HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 05/03/1988 � i
' f I
Office of the City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Council Chambers '
City of Kent May 3 , 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. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
,,A� Employee of the Month
Proclamation - Public Works Week
Proclamation - Older Americans Month
Proclamation - Kent Community Clinic Week
—� 7o less
�C HEARINGS' -
zoning o LeB1A-ne' Annexation
--• Surplus Property
3 . CQNSENT CALENDAR
Minutes
jk! Bills
Appointment to Centennial Committee
Kantor Rezone - Ordinance
Kantor MHP Combining District - Ordinance
Ve. 1985 Sewer Rebuild Completion
t,( Del Webb Pump Station - Transfer of Funds
- yH/ Del Webb Pump Station Completion
v1 Willis St. Improvement - State Agreement
Segregation - LID 316
_., vK: Public Works Organizational Personnel Changes
�: Sanctuary No. 3 Final Plat
4 . OTHER BUSINESS
A. Council Chambers Remodel
5 . BIDS
6. 1/REPORTS
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
.. ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time,
make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly
heard.
A. Employee of the Month
B. Proclamation - Public Works Week
C. Proclamation - Older Americans Month
Senior Center Week
D. Proclamation - Kent Community Clinic Week
Kent City Council Meeting
Date May 3, 1988
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: LEBLANC ANNEXATION - INITIAL ZONING - AZ-87-5
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This is the first hearing to consider the
Hearing Examiner ' s recommended initial zoning of the LeBlanc
Annexation No. AZ-87-5 . The property is approximately 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 multi-family residential (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 square
feet) for the remainder of the site. The two conditions
recommended by the Hearing Examiner are outlined in her findings
and recommendation dated March 23 , 1988 (revised) .
3 . EXHIBITS: staff memo, staff report (2) . addendum, minutes (2) .
order extending time (2) . findings and recommendation (2) ,
request for reconsideration, order revising conditions (including
revised findings and recommendation) packet contains data
regarding initial zoning as well as SEPA appeal
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner 2/24/88 as revised 3/23/88
(Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc . )
Zoning of MRG and R-19 . 6 with two conditions as outlined in the
attached packet
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT•
CLOSE HEARING:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember J moves, Councilmember seconds
to continue this public hearing on the LeBla Annexation
initial zoning No . AZ-87-5 to June 7, 1988
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 2A
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLC WORKS
APRIL 28, 1988
TO: MAYOR KELLEHER,(�AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON WICKSTROM\y 1�
RE: LEBLANC ANNEXATION INITIAL ZONING
Revision of Hearing Examiner Condition #2
The properties within the LeBlanc Annexation area all have frontage
on 112th Avenue S.E. The King County Assessor' s maps show that 40
feet of right of way exists in this area. There is not a clear
deed of record for this right of way shown on the assessor' s map.
112th Avenue S.E. is a substandard roadway without curb and gutter,
sidewalks, etc. The existing 40 feet of right of way is not
sufficient for the eventual widening and improvement of the roadway
to residential collector standards. Sixty feet of right of way is
necessary for such improvements.
Therefore, as a condition of initial zoning for the area, condition
#2 of the Hearing Examiner's recommendations should be revised to
read as follows:
2 . Prior to the issuance of a development permit
(building, zoning, etc. ) for a permitted use
for any properties within the LeBlanc
Annexation area the Owner shall deed to the
City of Kent sufficient property for street
purposes such that 30 feet of right of way
exists as measured from the north/south
centerline of the southeast quarter of Section
17, Township 22, Range 5 W.M.
With the present wording, until all property owners deed the
required right of way, the final passage of the ordinance could not
take place. This could be a problem if any of the property owners
within the annexation area were to object to the condition and
refuse to deed the additional right of way.
By rewording the condition as noted above, we will avoid situations
such as the recent problems with the former Good News Bay Rezone
now known as Signature Point.
FINDINGS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT
FILE NO: #AP-88-1 LEBLANC SEPA APPEAL
APPLICANT: DENNIS DAGUE AND WARREN TUTTLE
REQUEST: An appeal of the Determination of Nonsignificance for the
LeBlanc Annexation #ENV-87-101 .
