5 Agreement. As was discussed at the last Directors meeting, Tacoma proposes a two-year ( to January 1 , 1990) extension of the date it must commit to construction of Pipeline 5 . The reasoning is that a one-year exten- sion (as in the past) will not, realistically, allow sufficient time to resolve the remaining objections to construction of PL5 . The bulk of the enclosed is simply a restatement of the present wording of the Contract - with the dates changed . This will. be on the agenda for the next Directors meeting . Sincerely, VCL, L Steve SCW:hjh Enclosure 1 ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE REGIONAL WATER ASSOCIATIONTHE CITY OF SOUTH COMF DEPARTMENTAND 2 OF PUBLIC UTILITIES ES 3 4 This Addendum No. 1 made and entered into this _._ 5 day of , 1988 to that certain contract 6 executed by and between the City of Tacoma, Department of 7 Public Utilities and the Regional Water Association of South 8 King County, its member utilities, and the City of Tacoma 9 effective the 29th day of July, 1985, be and the same is hereby 10 amended and changed to provide Paragraph 10 of said agreement 11 entitled "Schedule, Withdrawal and Liability" is amended to 12 read as follows : 13 10 . SCHEDULE, WITHDRAWAL AND LIABILITY . Due to unknowns in 14 the permitting process, Tacoma cannot at this time set a fixed 15 date at which time water from the project will be available to 16 the RWA. In order to meet the water supply requirements of the 17 RWA, the water must be delivered by January 1 , 1993 . In 18 addition the RWA must be assured on or before January 1 , 1990 19 that it is feasible for Tacoma to meet the January 1 , 1993 20 deadline. Therefore, Tacoma , based on the status of its 21 permitting efforts and reasonable project schedule , shall 22 provide a firm commitment to the RSA on or before January 1 , 23 1990 that water will be delivered to the RWA by January 1 , 24 1993. The inability of Tacoma to make this commitment on or 25 before January 1 , 1990 will be grounds for RWA or Tacoma 26 withdrawal from the agreement or reopening of negotiations . 27 Tacoma ' s performance of its obligations pursuant to - Office of the(:toy Allorney 28 nepnrtmenl of i'oblir Utilities Atintinislrnlimt Iluiltling 3628 S011111 351h Strecl 29 I'.t 1, m,x I inO7 'Pn ormn,Wnshinglon nB411 I this agreement is conditioned on its ability to obtain the 2 necessary permits, approvals, financing and franchises for the 3 Pipeline 5 Project . 4 By January, 1990 - Tacoma will identify all permits 5 obtained and remaining to be acquired . Tacoma will present a 6 construction schedule . 7 By July, 1990 - Tacoma will provide current cost g estimates for the capital construction program necessary to 9 implement this agreement . Tacoma will establish an estimated 10 operation and maintenance schedule for the implementation of 11 this agreement . 12 By September , 1990 - Based on RWA' s acceptance of the 13 cost figures presented by Tacoma in July of 1990, Tacoma will 14 proceed from this point on final design , financing and 15 construction with no reversal of RWA participation except by 16 mutual agreement . 17 By January 1, 1993 - Pipeline 5 Project begins service 18 of water to RWA. Schedule may be adjusted by mutual 19 agreement . Construction delays resulting from strike, natural 20 disastery or other Acts of God and forces beyond the control of 21 the City of Tacoma shall not constitute a violation of the 22 terms of this Contract by Tacoma . 23 Notwithstanding any other provision or wording in this 24 agreement to the contrary, the parties hereto executing this 25 agreement shall be legally bound to the financial obligations 26 and the water delivery obligations specified herein. 27 rherefore, in the event that any party withdraws, transfers its Office ffice of Ibe city AllarUey I)eparlmcnl of Ihlblic 111iii1ies A dnl ini.vlrxl loll Ituilding MOK 5n1,111 35111 Sifecl 29 1,.O. Ilex 11007 ...._..... w...6ine,nn 4R411 1 interests or has its rights terminated pursuant to the terms of 2 this agreement , the said withdrawing or terminated party 3 remains liable to all other parties hereto for monetary damages 4 as may be available at law; provided that withdrawal without 5 liability is permitted in the event ( 1 ) project costs exceed 6 the maximum amount as set forth in Section 5 of this agreement ; 7 ( 2 ) the project schedule is not met as set forth in this 8 agreement ( in this Section 10 ) , or ( 3) Tacoma is unable to 9 obtain the necessary permits , approvals or cannot obtain 10 financing that is acceptable to Tacoma . 11 By executing this Contract , the parties are not 12 assuming any liabilities, except as provided expressly herein, 13 nor waiving or relinquishing any powers or jurisdiction granted 14 to them by law. is An RWA member ' s proposed transfer or assignment of 16 rights and/or obligations specified herein to another party 17 shall be subject to Tacoma ' s approval , which approval shall not 18 be unreasonably withheld. Provided , however, the transferring 19 or assigning party shall remain secondarily liable to Tacoma 20 for any and all payments not made by the assignee party to 21 Tacoma . 22 In the event that any party hereto fails to pay its 23 obligations as set forth in this agreement within 60 days of 24 the original invoice , then Tacoma shall send notice to the 25 other R41A members, (parties hereto ) , of their opportunity to 26 reallocate the water share as permitted by Section 7 herein . 27 In the event that Tacoma does not receive a written binding 28 ()(rite of the Oly Allorney Deparinteot of Puhlic Illiiilies Adminislr tioo I111ilding ..„„ 29 36214 South 350t Slreel ll P.O. nu I Ion? �o.n I commitment within 90 days of the original subject invoice date 2 to assume and immediately pay the outstanding obligation by 3 another party hereto, then Tacoma may proceed to terminate 4 such defaulting party ' s rights and benefits under this agree- s ment . Tacoma shall provide written notice of intent to 6 terminate to the defaulting party on or after the 60th 7 calendar day that the subject invoice remains unpaid . In the g event that the default is not paid with interest or assumed 9 and paid, as provided herein , within 90 days of the date of 10 the original subject invoice date, then all rights and benefits 11 of the defaulting party shall automatically revert to Tacoma . 12 EXCEPT AS hereinabove specifically changed and amended 13 all the rest and remainder of said contract shall be unchanged 14 and remain in full force and effect between the parties . 15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed 16 this Amendment as of the day and year first above written . 17 APPROVED: 18 City of Tacoma Approved as to form & legality : Department of Public Utilities 19 20 By E. E. Coates Chief Assistant City Attorney 21 Director of Utilities 22 CITY OF TACOMA Water Division 23 By 24 Superintendent THE CITY OF TACOP7A, Y]ASHINGTUN 25 26 By Mayor 27 28 orrice or the Cily Attorney Deparlmenl of Public 111ilitles Administration I1uilding II.IB South 35111 slrem 29 11.tl. ❑o• 11007 'Tacoma.Wasllinginl. 08411 i Attest : City Clerk 2 APPROVED: _... 3 Regional Water Association of 4 South King County ' S By 6 President 7 Water District No. 124 8 By 9 Agrees to assume responsibility for 30. 77% of the contract 10 water or 4 . 62 MGD. 11 Water District No . 105 12 By 13 Agrees to assume responsibility for 23 . 08% of the contract water or 3. 46 MGD: 14 Water District No. 111 15 By 16 Agrees to assume responsibility for 15. 38% of the contract 17 water or 2. 31 MGD. 18 City of Kent 19 By Mayor 20 Agrees to assume responsibility for 30 . 77% of the contract water or 4 . 62 MGD. 21 22 23 24 25 6133c 26 27 28 Office of the City Attorney Department of 11uhlic Iltiltlles Administration Ihidding 29 362X Somth 35111 Street j 11.0.Box 11007 1)6GAI 1 �1 t1yJ� , Kent City Council Meeting �f Date May 17 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE DONATIONS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acknowledgement of donations to the Task Force, in the amount of $220 from the Kent Valley Youth Services and Warren Secord Automotive Centers . 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 . 3G Kent City Council Meeting M Date May 17, 1988 Category Other Business �yv 1. SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS REMODEL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: In its meeting of MAV 16, 1988 , the Council Operations Committee Vie" reviewer revised schematic drawings of a remodel of the City Council Chambers Along with the revised drawings, the Committee reviewed�evised cost estimates for the project. The Operations Committee Chair will report on the Committee' s recommendation. -6#sald-L#e-EamtCee be unable to report,�a tee-ommendation to the full Counc-il-v---t� 1, xxi11._.be wt1 -awn €rem .the agenda. 3 . EXHIBITS: Revised schematic drawing of Council Chambers remodel and revised cost estimates 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee _ (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $80,000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Capital Improvement Program 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTI�OgN-:- Councilmember moves , Councilmember VV seconds that the schematic drawings of the Council Chambers remodel project be approved and the project proceed to design phase. 4 DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 4A Revised Summary of Probable Construction Cost KENT CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER REMODEL May 12 , 1988 This estimate is based on a plans dated May 12 , 1988 . 1 . Demolition $1600 2 . Patch concrete 5200 3 . Stud walls S990 4 . Finish carpentry $16 , 686 5 . Doors , Windows S1389 6 . Carpet $4463 7 . Furnishings $8586 8 . Marker surfaces $269 9 . Mechanical and plumbing $3000 10 . Electrical $15 . 600 TOTAL $52 , 783 .•• General Conditions 5% $2 , 639 Total $55 , 422 ' Overhead and Profit 10% 5 , 542 Total $60 , 964 Contingency 10% 6 , 096 TOTAL $67 , 060 m , I � o �I Pill a s K PMOM t7ty of Kant App" RASOM Caad Chwi m Remodel ARAIM11fJ(90N A f1EC15G PIANNERS Far M Kent my Kent.Wa"gton Kent City Council Meeting Date May 17, 1988 ti Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE REGARDING BUSINESSES PROVIDING ADULT ENTERTAINMENT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: 4kgprove--Ordinance No . , regarding 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 establishments . 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance, memorandum from City Attorney 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee (Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: � �/�es, Councilmember � " seconds CouncilmemLer moves, to approve Ordinance No . �/�f io) regarding the establishment of regulatory standards for business, managers and employees that provide adult entertainment in the City of Kent. DISCUSSION: 1 ACTION• r Council Agenda Item No. 4B OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DATE: May 12, 1988 TO: Mayor Kelleher and Councilmembers FROM: Sandra Driscoll , City Attorney SUBJECT: ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ORDINANCE Presented for Council consideration is an ordinance regulating businesses, - managers and employees that propose to provide adult entertainment in the City of Kent. This is in response to the Council ' s motion at its meeting on May 3, 1988, directing the City Attorney to explore all possible legal strategies relating to regulation of nude or semi-nude dance establishments. This memorandum briefly sets forth the legal background for the ordinance and then summarizes the ordinance itself. SUMMARY OF LEGAL BACKGROUND The United States Supreme Court and the Washington State Supreme Court have examined municipal ordinances that have either regulated or prohibited businesses presenting adult entertainment. These cases are traditionally analyzed under to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and the Washington State Constitution, Article 1 , Section 5, that provides: Every person may freely speak, write and publish, on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. Generally, the courts have held that nude and semi-nude dancing comes under the protection of the First and Fourteenth Amendments -of the United States Constitution. Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. , 427 U.S. 50, 73n.1 , (1976); Kitsap County v. Kev, Inc. , 106 Wn.2d 135, 140 (1986) . The courts have also held, however, that although the First Amendment protects the communication and expression of a nude dancer, public nudity itself is conduct subject to regulation. Kitsap County v. Kev, Inc. , 106 Wn.2d at 140. The State Supreme Court has declared that the Washington State Constitution also protects nude expression, but not nude conduct. Seattle v. Buchanan, 90 Wn.2d 584 (1978). Any ordinance regulating the communication and expression by nude or semi-nude dancers, then, must be examined in light of the guarantees of freedom of speech under the Washington Constitution and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Total bans on nude dancing have been invalidated. BSA, Inc. v. King County, 804 Fed.2d 1104 (9th Cir. , 1986) . The courts have found, however, that a municipality may pass regulations on protected expression if the regulations are time, place, and manner restrictions. Those restrictions must be 1 ) content neutral , 2) narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, and 3) leave open ample alternative channels of communication. Bering v. Share, 106 Wn.2d 212 (1986), cert. dismissed, 93 L.Ed.2d 990 (1987); O'Day v. King County, 109 Wn.2d at 796, 808 (1988) . The courts have found that pure conduct and obscene expressions do not enjoy the protections of either Article 1 , Section 5, or the First Amendment. Seattle v. Buchanan , 90 Wn.2d 584 (1978) , O'Day v. King County, supra. In adopting regulations that constitutionally limit the protected expressions through time, place and manner restrictions, the United States Supreme Court has held that a city may pass such regulations if there are specific adverse impacts on the city from the operation of the particular business being regulated. The city's concerns must focus on the adverse secondary effects of such a business and not with the content of the expressions of the entertainers themselves. City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. , 106 S.Ct. 925 (1986). In determining specific adverse impacts, the city may rely on experiences of other municipalities in similar situations. City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. , 106 S.Ct. 925 at 931 . "The First Amendment does not require a city, before enacting such an ordinance, to conduct new studies or produce evidence independent of that already generated by other cities, so long as whatever evidence the city relies upon is reasonably believed to be relevant to the problem that the city addresses." 106 S.Ct. at 931 . Other municipalities have dealt with adult entertainment businesses and their specific adverse impacts, be they adult book stores, adult motion picture theatres, or adult entertainment establishments with nude or semi-nude entertainers. In North End Cinema, Inc. v. Seattle, 90 Wn.2d 709 (1978), the - 2 - court cited the City of Seattle's experiences with problems related to adult movie theatres in residential areas of the City. The City of Renton had before it the effects of the presence of such theatres when it enacted an ordinance establishing a method of adult theatre zoning. City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 106 S.Ct. 925 (1986). Kitsap County adopted an ordinance regulating erotic dance studios. The County experienced problems with numerous violations of the dancing distance and touching regulations, unlicensed dancers, dancers soliciting tips, and violations of criminal laws regarding controlled substances, prostitution, and other criminal activity. Ultimately, the County declared the business to be a public nuisance and, after substantial litigation, was successful in enjoining certain individuals from operating such a business in the County. Kitsap County v. Kev, Inc. , 106 Wn.2d 135 (1986). The constitutionality of a King County ordinance regulating the operation of nonalcohol topless dancing establishments was challenged. It was upheld as constitutional in County of King v. Chisman , 33 Wn.App. 809 (1983) . In its decision, the court recited the violations of the ordinance. The owner was operating without a license; he allowed table dancing which violated the requirement that dancers be no less than six feet away from the patrons; and he allowed people under 21 years of age into the establishment. The courts have also routinely found that a municipality may regulate obscene activities. The United States Supreme Court established a three-prong obscenity test in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607 (1973) . A. Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest . . . ; B. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and -• C. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific values. The courts have held that incorporation of the Miller definition of obscenity into a local ordinance as further defined by the community standards meets the constitutional standards necessary for regulation of such behavior. State v. Regan, 97 Wn.2d 47, 50 (1982); O'Day v. King County, 109 Wn.2d 796, 807 (1988) . - 3 - PROPOSED ORDINANCE -- BACKGROUND Presented to the Council is an ordinance establishing of regulatory standards for businesses, managers, and employees that provide adult entertainment in the City of Kent. In its deliberations on the proposed ordinance, the Council is asked to consider certain information. In 1982, the Council reviewed an adult use zoning study that detailed, among other things, the impacts of adult uses in the City of Kent including the incidence of crime, impacts on property values, land use incompatibilities, and the major cases and legal guidelines in adult use law. In 1986, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 2687 establishing zoning requirements for location of adult book stores and adult motion picture theatres. An ordinance regulating acts or conduct on premises licensed under the authority of the Washington State Liquor Control Board was adopted by the Council in September, 1981 . This was a result of the experience of the City related to a nude dancing establishment that served liquor that was located within the City of Kent. Ordinance No. 2312 prohibits certain obscene nude or semi-nude entertainment or pure conduct in establishments serving liquor. Specific information will be presented to the Council on criminal activity resulting from a particular business of this type in the City of Kent. At the Council meeting on May 3, 1988 numerous community individuals presented information to the Council on the adverse secondary impacts that result from the location of a nonalcohol topless dancing establishment that was proposed to be located in the City of Kent. Community members mentioned, among other things, the following concerns: 1 . ' Increased impact on a community already impacted by pollution of the Midway Landfill . 2. Negative impact on the business community. 3. Negative impact due to the close proximity to residential areas. 4. Negative modeling for the children. 5. Alcohol consumption by underaged children. 6. Increased illegal activity related to controlled substances. 7. Various liquor law violations. - 8. Need for substantial increase in police presence. 9. Increased traffic congestion. 10. Increased robberies and burglaries. - 4 - The ordinance presented to the Council is substantially similar to a King County ordinance. The County's ordinance withstood the scrutiny of the Washington State Supreme Court. In O'Day v. King County, 109 Wn.2d 796 (1988) , the State Supreme Court declared that the King County ordinance regulating adult entertainment establishments that do not serve alcohol was constitutional . Basically, that ordinance requires business owners, managers and entertainers working at any public place of amusement offering nude or semi-nude entertainment to obtain a license, makes those individuals responsible for violating certain standards of conduct, and subjects the violators to criminal penalties and to license revocation or suspension. The Court in O'Day stated that nude and semi-nude dancing establishments cannot be outright prohibited but can be regulated through reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. PROPOSED ORDINANCE -- SUMttARY 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: 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-6bscene 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. - 5 - 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. cc: Brent McFall , City Administrator 3957L-02L - 6 - i ORDINANCE NO. I AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, regarding the establishment of regulatory standards for businesses, managers, and employees that provide adult entertainment in the City of Kent. WHEREAS, cities have the right to enact laws for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, various Washington State municipalities have found it is necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare to regulate businesses, managers, and employees that provide adult, entertainment; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted ordinances relating to adult businesses and adult entertainment that regulate adult book stores and adult motion picture theatres, massage parlors and massagists, and adult entertainment in businesses licensed by the Washington Liquor Control Board in order to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of the City as well as to protect and preserve the quality of the City's neighborhoods, commercial districts, and the quality of urban life; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that adult entertainment, including nude and semi-nude dancing, in public establishments is frequently linked to patron, employee, and owner participation in criminal activity including controlled substance violations , liquor law violations, prostitution, and, generally, increased criminal activity; and WHEREAS, the City takes notice of the experiences of other cities and counties in combating the specific adverse impacts of businesses providing adult entertainment including nude and semi-nude dancing; and WHEREAS, the City has conducted a study of the impacts of adult entertainment places and adult uses in its city in a report entitled "City of Kent - Adult Use Zoning Study" issued by the Kent Planning Department in November, 1982, which is incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the City has closed two adult use businesses due to violations of business licenses and/or criminal activity as is set forth in the above-referenced study; and WHEREAS, certain testimony has been presented to the City Council and its committees through verbal and written statements concerning the adverse secondary impacts of businesses providing adult entertainment; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ` Section 1 . A new ordinance regulating businesses, managers and employees that provide adult entertainment is adopted as follows: 5.32.010. FINDINGS OF FACT. Based on public testimony and other evidence and information before it, the Kent City Council makes the following Findings of Fact: A. The activities defined and regulated hereinafter are detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City and, therefore, such activities must be regulated as provided herein. B. Regulation of the adult entertainment industry is necessary because in the absence of such regulation significant criminal activity has historically and regularly occurred. This history of criminal activity in the adult entertainment industry has included prostitution, narcotics and liquor law violations, breaches of the peace and the presence within the industry of individuals with hidden ownership interests and outstanding arrest warrants. C. In the absence of regulation, the activities described above occur regardless of whether the adult entertainment is presented in conjunction with the sale of alcoholic beverages. 2 - i D. It is necessary to license entertainers in the adult entertainment industry to prevent the exploitation of minors; to ensure that each such entertainer is an adult; to ensure that such entertainers have not assumed a false name, which would make regulation of the entertainer difficult or impossible; and to ensure that such entertainers are not involved in criminal activity. E. It is necessary to have a licensed manager on the premises of establishments offering adult entertainment at such times as such establishments are offering adult entertainment so that there will at all necessary times be an individual responsible for the overall operation of the establishment, including the actions of patrons, entertainers and other employees F. The license fees required herein are nominal fees imposed as necessary regulatory measures designed to help defray the substantial expenses incurred by the City in regulating the adult entertainment industry. O. Hidden ownership interests for the purposes of skimming profits and avoiding the payment of taxes have historically occurred in the adult entertainment industry in the absence of regulation. These hidden ownership interests have historically been held by organized and white collar crime elements. In order for the City to effectively protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizenry, it is important that the City be fully apprised of the actual ownership of adult entertainment establishments. 5.32.020. DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this chapter the words and phrases used herein, unless the context otherwise indicates, shall have the following meanings: A. "Public place of amusement," "public amusement/entertainment," and "public entertainment" mean an amusement, diversion, entertainment, show, performance, exhibition, display or like activity, for the use or benefit of a member or members of the public, or advertised for the use or benefit of a member of the public, held, conducted, operated or maintained for a profit, either direct or indirect. B. "Manager" means any person appointed by the operation who manages, directs, administers, or is in charge of, the affairs and/or the conduct of any portion of any activity 3 - involving adult entertainment occurring at any place offering adult entertainment. C. "Entertainer" means any person who provides adult entertainment within a public place of amusement as defined in this section whether or not a fee is charged or accepted for such entertainment. D. "Entertainment" means any exhibition or dance of any type, pantomime, modeling or any other performance. E. "Adult entertainment" means any exhibition or dance of any type conducted in premises where such exhibition or dance involves a person that is unclothed or in such attire, costume or clothing as to expose to view any portion of the breast below the top of the areola or any portion of the pubic region, anus, buttocks, vulva or genitals. F. "Employee" means any and all persons , including entertainers and independent contractors, who work in or at or render any services directly related to the operation of a public place of amusement, which offers, conducts or maintains adult entertainment. G. "Operator" means any person operating, conducting or maintaining an adult entertainment business. 5.32.030. LICENSE FOR BUSINESS REQUIRED - FEE. A. No public place of amusement, including but not limited to places which offer adult entertainment, shall be operated or maintained in the City of Kent unless the owner or lessee thereof has obtained a license from the City Clerk; Provided, however, that it is unlawful for any entertainer, employee or operator to knowingly work in or about, or to knowingly perform any service directly related to the operation of an unlicensed public place of amusement/entertainment. B. The annual fee for such a license shall be $500.00. C. This license expires annually on December 31 and must be renewed by January 1 . D. There will be no prorating of the fee. E. The applicant must be 18 years of age or older. 4 - i 5.32.040. LICENSE FOR MANAGERS AND ENTERTAINERS REQUIRED - FEE. A. No person shall work as a manager or entertainer at a public place of amusement offering adult entertainment without having first obtained a manager's or an entertainer' s license fromi the City Clerk pursuant to section 5.32.070 of this chapter. B. The annual fee for such a license shall be $150.00. C. This license expires annually on December 31 and ' must be renewed by January 1 . D. There will be no prorating of the fee. E. The applicant must be 18 years of age or older. 5.32.050. DUE DATE FOR LICENSE FEES. All licenses required by 5.32.030 must be issued and the applicable fees are due and payable to the City Clerk at least fourteen (14) calendar days before the opening of the adult entertainment business. 5.32.060. RENEWAL OF LICENSE, REGISTRATION OR PERMIT - LATE PENALTY. A late penalty shall be charged on all applications for renewal of a license, received later than ten (10) calendar days after the expiration date of such license. The amount of such penalty is fixed as follows: A. For a license, requiring a fee of fifty cents or more, but less than or equal to seventy-five dollars, twenty percent of the required fee; B. For a license, requiring a fee of more than seventy-five dollars, ten percent of the required fee. 5.32.070. LICENSE APPLICATIONS. A. Public Adult/Entertainment License. All applications for a public amusement/entertainment license for places which offer adult entertainment shall be submitted in the name of the person or entity proposing to conduct such public amusement/entertainment on the business premises and shall be signed by such person and notarized or certified as true under penalty of perjury. All applications shall be submitted on a form supplied by the City Clerk, which shall require the following information: 1 . The name, home address , home telephone number, date and place of birth, driver's license number, if any, and 5 - social security number of the applicant if the applicant is an individual . 2. The business name, address and telephone number of the establishment. 3. The names, addresses, telephone numbers, and social security numbers of any partners, including limited partners, corporate officers, shareholders who own ten percent or more of the business, or other persons who have a substantial - interest or management responsibilities in connection with the business, specifying the interest or management responsibility of each. For the purpose of this subsection "substantial interest" shall mean ownership of ten percent or more of the business, or any other kind of contribution to the business of the same or greater size. 4. Terms of any loans, leases, secured transactions and repayments therefore relating to the business. 5. Addresses of the applicant for the five (5) years immediately prior to the date of application. 6. A description of the adult entertainment or similar business history of the applicant; whether such person or entity, in previously operating in this or another city, county or state, has had a business license revoked or suspended, the reason therefore, and the activity or occupation subsequent to such action, suspension or revocation. 7. Any and all criminal convictions or forfeitures other than parking offenses or minor traffic violations including dates of conviction, nature of the crime, name and location of court and disposition for each owner, partner or corporation. 8. A description of the business, occupation, or employment of the applicant for the three (3) years immediately preceding the date of application. 9. Authorization for the City, its agents and employees to seek information to confirm any statements set forth in the application. 10. Supplemental identification and/or information necessary to confirm matters set forth in the application. B. Manager or Entertainer License. A separate license shall be obtained for each and every establishment at which the applicant will practice. All applications for a manager's or entertainer's license shall be signed by the applicant and 6 - notarized or certified to be true under penalty of perjury. All applications shall be submitted on a form supplied by the City Clerk, which shall require the following information: 1 . The applicant's name, home address, home telephone number, date and place of birth, fingerprints taken by the Kent Police Department employees, social security number, and any stage names or nicknames used in entertaining. 2. The name and address of each business at which the applicant intends to work. 3. The applicant shall present documentation that he or she has attained the age of eighteen (18) years. Any of the following shall be accepted as documentation of age: (i ) a motor vehicle operator's license issued by any state bearing the applicant's photograph and date of birth, or (ii ) a state issued identification card bearing the applicant's photograph and date of birth. 4. A complete statement of all convictions of the applicant for any misdemeanor or felony violations in this or any other city, county, or state except parking violations or minor traffic infractions. 5. A description of the applicant's principal activities or service to be rendered. 6. Resident addresses and telephone numbers for five (5) years immediately prior to the date of application specifying the period of residence at each address. 7. The name and address of employers or individuals or businesses for whom the applicant was an employee -. or independent contractor for the three (3) year period immediately prior to the date of application, including the period of employment. 8. Supplemental information and/or identification deemed necessary by the Clerk of her or his designee to confirm any statements set forth in the application. 