LOCATION: South of SE 232nd Street and west of 112th Avenue SE
APPLICATION FILED: January 4, 1988
DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE: Not Applicable
HEARING DATE: February 3, 1988
DECISION ISSUED: February 24, 1988
DECISION: DENIED
STAFF REPRESENTATIVES: James P. Harris, Planning Director
James M. Hansen, Planning Department
Kathy McClung, Planning Department
Greg McCormick, Planning Department
Gary Gill, Public Works Department
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Dennis Dague
- Warren Tuttle
Jeff Garrett
Monti Marchetti
Debbie Montgomery
Rick Foslin
Tilak Sharma
Debra Tuttle
Carl Ricketts
Alok Mathur
WRITTEN TESTIMONY: Kent School District
Carl Ricketts
INTRODUCTION
After due consideration of the evidence presented by the applicant, all
evidence elicited during the public hearing, and as a result of the personal
inspection of the subject property by the Hearing Examiner, the following
findings of fact and conclusions shall constitute the decision of the Hearing
Examiner on this application.
- 1 -
Findings and Decision
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
2AP-88-1
FINDINGS OF FACT
1 . The appellants, Dennis M. Dague and Warren J. Tuttle, appealed the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Determination of Nonsignificance issued by
the Planning Department on December 11 , 1987.
2. The Determination of Nonsignificance was issued for the City's request to
establish initial zoning on a site recently annexed to the City of Kent.
The site has an interim zoning of RI-20, Single Family Residential , and
staff recommends in the initial zoning action that zoning of 5.5 acres
known as LeBlanc Gardens be MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential ,
with the remainder of the site to be zoned R1-9.6, Single Family
Residential , (approximately 10 acres) .
3. The site is approximately 15 acres in size and is located south of SE
232nd Street and west of 112th Avenue SE
4. The appellants and the public expressed numerous concerns which they felt
could be addressed through the EIS process. These concerns include _
traffic, tree and bird preservation, hydrology and water runoff problems,
pedestrian safety, vandalism, reduced land values, school overcrowding,
sewer capacity, and fire response times.
5. Staff responds that since this is a non-project zoning request, the
concerns expressed are premature since a site specific development plan
would be required to submit another environmental checklist and the City
of Kent would be able to make another environmental determination. At
that time, staff could recommend mitigating measures or an Environmental .
Impact Statement.
k
6. The Public Works' Department indicates that the proposed multiple family
use would generate only 15 additional P.M. peak hour trips per day than
would single family uses on the same site.
7. The staff report, with its recommendation that the appeal be denied, is
incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full .
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 . Chapter 12. 12A of the Kent City Code and Washington State law require that
the decision of the responsible official with respect to the need or lack
of need for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement be given
substantial weight. See e.g. Chapter 12.12A.520A1c of the Kent City Code.
- 2 - _..
Findings and Decision
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
3AP-88-1
2. All concerns expressed by the public and the appellants are legitimate
concerns. However, they are expressed prematurely. The undersigned
agrees with staff's position that the request by the public and the
appellants for an Environmental Impact Statement is premature on a
non-project rezone. At such time that there is a site specific
development proposal , site specific impacts can be addressed and mitigated.
DECISION
For each of the above reasons, the decision of the City of Kent Hearing
Examiner on the LeBlanc SEPA Appeal is DENIAL.
Dated this 24th day of February, 1988.
_Yff L
DIANE L. VANDERBEEK
Hearing Examiner
144H-1H
- 3 -
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES
February 3, 1988
The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to order by
the presiding officer, Diane L. VanDerbeek, Hearing Examiner, on
Wednesday, February 3 , 1988 at 7:00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall,
Council Chambers.
Ms. VanDerbeek requested all those intending to speak at the hearing
and those wishing to receive information concerning the hearing, to
sign in at the sign up sheet by the door. Staff reports, agendas, and
the description of procedure of the hearing were available by the
door. Ms. VanDerbeek briefly described the sequence and procedure of
the hearing. All those who intended to speak were sworn in.
The February 3, 1988 synopsis minutes for Tri-State Construction #CE-
"' 87-9 are separate from the following verbatim minutes for LeBlanc SEPA
Appeal #AP-88-1.