9. Authorization for the City, its agents and employees to investigate and confirm any statements set forth in the application. C. If any person or entity acquires, subsequent to the issuance of a public amusement/entertainment license for places offering adult entertainment, a substantial interest in the 7 - i licensed premises, immediate notice of such acquisition shall be provided in writing to the City Clerk, and in no event, no later than twenty-one (21 ) days following such acquisition. The information required to be provided pursuant to this subsection shall be that information required pursuant to subsection 5.32.070 of this chapter. D. Copies of an application shall , within five (5) calendar days of receipt thereof, be referred by the City Clerk to the Planning, Building, Fire or other appropriate Departments. The departments shall , within thirty (30) business days, inspect the application, the premises proposed to be operated as an adult entertainment place and shall make written verification to the City Clerk that such premises complies with the codes of the City. No license may be issued without such verification. The application shall also be referred to the Police Department for a criminal records check and verification of the information provided by the applicant on the application for a license. E. Upon completion of the investigation and review by the departments, a review of the recommendations and verifications, and a determination that all matters contained in the application are true and correct and that this chapter has been complied with, the City Clerk shall issue such license applied for in accordance with the provisions with this chapter; provided, however, that the applicable license fee, together with any delinquent fees that may then be due shall first be paid to the City. 5.32.080. MANAGER ON PREMISES. A licensed manager shall be on the premises of a public place of amusement at all times that adult entertainment is being provided. 5.32.090. LICENSE NONTRANSFERABLE. No license or permit shall be transferable. 5.32.100. LICENSE - POSTING AND DISPLAY. A. Every adult entertainer shall post his or her permit in his or her work area so it is readily available for public inspection. B. Every person, corporation, partnership, or association licensed under this Chapter shall display such license 8 - I in a prominent place. The name of the manager on duty shall be prominently posted during business hours. 5.32.120. LICENSE - NAME OF BUSINESS AND PLACE OF BUSINESS. No person granted a license pursuant to this Chapter shall operate the adult entertainment business under a name not specified in his/her license, nor shall he/she conduct business under any designation or location not specified in his/her license 5.32.130. ADULT ENTERTAINMENT. Any license issued for an adult entertainment business may be revoked or suspended by thel City Council after notice of not less than ten (10) calendar days, and a subsequent hearing for good cause, or in any case where any of the provisions of this Chapter are violated, or where any employee of the licensee is engaged in any conduct which violates l any state or local laws or ordinances at licensee's place of business and of which the licensee has actual or constructive knowledge. Such permit may also be revoked or suspended by the City Council after notice and hearing, upon the recommendations of the County Health Department that such business is being managed, conducted, or maintained without regard to proper sanitation and hygiene. 5.32.140. PERMIT - REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION. An adult entertainment manager or entertainer permit issued by the City Clerk shall be revoked or suspended where it appears that the operator has made a false statement on an application for a permit, or has committed an act in violation of this Chapter. 5.32.150. LICENSE - SALE, TRANSFER, OR RELOCATION. Upon sale, transfer or relocation of an adult entertainment business, the license therefor shall be null and void; Provided, however, that upon the death or incapacity of the licensee or any colicensee, any heir or devisee of a deceased licensee, or any guardian of an heir or devisee of a deceased licensee may continue the adult entertainment for a reasonable period of time not to exceed sixty (60) calendar days to allow for an orderly renewal of the license, if such new licensee fulfills all requirements of this Chapter. 9 - 5.32.160. STANDARDS Of CONDUCT AND OPERATION. A. The following standards of conduct must be adhered to by employees of any public place of amusement which offers, conducts, or maintains adult entertainment: 1 . No employee or entertainer shall be unclothed or in such less than opaque and complete attire, costume or clothing so as to expose to view any portion of the breast below the top of the areola or of any portion of the pubic region, anus, buttocks, vulva or genitals except as provided for in subdivision 6 of this subsection and section 5.32.160.C.3 of this chapter. 2. No employee or entertainer mingling with the patrons shall be unclothed or in such attire, costume or clothing as described in subdivision 1 . of this subsection. 3. No employee or entertainer shall encourage or knowingly permit any person upon the premises to touch, caress or fondle the breasts, buttocks, anus or genitals of any other person 4. No employee or entertainer shall wear or use any device or covering exposed to view which simulates the breast below the top of the areola, vulva or genitals, anus, buttocks, or any portion of the pubic region. 5. No employee or entertainer shall perform acts of or acts which simulate: a. Sexual intercourse, masturbation, sodomy, - bestiality, oral copulation, flagellation, or any sexual acts which are prohibited by law; b. The touching, caressing or fondling of the breasts, buttocks or genitals; or C. The displaying of the pubic region, anus, vulva or genitals; except as provided for in subdivision 6 of this subsection and section 5.32.160.C.3 of this chapter. 6. No employee or entertainer shall be unclothed or in such less than opaque and complete attire, costume or clothing so as to expose to view any portion of the breast below the top of the areola, or any portion of the pubic region, vulva or genitals, anus and/or buttocks exposed to view except upon a stage at least eighteen inches above the immediate floor level and removed at least six feet from the nearest patron. 7. No employee or entertainer shall use artificial devices or inanimate objects to depict any of the prohibited activities described in this subsection. 10 - a. No employee or entertainer shall remain in or upon the public place of amusement who exposes to public view -. any portion of his or her genitals or anus except as expressly provided for in subdivision 6 of this subsection and section 5.32.160.C.3 of this chapter. 8. No entertainer of any place offering adult entertainment shall be visible from any public place during the hours of his or her employment, or apparent hours of his or her employment, on the premises. 9. No entertainer at a place offering adult entertainment shall demand or collect all or any portion of a fee from a patron for entertainment before its completion. 10. A sign shall be conspicuously displayed in the common area of the premises, and shall read as follows: THIS ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENT IS REGULATED BY THE CITY OF KENT; ENTERTAINERS ARE: a. Not permitted to engage in any type of sexual conduct; b. Not permitted to be unclothed or in such less than opaque and complete attire, costume or clothing so as to expose to view any portion of the breasts below the top of the areola, any portion of the pubic region, buttocks, genitals or vulva and/or anus except upon a stage at least eighteen inches from the immediate floor level and removed at least six feet from the nearest patron; and C. Not permitted to demand or collect all or any portion of a fee from a patron for entertainment before its completion. B. At any public place of amusement which offers, conducts, or maintains adult entertainment, the following are required: 1 . Admission must be restricted to persons of the age of eighteen years or more; and 2. Neither the performance nor any photograph, drawing, sketch or other pictorial or graphic representation thereof displaying any portion of the breasts below the top of the areola or any portion of the pubic hair, buttocks, genitals and/or anus may be visible outside of the public place of amusement so licensed. - it - 3. Sufficient lighting shall be provided in and about the parts of the premises which are open to and used by the public so that all objects are plainly visible at all times. C. This chapter shall not be construed to prohibit: 1 . Plays, operas, musicals, or other dramatic works which are not obscene; 2. Classes, seminars and lectures held for serious scientific or educational purposes; or 3. Exhibitions or dances which are not obscene. D. For purposes of this chapter, an activity is "obscene" if: 1 . Taken as a whole by an average person applying contemporary community standards the activity appeals to a prurient interest in sex; 2. The activity depicts patently offensive representations according to Kent community standards of a. ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated; or b. masturbation, fellatio, cunnilingus, bestiality, excretory functions, or lewd exhibition of the genitals or genital area; or violent or destructive sexual acts, including but not limited to human or animal mutilation, dismemberment, rape or torture; and 3. The activity taken as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political , or scientific value. E. For purposes of this chapter, an activity is "dramatic" if the activity is of, relating to, devoted to, or concerned specifically or professionally with current drama or the contemporary theater. F. Section 5.32.160 of this chapter does not apply to taverns and premises maintaining liquor licenses. City of Kent Ordinance 2312 does so apply. 5.32.170. BUSINESS HOURS. No public entertainment shall be conducted between the hours of two-thirty a.m. and ten a.m. 5.32.180. PUBLIC NUISANCE. Any adult entertainment business operated, conducted or maintained contrary to the provisions of this Chapter or any law of the City or State of Washington shall be, and the same is, declared to be unlawful and 12 _ a public nuisance and the City Attorney may, in addition to or in lieu of prosecuting a criminal action hereunder, commence an -- action or actions, for the abatement, removal and enjoinment thereof, in the manner provided by law; and shall take such other steps and shall apply to such court or courts as may have jurisdiction to grant such reliefs as will abate or remove such adult entertainment business, and restrain and enjoin any person from operating, conducting or maintaining an adult entertainment - business contrary to the provisions of this Chapter. 5.32.190. VIOLATION - PENALTY. Every person, except those persons who are specifically exempted by this Chapter, whether acting as an individual owner, operator, employee, or agent or independent contractor for the owner, employee or operator, or acting as a participant or worker in any way directly or indirectly who works in or operates an adult entertainment business, of any of the services defined in this Chapter without first obtaining a license or permit, and paying a fee to do so, from the City, or violates any provisions of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon conviction such person shall be punished by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment for a period not to exceed twelve months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. 5.32.200. ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT. Notwithstanding the existence or use of any other remedy, the City may seek legal or ' equitable relief to enjoin any acts or practices which constitute or will constitute a violation of any business license ordinance _• or other regulations herein adopted. 5.32.210. SEVERABILITY. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this chapter should be held invalid or unconstitutional , the validity or constitutionality thereof shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this chapter. Section 2. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and confirmed. 13 - J Kent City Council Meeting (1 Uf Date May 17, 1988 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: JOSEY GLENN PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION NO. SU-88-1 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This public meeting will consider the Hearing Examiner ' s recommendation of conditional approval of this - nine lot single family residential preliminary plat. The site is 2 . 4 acres in size and is located on the southeast corner of S.E. 232nd and 112th Avenue S.E. The recommended conditions are outlined in the packet. It "JAI �t 3 . EXHIBITS: staff memo, staff report, minutes, findings and recommendation -.. 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner 3/30/88 (Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc. ) conditional approval 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: a Councilmember t'V'Cb) moves, Councilmember seconds t do /modify the findings of the Hearing Examiner and to gre with/disagree with the Hearing Examiner ' s recommendation conditional approval . w DISCUSSION: a ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 4C KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT May 11, 1988 MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members _.. FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION FROM THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE JOSEY GLENN PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION #SU-88-1 On March 30, 1988, the Hearing Examiner made a recommendation for the Josey Glenn preliminary subdivision. The Hearing Examiner recommends approval with the conditions listed below: A. Comply with all conditions of the Josey One Short Plat and record same. B. Comply with all SEPA conditions stipulated for this plat. C. Prior to Recordation of Plat: Construct or obtain City approval of detailed engineering drawings and bond for the following: 1. Gravity sanitary sewer service shall be provided to all lots of the proposed subdivision as well as Tract B of the Josey One Short Plat. 2 . Extend City water to provide adequate domestic and fire flows to service all lots (a minimum six-inch main is required) . 3 . Construct 112th Place SE as shown on the preliminary plat drawing with a minimum pavement width of 28 feet (as measured from the curb face) , curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, storm drainage facilities, underground utilities and related appurtenances in accordance with the City's Subdivision Code. The improved radii to face of curb of the cul-de-sac turnaround shall be 45 feet. Dedicate to the City the respective right of way therefore. 4 . Provide on-site storm water detention in accordance with City Drainage Code. S. , Improve the south half of SE 232nd Street and the east half j of 112th Avenue SE for the entire frontage thereon to residential collector standards (curb and gutter, sidewalks, storm drainage, underground utilities, street lighting and related appurtenances. 6. Furnish and install all street name signs and stop signs as may be determined necessary by the City. 7 . The final plat linen shall bear a notation stating that access to Lot 2 shall be provided by the cul-de-sac (112th Place SE) only and not by SE 232nd Street. JPH:ca FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT FILE NO: #SU-88-1 JOSEY GLENN APPLICANT: LAKERIDGE DEVELOPMENT REOUEST: A request for preliminary subdivision approval for nine residential lots. LOCATION: The subject property is located on the southeast corner of SE 232nd Street and 112th Avenue SE. APPLICATION FILED: 12/23/87 DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE: 1/15/88 MEETING DATE: 3/16/88 RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: 3/30/88 RECOMMENDATION: CONDITIONAL APPROVAL STAFF REPRESENTATIVES: Jim Hansen, Planning Department Kathy McClung, Planning Department Carol Proud, Planning Department Gary Gill, Public Works Department PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Noel Townsend Wayne Jones Angela Colee WRITTEN TESTIMONY: Kent School District Richard & Patti Usack INTRODUCTION After due consideration of the evidence presented by the applicant, all evidence elicited during the public hearing, and as a result of the personal inspection of the subject property by the Hearing Examiner, the following findings of fact and conclusions shall constitute the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner on this application. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant, Lakeridge Development, Inc. , requests preliminary subdivision approval for a subdivision to be known as "Josey Glenn" . 1 Findings and Recommendation JOSEY GLENN #SU-88-1 2 . The subject property is 2 .4 acres in size and is located on the southeast corner of SE 232nd and 112th Avenue SE. The proposal would subdivide the property into nine single family residential lots with the average lot size being 8, 187 square feet. 3 . The proposed subdivision is currently zoned R1-7.21 Single Family Residential, with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. The current proposal provides for the smallest lots being 7 ,200 square feet with the largest being 9,460 square feet. As -. indicated, the average lot size is 8, 187 square feet. 4. This site is Tract A of the pending Josey One short subdivision which was conditionally approved on January 21, 1988 . 5. The site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The evidence establishes that the topography is relatively level. 6. There are existing water and sanitary sewer lines available to serve the subject site. These utilities will have to be extended to serve the proposed subdivision. 7. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as SF, Single Family Residential, while the East Bill Plan designates the site as SF, Single Family Residential, 4-6 units per acre. 8 . The site will be accessed by a cul-de-sac to be known as 112th Place SE and has access to and from the cul-de-sac by way of SE 232nd Street. Two of the proposed lots will have access to 112th Avenue SE, located to the west of the proposed plat. This street is classified as a residential collector with a public right-of-way width of 60 feet and actual width of paving 32 feet. There are no sidewalks adjacent to 112th Avenue SE and there is considerable pedestrian traffic which consists primarily of children who walk to and from the nearby elementary school. Further, SE 232nd Street is classified as a residential collector and is not improved to City standards. 9 . The evidence establishes that the vicinity consists of primarily single family residential uses. To the south of site along 112th Avenue SE there are older single family residences while to the north and east is the Eastridge development with a total of 112 lots. Directly west, across 112th Avenue SE, there is a church and related parking area and accessory structures. As mentioned, to the north and west is the elementary school which generates a considerable number of child pedestrians on 112th Avenue SE. 10. At the time of the public hearing, concern was expressed by adjacent residents concerning the safety of the child pedestrians. Further, Richard and Patty Usack submitted a letter also expressing concerns with respect to traffic and pedestrian safety. 2 Findings and Recommendation JOSEY GLENN #SU-88-1 11. At the time of the public hearing, the applicant objected to staff ' s recommended condition that with respect to the requirement that the south half of SE 232nd Street and the east half of 1112th Avenue SE for the frontage thereon be improved to residential collector standards. The applicant's objection was based upon the previous execution of a no protest LID and the inconsistency of partial street improvements. 12 . The proposal would generate approximately 90 vehicle trips per day. 13 . The staff report, with its recommendation of conditional approval, is incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. CONCLUSIONS 1. The proposed subdivision, if properly conditioned, meets the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the East Hill Comprehensive Plan. 2 . Due to the traffic which will be generated by the proposed subdivision, it is not unreasonable for the applicant to be required to improve the south half of SE 232nd Street and the east half of 112th Avenue SE particularly considering the proximity of Park orchard elementary school and the fact that the majority of students there walk, and many traverse 112th Avenue SE. 3 . With respect to the applicant's objection concerning staff' s recommended condition relative to a 45-foot radii, since this requirement is part of the Uniform Fire Code and no evidence has been submitted by the applicant in support of a reduced radii, this condition is reasonable. RECOMMENDATION For each of the above reasons, the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner on the request preliminary subdivision is CONDITIONAL APPROVAL subject to the following conditions: A. Comply with all conditions of the Josey One Short Plat and record same. B. Comply with all SEPA conditions stipulated for this plat. 3 Findings and Recommendation ' JOSEY GLENN #SU-88-1 C. Prior to Recordation of Plat: __. Construct or obtain City approval of detailed engineering drawings and bond for the following: 1. Gravity sanitary sewer service shall be provided to all lots of the proposed subdivision as well as Tract B of the Josey One Short Plat. 2 . Extend City water to provide adequate domestic and fire flows to service all lots (a minimum six-inch main is required) . 3. Construct 112th Place SE as shown on the preliminary plat drawing with a minimum pavement width of 28 feet (as measured from the curb face) , curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, storm drainage facilities, underground utilities and related appurtenances in accordance with the City's Subdivision Code. The improved radii to face of curb of the cul-de-sac turnaround shall be 45 feet. Dedicate to the City the respective right of way therefore. 4. Provide on-site storm water detention in accordance with City Drainage Code. 5. Improve the south half of SE 232nd Street and the east half of 112th Avenue SE for the entire frontage thereon to residential collector standards (curb and gutter, sidewalks, storm drainage, underground utilities, street lighting and related appurtenances. 6. Furnish and install all street name signs and stop signs as may be determined necessary by the City. 7. The final plat linen shall bear a notation stating that access to Lot 2 shall be provided by the cul-de-sac (112th Place SE) only and not by SE 232nd Street. Dated this 30th day of March, 1988. 