LEBLANC SEPA APPEAL
#AP-88-1
(Tape 1 at 448) James P. Harris: My name is James P. Harris, I 'm the
Planning Director and my business address is 220 Fourth Avenue South,
Kent, 98032. I 'm also the responsible official for the State
Environmental Policy Act to the City of Kent. I guess what I will do
-.• is go directly to the question that was asked about what an
environment impact statement is and read into the record the pertinent
sections out of State law. I have to go back a little bit and plow
some ground before I get to the EIS. Before we get to an EIS
situation in the City we do what is called a Threshold Determination
and that's under the Washington Administrative Code 197-11-310 and
this threshold determination comes about after someone has applied for
a permit to either build something or to get a rezone or a conditional
use permit or whatever and an environmental impact or environmental
checklist has been filed out by the individual. And we then, myself
and staff, review that environmental checklist and we make this
threshold determination. I 'm going to read and quote a little bit
from the WAC 197-11-310 it says, "The threshold determination is
required for any proposed (unclear) and is not categorically exempt. "
Now the State law exempts some certain projects and they don't have to
go through the State Environmental Protection Act. The Responsible
Official, and I 'm the Responsible Official, and that's per the Policy
and Code, Chapter 12 . 12 A110, I won't read that, quote that, but
that's the Section that designates the Planning Director as the
Responsible Official in the City. The Responsible Official, the lead
agency, the City of Kent, is the lead agency, shall make the threshold
determination which shall be made as close as possible to the time
that agencies developed or as presented as a proposal. And, skipping
down a little bit here. Threshold Determinations shall be documented
in a determination of nonsignificance, which we call a DNS, or a
1
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
determination of significance. Now, if a determination of
significance is made, we switch to the Washington Administrative Code
197-11-330 and it says, "Threshold Determination process" . . .and this
says accordingly, "An Environmental Impact Statement is required for
proposes for legislation and other major actions significantly
affecting the quality of the environment. The lead agency, which I 'm
a representative of as the Responsible Official, decides whether an
EIS is required and a threshold determination processed. And, then
it described a long, lengthy process here. So, I working with the -
Planning Department staff work through the environmental checklist,
make a threshold determination and what comes before us this evening
is a determination of nonsignificance, conditioned, was made. I don't
know if that answers the questions earlier.
Diane VanDerbeek: What, could you, could you explain what the
conditioned or mitigated determination of nonsignificance is?
Harris: What the condition in this particular case is?
VanDerbeek: What it is? I mean isn't it true that a mitigated
determination of nonsigificance is a document that says to the
applicant, you do not have to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement providing that you comply with certain conditions.
Harris: In this case there is one condition applied which will have
to be complied with in the future.
VanDerbeek: And, if the mitigated determination of nonsignificance
was not issued, then the other decision that the responsible official,
meaning yourself, could have made would have been to require an
environmental impact statement.
Harris: Right, a declaration of significance which triggers the
environmental impact statement that must be then prepared.
VanDerbeek: All right. Does the witness understand now.
Voice: My questions basically is "what is the checklist" , if you rule
on one environmental impact statement, what things do you look at.
VanDerbeek: Well, I think that process can explained during the City
presentation in response to the appeal hearing. Are there any further
questions.
Voice: I have a question that might clear up something that I want to
check on . Would conditions that will cause threats to personal health
and well being, are those two conditions that would be affecting the
quality of the environment. The quality of the environment is going
to be affected to the point that it might cause conditions that would
bring about threats to personal health and well-being. Is that then a
2
Hearing Examiner Minutes
•� Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
condition that would start to have to file for environmental
statement.
VanDerbeek: That question can be responded to by staff during staff's
response to the appeal hearing. That's a substantive question as
-- opposed to a procedural hearing. There any other questions.
Voce: You mentioned that there would be one thing they would have to
do, didn't say what it was, that they would have to do an EIS.
VanDerbeek: The City will indicate what that one thing is during
their response to the appeal hearing. Are there any other questions
that have to do specifically with the procedure at the hearings. All
right, there appearing to be no further procedural questions at this
time, at this time I would ask whether Dennis Dague or Warren Tuttle,
who are the people who filed the appeal, intend to testify.
Dennis Dague: I 'm Dennis Dague.
VanDerbeek: All right. Do you intend to testify.
Dennis Dague: Yes.