1 1. , oua, DIANE L. VANDERBEEK Hearing Examiner 4 Findings and Recommendation _. JOSEY GLENN #SU-88-1 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 KCNT planning . n. LL 6 V ^ W V \\\ H STI r a > SE 218T4 $ST < > r1 t 6 BE 215TTH Be 218TH PL Z �J \ Z Z o (D Be W ST �N1 6 0 � W N N 0 BE 222NO,`� ST SI5 W = H u ` �'•�0 BE 223R0 ST O N f<N h• N Y• VI f VI ^ BE 226TH ST^ < f o� E t� .. W SE2NTH 40 SE ^2233RO_i. w' 16 rcQ PL N u u 224TH Q\ BE 225TH b 0�" BE 22STH n n w ST < E STII P' w r rMi 225T N BE 226TH ST m o �"< "'=y < y 22P1 H N i'^ SE xw 'P < F BE 227TH PL m ^ f 227TH ST 2>< ti^u BE 228TH ST BE 228TH 4 ! ST w \ BE 2297M yyW -f,f y291"14o W S 2 9TH.ST. w N PL Q @� ST 1^ BE 230 VIST \ IT••\ s BE O b�� Q g BE 231ST PARK RCARY HA ELE NT sw y. yu W n 230TH� •E1 ST Zu, SCH L �^ > PL. SO 'ef 232NL/ ST o> .-W> ' BE 232NO ST w SE ^< E232NO t ._••� SE 2321,0 PL " 232NO e W ST n fly E 233RO PL ♦ o "i Z ,•, ST i Y1 1 ..•. L,r,l;r. c 'JA 9E 233R0 AL i•^�4 SITE .. w 'Pf N y v) LL SE 234TH ST MERIDIAN ` JR.HI. BE SCHOOL 5� Oy'L Q 23�Tl1 PL- 0 L m Jp \ T.- A p ♦ y BE 236TH ST AVE J = Hrcn New coAe 6T ' —— SE CITY SE 236TH ST W ,l u Su SE 236TH PL a wale, ., o '� SE 23ITN ST > hrse,.O^ n s \ `O E 238TH w o \ m BE 239TH ST \\\\\ w ST w 0 u u o > BE OTH ST 17 16 20 21 HILL :NTARY 3L W W �• G N M1S BE 244TH 0 N w N G < O 1 ti APPLICATION Name JOSEY GLENN LEGEND '- Number #SU-88-1 Dale March 16, 1988 -& application site am Request Subdivision VICINITY SCALE = "'A000' CITY OF KENT 01 planning 2 \ / / O�iV / 7D Y rt tp1`t fat g9 / BU Ly S• 3 7 8 79 \ 7-4 I3� � - cn _ 7y \ k \T86 I 76 75 L 76 N55 87 I 77 TL S8 z3zNo sT 88 ' �7o DF Ot'O1C.Y Y+D�O,`., j,JR ° yo yo s5 . � mil. •• .W. COR., N.E. 114, osF 7s�: ' .E. 114, SEC. 17 - 2 gS. V 7scosr , �_ SCM �8s1C}r z 7J JF 0 unuunamuunuuun l0 - s. 55 � � • m - � _. ! B TZ 29 izs so 95 yB5 h fA p 5 0 6 o I XkENr SR79 6030932 Q 6 �o I I I 2 2 7 I \ / s TZ 24Z . TL 187 'I 7-L 27.5 I l SE_ 233RD PL T'L 9 9 �KEar sv soc79-/0 / I W� N I �TL 29°7 III . w / 13 = ITL It—, � TL 245 If APPLICATION Name JOSEY GLEN14 LEGEND : Number #su-88-1 Dale March 16, 1988 application site Request Subdivision City II SITE PLAN limits SCALE = 1":100' CITY OF KENT _.., planning , n^ R W y Y 6 f \ H STI r $ i SE 218TH s > m ST < i r•e 1 ^SE 2I9TH SE 2111TH PL < x ST s o CD \� o 2 y 220TH W $T �N1 L CLSE 222ND`\ .... anST---2 W Zw �••�0 �TSE 223RD ST �. 7 N <N V NSE 224TH i PO e J 1 H v rind y 224TH J40 SE •'223RD- ib — _— w. PL A PL r^ x N 224TH Q4 SE 225TH y 22% 1/ In m w $T 57 < J E STII n W W / SE PL Z Z.zz. �i' i r H i SE SE 226TH ST m mC ^< Wj 22PI N jN 2w O \ Njn < _ "• 8E 227TH PL 227T11 ST > H SE 228TH ST< SE 228TH ' y ST N $E 229Th yti 7LOB7. 29TH- ' 2 9 TH.ST\ W N PL Y" fS1" ST 1^ > I 5 1^ y1+ �yb SE 230 it \ ;T•• ST Z SE,O y'La SE 231ST PARK RCHA xW ELE NTARY yr w n 230TH 0A ST zn SCH L nw a PL' '� SF 232NO ST o- -� r SE 232ND ST w .-< E232ND ••r !E 232116 23p Pt 232ND c ST a SfY S( F 233R0 y•..•v'l f P �,. ,�J• PL 4F N y „ J ST 233RD [ �i c o 10 SITE SE 234TH ST MERIDIAN S W Nc0 y O y m 2 •• JR.HI. � r„I"r"� ,O !Em .7. ~ •• SCHOOL yf' O�q Q 234 Tit PL [ Hmn cde Ail eld t ♦ y SE 236TH ST AYE J ° t FItIJ — ••` rP.oio _— SE CITY SE 236TH ST W o ZN SE 236TH PL N 1 n 'I; SE 237TN $T NYi•/S et.O• 11\\ a Z `o \ E 238TH m $E 2 ST O \ • W $T N G H - o t SE OTN $T 17 16 20 21 HILL :NTARY 2 N y O b " SE 244TH d v ST Z 0 y; W N W H N O < O d APPLICATION Name JOSEY r,LENN LEGEND Number #su-88-1 pale March 16, 1988 -& application site MM Request Subdivision VICINITY SCALE = 1°:1000r CITY OF I ENT -... planning , /�}1 �\ \ '{5 �illyl{III Ilflyll{ III{�Illly � IfI11h1,11�1 { {y'y'I'•'y� \.. ` `�_ I Y • • rCD '\X, r_ Z) ♦�:— • I 1914 IIII 1* 11I I111tl 44NYf\ \• _ •..1 'D� WI •1 lYl I X. LJ J f 1` \\ - _ p J 4I i 0, Li ri Toll ILI1 { •l d r :{\ q Be ; III IIII{I 11m I 11'•`•J (l� f}� n - _ - F.^ 90 \� o 4 " 'y'y'y'1'�'�'': v > of3.E. x,,,. ,. a t Nf IF• l APPLICATION Name JOSEY GLENN LEGEND : Number M-88-1 Da1e March 16, 1988 application site — Request Subdivision -dk�- toning boundary •••••• "L0NIHG/T0P0 city limits SCALE = 1":200' HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES March 16, 1988 The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to order by the presiding officer, Diane L. VanDerbeek, Hearing Examiner, on Wednesday, March 16, 1988 at 3:00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, Council Chambers. Ms. VanDerbeek requested all those intending to speak at the hearing and those wishing to receive information concerning the hearing, to sign in at the sign up sheet by the door. Staff reports, agendas, and the description of procedure of the hearing were available by the door. Ms. VanDerbeek briefly described the sequence and procedure of the hearing. All those who intended to speak were sworn in. JOSEY GLENN PRELIMINARY PLAT #SU-88-1 The first item on the agenda was a public hearing to consider the request by Lakeridge Development, PO Box 146, Renton, WA 98057 , to subdivide a 2 .4 acre parcel into nine single family building lots. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of SE 232nd Street and 112th Avenue SE. (1-100) Carol Proud, Planning Department, presented the staff report. View foils were shown depicting the 1) location of the site, 2) zoning of surrounding sites and 3) plat plan. The land use in the area was mentioned. The subject site is Tract A of the pending Josey One Short Plat. Conditions affecting the subject site were read into the record. A video of the site was shown. The proposed preliminary plat meets, in general, the regulations of the City of Kent Subdivision Code. The staff recommends approval with conditions. Ms. VanDerbeek asked if the applicant would like to comment. (1-346) Noel Townsend, Townsend Chastin Associates, Inc. , representing Lakeridge Development, asked two questions: 1) the requirement for a 45 foot curb cul-de-sac radii--generally, the requirement has been for 40 feet for that radius. However, if the City needs the 45 feet, applicant would like the right-of-way radius to be reduced to a 50 foot radius instead of 55 feet. , and 2) why is the applicant being required to put in road improvements onto 112th instead of signing a no protest LID agreement? 1 Hearing Examiner Minutes March 16, 1988 (1-471) Wayne Jones, representing Lakeridge Development, stated that before initiating this application, he had talked to Terry Ferguson regarding the improvements on 112th. He had understood that improvements are not always required and, generally, the City waits until a large area can be completed at one time rather than several small improvements made. Mr. Jones felt that improving 112th Avenue SE for 200 feet would be a small project and wouldn't help the situation a great deal. Ms. VanDerbeek asked if there was any public comment on this application. (1-518) Angela Colee, 11214 SE 233rd Place, Kent, WA 98032 , commented that Park Orchard is a walk-to school and there is a great deal of concern regarding traffic on 112th and 232nd. It is important to have the sidewalks put in for safety purposes. She asked what was the setback requirement since the lot line for Lot 5 is next to the garage on an adjoining lot. Furthermore, there is a lot of bird life in the wooded area and the woods should be saved. Ms. VanDerbeek asked for rebuttal comments. (1-595) Ms. Proud commented the 45 foot radius is a requirement from the Fire Department. Any houses built on the lots will have to meet the minimum setback requirements from the lot lines. (1-694) Gary Gill, Public Works Department, commented whether a no- protest LID agreement will be required or half-street improvements will be required are dictated by where the location of the development. In this particular case, because of the inadequate roads and sidewalks, the half-street improvements are being required up front. The City' s preference would be to form an LID for a larger project. (1-815) Mr. Jones commented the plat was designed to meet the requirements of the City Code between the garage and the lot line. Further, when a house is constructed on Lot 5, the house will meet the setback requirement. There was no further testimony. The hearing was closed at 3 : 30 p.m. 2 KENT PLANNING AGENCY STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF MARCH 16, 1988 FILE NO: #SU-88-1 JOSEY GLENN APPLICANT: LAKERIDGE DEVELOPMENT, INC. REQUEST: A request for preliminary subdivision approval for nine residential lots. STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Carol Proud STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS I . GENERAL INFORMATION A. Description of the Proposal The proposal is for a subdivision of a 2 .4 acre parcel into nine single-family lots. The average lot size is 8, 187 square feet with the largest being 9,460 square feet and the smallest 7 , 200 square feet. The resulting subdivision will provide for nine detached single-family houses at a density of 3 .75 units per acre. B. Location The subject property is located on the southeast corner of SE 232nd Street and 112th Avenue SE. C. Size of Property The subject property is 2 . 4 acres in size. D. Zoninq The proposed subdivision site is within the R1-7 .2, Single Family Residential, zoning district (minimum lot size of 7, 200 square feet) . surrounding property to the north and east are also zoned R1-7. 2 . The property south of SE 232nd and west of 112th Avenue SE is part of the recent LeBlanc annexation and has an interim zoning designation of R1-20, Single Family Residential (minimum lot size of 20, 000 square feet) . The Planning Department is recommending the area be designed as R1-9 . 6, Single Family Residential (minimum lot size of 9 , 600 square feet) . The area north of SE 232nd Street and west of 112th Avenue SE is outside of the City of Kent. 1 Staff Report Josey Glenn #SU-88-1 All lots meet or exceed the minimum lot size and the required lot width as specified in the development standards for the R1-7.2 zoning district. Lots having frontage along a cul-de- sac may provide less width than is usually required for street frontage. Proposed Lot 1, as a corner lot, has an adequate building area for future development to meet the required yard setbacks. Due to the topography of the site and the shallow depth of Lots 7, 8, and 9, future development ,on these lots may be affected to some degree by the solar regulations. Adequate north/south dimensions are indicated for the remaining lots for any development to meet the solar regulations. E. Comprehensive Plan The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 1969 . The goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan represent an expression of community intentions and aspirations concerning the future of Kent and the area within the Sphere of Interest. The Comprehensive Plan is used by the Mayor, City Council, City Administrator, Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner and City departments to guide growth , development, and spending decisions . Residents, land developers, business representatives and others may refer to the plan as a statement of the City's intentions concerning future development. The City of Kent has also adopted a number of subarea plans that address specific concerns of certain areas of the City. Like the City-wide Plan, the subarea plans serve as policy guides for future land use in the City of Kent. This area is served by the East Hill subarea plan. The following is a review of these Plans as they relate to the subject property. CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as SF, Single Family Residential. HOUSING ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL POPULATION IN KENT, ASSURING A DECENT HOME AND SUITABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT FOR FAMILIES DESIRING TO LIVE IN KENT. GOAL 3 : Assure an adequate and balanced supply of housing units offering a diversity of size, densities, age, style and cost. 2 Staff Report Josey Glenn #SU-88-1 Obiective 2 : Encourage the production of a variety of new dwelling units. Planning Department Comment This Comprehensive Plan goal and objective establish the City policy of promoting a mix of housing types in Kent. A major distinction in types of housing units is that between multifamily and single-family units. In recent years, multifamily development has far out paced single-family construction. Since 1979, the number of multifamily units has more than doubled. In the same period, the only net increase in single-family housing has been through annexation. Two single-family residential subdivisions have been approved within the City since 1979 . If approved, this proposal will make available nine single- family residential lots. This will encourage the production of single-family dwellings, and help to restore a balance in the mix of single-family and multifamily housing types. EAST HILL PLAN The East Hill Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as SF, Single Family Residential, 4-6 units per acre. 