VanDerbeek: All right. Please step forward to the podium, state your
name and address for the record and then tell me the facts in support
of the appeal which you wish to be considered.
Dennis Dague: All right. I 'm Dennis Dague and my address is 11218 SE
234th Place in Kent. O.k. First of all as far as an impact on the
community that I live in. If you put the condominiums in there, we
will be having a lot of extra kids in the vicinity. There's no place
for them to play, there were no places set aside in the conceptual
plans for them to play, so they are going to do what kids who live in
the neighborhood do already, go outside their neighborhood, come into
our neighborhood to play. They are also going to do what kids do
which is, to get to the school, the closest junior high school, they
are going to go through my property, my neighbor' s property and
continue to trespass and it' s a lot shorter, about by a mile, to go
through our property then to go the legal route. The principal coming
out hasn't stopped it, hosing them down hasn't stopped them, calling
the police out hasn 't stopped them, continual rude remarks,
destruction of our property and now we can see that that's going to
increase.
VanDerbeek: But how would an environmental impact statement stop
that.
Dague: O.k. , perhaps I don't understand, I guess I thought this was
to show you what kind of impact it would have on the environment. But
you say that what I have to show you is why an environmental impact
3
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
statement, I guess, again, this way, you do it and hopefully, it will
come out in the environmental impact statement, it will be one more
thing negative to allowing those.
VanDerbeek: O.k. , right.
Dague: All right.
VanDerbeek: Not right, I don't, (unclear) .
Dague: You're understanding the point I 'm making. Another thing is
that we have a road, a semirural atmosphere and if you put. . .
VanDerbeek: Which road are you referring. . .
Dague: 112th. If the condominiums are put in, then the conceptual
plans show a beautiful laurel hedge. Well, the only laurel hedge
that's there, it goes half the distance of the proposed condominiums
and there's places where it will have to be removed, in order to allow
for the additional setback for the road widening, so there will
nothing there. Who is going to promise that they are going to put
something in and do we have to wait for it to grow 40 years so it's
tall enough to block the view and give us again a semi-rural
atmosphere. By the way, I have some photographs to show you what it
looks like now and can I submit these?
VanDerbeek: Yes, you may.
Dague: Who do I give these to?
VanDerbeek: You can give those to Chris, the recording secretary, and
she will mark them as an exhibit.
Dague: O.k. You can see what it looks like now.
VanDerbeek: Right. And, I will indicate to the record that I have
viewed the site previously and have seen a video tape of this sight at
a previous hearing and I will consider the photographs as evidence.
Dague: Thank you. O.k. Now, I would like to read something here
that, Item 6 of the environmental checklist of the environmental
checklist on the LeBlanc Annexation, this is how it reads: "How will
the proposal be likely to increase the demands on transportation,
public services and utilities. And, then under the column for
Evaluation for Agency Use Only, are the remarks, zoning a portion of
this site to MFM would create a potential for increase demands to the
higher density and increase site coverage and under comment now, they
say, that if the only road to access the proposed condominiums was
described by the Planning Department as a "substandard roadway with
two lanes of pavement, rounded shoulders and open ditches" and in the
4
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
addendum to the staff report for the Hearing Examiner meeting of
December 16, 1987, this roadway has no street lights, it has no
shoulders, it has no sidewalks except for a minute portion, it has
open ditches and it is crowded with children walking to and from
school twice a day, and with (unclear) other times of the day while
dodging traffic. There has already been a child hit by a vehicle and
there are near misses each day.
In building the condominiums, 70 proposed, would produce at least a
100 cars from the owners of the condos, that would contribute an
average of 1.5 cars per condo, which I think is conservative and these
condo owners would have friends and service vehicles that visit them
and increase traffic further. So, what is now a very dangerous
situation would become a lethal one. This road cannot handle the
increased traffic that the condos would bring. Allowing the condos,
therefore, seems to contradict this Human Environment Element of the
East Hill Plan which reads, "Overall Goal: Enhance, through good
design, the aesthetic qualities of the natural amenities, manmade
..• environment to promote the health, safety and welfare of the
community" . I would like to now submit these pictures of these
children actually, in this case coming home from school, with the
traffic going through them (Exhibit 2) .
VanDerbeek: All right. Those photographs will be considered as an
exhibit.