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 1 : Development designed in harmony with the suburban/rural character of East Hill . Obiective 1: Ensure that the design and construction of new development is in harmony with the suburban/rural character of East Hill, while maintaining the feeling of openness that exists throughout the area. Planning Department Comment The area surrounding the proposed subdivision is predominately single-family residential. The proposed lots are consistent in size with previous residential subdivision activity in the area. The proposed density of 3 .75 dwelling units per acre is less than the Comprehensive Plan Map designation of 4-6 units per acre thus ensuring spacious lots for development. 3 Staff Report Josey Glenn #SU-88-1 Development standards and conditions attached to the subdivision approval will help protect the adjacent residential uses from adverse impacts resulting from the development. The nature of the proposal is in harmony with the character of the area. Mitigating conditions and site development standards will serve to protect adjacent residents from adverse impacts, consistent with the goals of the Human Environment Element. HOUSING ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ASSURE PRESENT AND FUTURE EAST HILL RESIDENTS HOUSING THAT IS SAFE, OFFERS A DESIRABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT, AND IS SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES. GOAL 1: Residential development that is related to the availability of community facilities and services. Objective 1: When making decisions concerning land use, consider the adequacy of and impact upon roads and other public facilities and services including utilities, police and fire protection, public transportation, schools and parks. Policy 1: Ensure that public facilities and services are available or will be available to support development at proposed densities. Policy 2 : Locate new single-family detached residential development in areas and at densities which permit roads, utilities, public transit, schools and other public facilities and services to be provided in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Planning Department Comment The proposed subdivision will result in nine-single family dwellings and provide an infill of development at a site surrounded by single family development. Assuming 2 .9 persons per household, adequate community facilities and services will be available to serve an additional 26 residents. As a result of subdivision approval, improvements will be completed on the south side of S. 232nd Street that will include new sidewalks and additional width and pavement to the street. Also a no protest LID agreement will be required 4 Staff Report Josey Glenn #SU-88-1 in the event of future improvements to 112th Avenue S. As a result, pedestrian and vehicular traffic will have safe and efficient access through the area. F. Subdivision Code The purpose of the City of Kent Subdivision Code is to provide rules, regulations, requirements, and standards for subdividing land in the City of Kent, insuring that the highest feasible quality, in subdivision will be attained; that the public health safety, general welfare, and aesthetics of the City of Kent shall be promoted and protected; that orderly growth, development, and the conservation, protection and proper use of land shall be insured; that proper provisions for all public facilities (including circulation, utilities, and services) shall be made; that maximum advantage of site characteristics shall be taken into consideration; that conformance with provisions set forth in the City of Kent Zoning Code and Kent Comprehensive Plan shall be insured. Planning Department Comment The proposed plat is in general conformance with the regulations of the Subdivision Code. Streets conform to the circulation pattern established in the area and all proposed sewers, water mains, and other utilities will comply with applicable City requirements. Section 3 . 1. 8 (4) pertains to lot design and requires that all lots which are bordered by two or more streets shall be permitted access to only one of those streets. Therefore, as a condition of approval, access to proposed Lot 2 should be provided by the cul-de-sac and not SE 232nd Street. The lot width fronting 232nd Street is narrow and does not meet the minimum zoning requirement of 70 feet that is usually required for that portion of a lot fronting a street. II . HISTORY A. Site History The subject site is Tract A of the pending Josey One Short Subdivision (#SP-88-15) . This two-lot subdivision was conditionally approved on January 21, 1988. Conditions of approval that will effect the subject site include improvements to the south half of SE 232nd Street, the execution of a no-protest LID covenant for improvements to 112th Avenue SE and the submittal of a tree plan indicating the location of all trees with a diameter of six-inches or greater. 5 Staff Report Josey Glenn #SU-88-1 B. Area History Considerable subdivision activity has occurred in the immediate vicinity. East and north of the site is the location of the Eastridge Division #2 and #3 with a total of 112 lots. Both were recorded and developed with single family homes in 1978 and 1979. Two short subdivisions totalling five residential lots on 112th Avenue SE were approved and recorded in 1979 . Both are located directly south of the subject property on the east side of 112th Avenue SE. III. LAND USE Land use in the area is predominantly residential. 1. The site itself is currently vacant. 2 . To the south along 112th Avenue SE are older single family residences. 3 . To the north and east is the previously mentioned Eastridge development with over 100 single family homes on lots averaging 7, 500 square feet. 4 . Directly west across 112th Avenue SE is the location of a church and related parking area and accessory structures. 4 . Also in close proximity to the north and west is Park Orchard Elementary School. IV.. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS A. Environmental Assessment A Final Mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance (#ENV-87- 104) was issued on January 15, 1988 with the following conditions: 1. The developer of the Josey Glenn Subdivision 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 mitigations measures outlined in the study, implementation and/or construction of said mitigation 6 Staff Report Josey Glenn #SU-88-1 measures shall be the conditional requirement of the issuance of the respective development permits. 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 Josey Glenn development. A. The developer shall execute an environmental mitigation agreement in the form of a no-protest LID agreement to participate in the formation of an LID to construct the SE 224th/228th Street corridor project. The minimum benefit to the above development is estimated at $9, 684 based upon 9 p.m. peak hour trips entering and leaving the site and the capacity of the SE 224th/228th Street corridor. 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 224th/228th Street corridor which will provide additional capacity for traffic volumes within the area of the above mentioned development. 2. The developer shall execute a traffic signal participation agreement for a future signal at the intersection of SE 240th Street and 112th Avenue SE. The developers contribution shall be based upon a pro-rata share of the construction cost of the traffic signal. B. Significant Physical Features Topography and vegetation The subject site is presently undeveloped ground. The topography is relatively level adjacent to 112th Avenue SE with a gradual downward slope towards the northeast corner of the parcel. The eastern portion of the tract is covered with several deciduous trees and considerable underbrush. C. Significant Social Features 1. Street System Two of the proposed lots have access to 112th Avenue SE which is classified as a residential collector. The street has a public right-of-way width of 60 feet while the actual width of paving is 32 feet. Two- 7 Staff Report Josey Glenn #Su-88-1 Hundred Thirty-Second (232nd) Street SE also provides access to the site and is classified as a residential collector. An additional 30-feet of right of way dedicated to the City will be required along the northern edge of the property as a condition of approval for #SP-87-16. Access to and from 232nd Street SE will be provided by a local cul-de-sac serving seven of the proposed lots. Full street improvements will be provided including 28- foot pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lighting and underground utilities. In addition, the developer will be required to mitigate other traffic impacts of the subdivision on the City road network and traffic signal systems. 2 . Water System An existing ten-inch water main line is available to serve the site along 112th Avenue SE. A six-inch main is available along SE 232nd Street. 3 . Sanitary Sewer System An existing eight-inch sanitary sewer line located at the northeast corner of the subject property along SE 232nd Street is available to serve the proposed subdivision. 4 . Storm Water System The applicant will be required to provide on-site storm water detention in accordance with the City Drainage Code. Any natural drainage course across the property should be maintained. . 5. LID' s No LID's are on record at this time. V. MEETINGS CORRESPONDENCE, AND LEGAL NOTICES A tentative plat meeting with the applicant and members of the subdivision committee was held in September 1987. All appropriate comments and concerns have been included in this report. 8 Staff Report Josey Glenn #SU-88-1 VI. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES The following departments and agencies were advised of this preliminary plat 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 300 feet of the site were notified of the application and of the March 16, 1988 public hearing. Staff comments have been incorporated in the staff report where applicable. VII. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW The Planning Department has reviewed this application in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, present zoning, land use, street system, flood control problems and comments from other departments and finds that: A. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as SF, Single Family Residential . B. The East Hill Comprehensive Plan Map also designates the site as SF, Single Family Residential with a density of 4 . 6 units per acre. C. The site is presently zoned R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Residential, 7 , 200 square foot minimum lot size. D. All lots meet the minimum development standards as specified in the R1-7. 2 , Single Family Residential, zoning district. E. Land use in the area is predominately single family residential with the exception of a church and elementary school nearby. F. The proposed subdivision will have access to SE 232nd Street by means of a local cul-de-sac. Two lots will have access to 112th Avenue SE. 9 Staff Report Josey Glenn #SU-88-1 VII. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the merits of this request and the Code criteria for granting a preliminary plat, the City staff recommends APPROVAL with the following conditions: A. Comply with all conditions of the Josey one Short Plat and record same. B. Comply with all SEPA conditions stipulated for this plat. C. Prior to Recordation of Plat: Construct or obtain City approval of detailed engineering drawings and bond for the following: 1. Gravity sanitary sewer service shall be provided to all lots of the proposed subdivision as well as Tract B of the Josey One Short Plat. 2 . Extend City water to provide adequate domestic and fire flows to service all lots (a minimum six-inch main is required) . 3 . Construct 112th Place SE as shown on the preliminary plat drawing with a minimum pavement width of 28 feet (as measured from the curb face) , curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, storm drainage facilities, underground utilities and related appurtenances in accordance with the City' s Subdivision Code. The improved radii to face of curb of the cul-de-sac turnaround shall be 45 feet. Dedicate to the City the respective right of way therefore. 4 . Provide on-site storm water detention in accordance with City Drainage Code. 5. Improve the south half of SE 232nd Street and the east half of 112th Avenue SE for the entire frontage thereon to residential collector standards (curb and gutter, sidewalks, storm drainage, underground utilities, street lighting and related appurtenances. 6. Furnish and install all street name signs and stop signs as may be determined necessary by the City. 7 . The final plat linen shall bear a notation stating that access to Lot 2 shall be provided by the cul-de-sac (112th Place SE) only and not by SE 232nd Street. KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT 10 March 7, 1988 Kent City Council Meeting Date May 17, 1988 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: SANCTUARY #3 FINAL PLAT NO. SU-87-2 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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 Examiner have been made or bonded for . _ 3 . EXHIBITS: staff mem application and map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Sta f (Committee, Staff , lExaminer , Commission, etc. ) i approval 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED:'+$ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: iP 3 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTI,OIN: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to approve Sanctuary #3 final plat map No . SU-87-2 . DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 4D KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT May 12 , 1988 MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director SUBJECT: SANCTUARY NO. 3 FINAL PLAT #SU-87-2 On October 6, 1987, the City Council approved a proposed replat of Lot 1 of the Sanctuary Short Plat (Sanctuary No. 3 Preliminary Plat) . The site is located at 4802 South 216 Street between 42nd Avenue South and Frager Road. A number of conditions were part of the Council 's approval . The applicant has now complied with these conditions as listed below: 1. The applicant shall provide preliminary percolation tests on both lots and obtain approval from the Seattle-King County Health Department on the suitability of both lots for on-site sewage disposal. 2 . The applicant shall obtain Seattle-King County Health Department approval for individual septic tanks systems on the two proposed lots. 3 . The applicant shall obtain necessary agency approvals for expansion of the existing well system to serve the additional lot. 4. The following statement shall be conspicuously noted on the face of the plat: "The City views the community well system as temporary in nature and once the City water main lies both west of the Green River and within 300 ' feet or less in distance from any portion of this plat, the property owners, and/or their heirs, and/or assigns shall extend said water main in accordance with City approved plans to provide City service to lots and the existing private well will be abandoned for domestic use. " 5. The common driveway shall be constructed with an all-weather surface to meet the requirements of the Fire Department. 6. All buildings shall be sprinklered except those that: A. Are classified as M structures by the Uniform Building Code not containing area separation walls, and, B. Are used solely for the benefit of the owners/residents of the property, and, C. Are at least 50 feet from a building requiring sprinklers and 50 feet from a property line, and, D. Are less than 2 , 000 square feet in floor area as defined by the Uniform Building Code. •_ E. Any building which supports the fire sprinkler systems such as a pump house, shall be sprinklered. CA:JPH:ca nlp i CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A FINAL PLAT NAME OF PLAT: `} A&IC"I u A IFy I I O 3 CASE NUMBER: LOCATION: �IS �� . Z I� K=�rT- -LJ� APPLICANT (S): kAR I'll N Y MAILING ADDRESS: I2-4-0 S� . 1� A=Jtl E= '-&J A SEW(o6 TELEPHONE: BUSINESS ?)-2 - (4SO OTHER r STATUS OF APPLICANT (i.e., owner, agent, engineer, etc.) Sp TkJ e-l'z— LEGAL OWNER: -%E7CA a ep L T= yN L /)Akf I� MAILING ADDRESS: . 2 I ny �'T� Ew1T `7JA 9 Sq0 - TELEPHONE: BUSINESS OTHER LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR: YYl l( r✓S R.A 43z MAILING ADDRESS: '502- c3,0 7�c_ WAS(_ ti17 1/� �}sC-) ( BUSINESS TELEPHONE: a= `J � DATE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED C�aTnRF2 1GQj7 IMPROVEMENTS ARE: BONDED CONSTRUCTED TOTAL ACREAGE PLATTED �Z .4 NUMBER OF LOTS , AREA OF SMALLEST LOT I oZ A.cerGS AVERAGE LOT AREA EXISTING ZONING A — REQUIRED MINIMUM LOT SIZE �L R S ATUR F-OWNER /��` �f `F J DATE DATE OF OFFICIAL ACCEPTANCE 1ACCEPTED BY ;APPLICATION FEE !TREASURER'S RECEIPT NUMBER l I i i ZD _ � � a —Ir mmc ° NGmi m y v Tr D Cl cnm ac ° V D rn �Ao = " " — r 0pm °. °, m z m n06 r z m (n Z 030D � �' �� JD lo (D D 0 � Z3 m ' DZ m 0 ZO CD" M p VI _< 7C •1 W- No Z C) Or- tom N " 0 cp" 0x W D G W = — O = ° � Od _ m-Ai y �• ._. ` = A O O U C1;il ° n 1i = 0 00 O te ° mN�a N .� C e " ON N -.o _ z C'1 ;K0 ? D = N o n b p w 0 c cn S.2°43' 46" W, n f /\ 3m 105.165' 105.165 oyc aox zN � x H � N D � rn c z 301 mz g .� a o as fl Z ^ ep W � � ! 1 = ° m o 7 z z Z ' m ? m 00 I V/ Q. o .p c0 A A t0 A OD Ul m CD -4 OD (D co U m _ _ n F-mv> to m m go ° < � � D ° i�3 N Q� D (/)M N m < m 0 5 -- - Z�Op r165.1m = c _ 2° Wm o 6 D O v /y� rn CA - 1 z OD m N m Z I ..: au (Amm W c-� D ;') n �-NI COOT cD < n3A Oi09 ZN ° W N �� ' D S G) _.o c . m �_ thaf- I— c-11 1jd 41, /L tt-e (-J-cc /r-of &Ia vt�-fq jv V R E P. 0 R T S tt,)-�Lje- /LL- A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT Lc B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Q-ta-) /AJ- -J no D. PLANNING COMMITTEE— L'i/(- E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE F. PARKS COMMITTEE Coll frwt. I-vk 4A kJA G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS— /"L-tl--Yvk-- /VdA, MINUTES FOR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING MAY 6 1988 CITY OF KENT APRIL 12, 1988 CITY CLERK PRESENT: Berne Biteman Chief Angelo Christi Houser Jed Aldridge Paul Mann Priscilla Shea -.• FIRE DEPARTMENT - BLSS CONTRACT WITH KING COUNTY Basic Life Support Systems Contract - 6 year contract. Revenues for 1987 were $364, 000. Revenues for 1988 - $406, 000. In the past, funds have been held by the County for approximately six to seven months and the County gets that interest. There have been some changes that will hopefully mean that the City should receive the funds within approximately 2 months. The funds are proportioned out to the communities based upon demand. The City of Kent gets a bigger portion because of more calls for service--higher heart attach rate, may be due the older community. Mr. Biteman expressed that he thought it was interesting to note that there may be a relationship between Kent being an older community and the heart attack rate. FIRE DEPARTMENT - AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT WITH KING COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #37 Currently this amendment is going between the attorneys so there is not a copy available for review at this meeting. In the process of constructing the fire station in the Covington area, a LID Lift was passed in the fire district in November, 1986. Chief Angelo explained how the District changed the levy rate by a vote of the people. Mr. Biteman expressed his concern that there may be a loop hole in the law to allow for unlimited time. Mr. Biteman questioned the staffing funds being used to build the station. Chief Angelo indicated that it is necessary to delay the staffing in order to build out a low maintenance station - hiring would be conducted in 1990. The District is proposing that by using the formula of the current agreement, 11/12ths of the money that would be utilized to staff would be applied to the completion of an adequate station. The final 12th of the funds from 1989 would be given to the City in accordance with the standard formula of the agreement. This would insure that sufficient funds were available for the hiring of staff in January of 1990 without any additional cost to the City. Christi Houser asked if this wasn't the responsibility of King County. Chief Angelo indicated that the City does have a mutual support contract with District #37. Paul Mann asked whether there would be volunteers utilized. Chief Angelo indicated that there would be both volunteers and paid staff, but that it would be necessary to get people on board in order to train. MINUTES FOR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING April 12 , 1988 Page -2- Chief Angelo indicated that hopefully next month they would be able to come back with a copy of the attorney approved contract. Christi Houser moved to accept the concept of the amendment. Paul Mann seconded motion. Mr. Biteman indicated that it would be a good idea to simply and clarify the paperwork that would go to Council for approval. Chief Angelo briefly reviewed a few of the changes that had occurred in the plans of the new buildings. Mr. Biteman expressed his concern that we need to make sure that the buildings are designed so as to allow for additions later. Chief Angelo extended a reminder of the neighborhood meeting tonight at 7 : 00 p.m. and of the meeting on April 28th from 6: 30 to 10:00 at the Baptist Church on 250th and Military Road. Mr. Mann asked if Seattle was keeping the City ' abreast on methane issues. Mr. Biteman indicated that they were conducting Community meetings regarding this. Meeting Adjourned.