-.- Daaue: Thank you. In addition, as mentioned for Item #1 of the
Checklist under the column for Evaluation for Agency Use Only, it says
there will be increased storm water runoff, I 'm paraphrasing this
part, increased storm runoff it its increased for multifamily. So now
I can see the children can do more than fall into the ditches, now
they can drown in them. Am I allowed to comment, I 'm not sure this is
appropriate now, on why proposing the condominiums is not the best way
to save the trees. Or is that not the purpose of this hearing.
VanDerbeek: Well, you can comment on preservation of the trees to the
extent that requiring the applicant to prepare an environmental
statement might result in preservation of the trees.
Dague: What's this then. This is the overall conceptual plan and, if
you noticed, get my (unclear) out of here, in the conceptual plans you
want to save trees, yet you notice that it's almost wall to wall
asphalt and buildings. The only trees that seem to be saved are on
the periphery, that could be done with single family homes. There are
some within that are being saved that could be done to the entrance to
a single family home area and also a small cluster here, but the
school district has requested and we all request that there be a place
for the children to play, that could be done in a single family home
area. Allowing more yard space seems to be more conducive to saving
more of the trees. If the reason the Kent Planning Department,
frankly I don't know why they don't ask for a six-acre skyscraper and j
5
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
use the entire site to put the trees on. I don't understand how
building more buildings saves more trees. It doesn't work that way,
there's more asphalt, you have to allow parking, not only for the
people that live there but for service vehicles and friends that
visit.
VanDerbeek: And, how do you think requiring the applicant to prepare
an environmental impact statement would result in tree preservation?
Dague: Well, if we are talking about, if you are saying that you do
an environmental impact statement and taking away more trees reduces
the semi-rural environment is detrimental to the semi-rural
environment, well, in that case, they should do as they say they are
trying to do and save more trees and I 'm saying an environmental
impact statement might show that, in fact, building more units will
not save more trees but, in fact, building fewer units with larger
yards will save more trees thereby preserving more of our semi-rural
environment.
VanDerbeek: All right. I will indicate to the record that the
proposed development plan is already before me in the previous hearing
so you don't need to mark that as an exhibit, make that an exhibit.
Dague: Thank you.
VanDerbeek: All right.
Dague: Yes, one last thing. Now, I think it's, should be, it' s
important information that the notices that were posted for this
meeting and for all other meetings were removed a day or so after they
were posted and I might sound, I 'm not pointing an accusing finger,
school children could have done it, but I 'm saying they have been
removed. I 'm saying that notification of the hearings, including the
previous one that you attended, was not adequate, (unclear) happening
here. Person or persons unknown have removed all the public notice
signs within a day or so after they have been posted. They are posted
across an open ditch and they are unreadable from the road. The only
way to read them before they disappear is to go into the ditch. The
only sign that remained is when it was posted, hidden by telephone
poles and telegraphs and that particular sign was for this meeting,
all others have been removed. People living within short distances
did not receive notification but yet we are definitely affected.
Those who did know about it, except for those within 200 feet, and
only those within 200 feet of the site and not even all of those
within 200 feet. The person who passed and initiated the petition two
years ago was conveniently not sent a notice and didn't learn about it
until after the December 16 hearing. I submit the community is not
properly notified and, I will least go on record, saying that I
request there be a rehearing. I don't know if that's legal or
whatever, obviously not, but I at least go on record as requesting a
6
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
rehearing. I also go on record as saying that because the Planning
Department sent out a notice of this meeting, they included in it a
commentary which I don't think was necessary to include that they
thought this was a premature meeting, and a number of other comments.
But they kept away people that might have been here and might have had
something to add, and it is my opinion that if perhaps it's possible
that we may not be able to get a fair hearing and in the event to
(unclear) there may be people who didn't come who might have come who
might have had something to add. I feel that is out of place for the
Planning Department to stab us in the back so to speak.
VanDerbeek: Well, what negative commentary are referring to,
specifically?
Dague: O.k. I will let you know here.
VanDerbeek: Are you talking about the staff report?
Dague: Yes, I am. Is that, I can't believe that is something that
they always sent out with the public notice of a meeting. The staff
report itself. And, it was detrimental to our cause. Everyone I
talked too, who received this, they all said to themselves, well, gee,
why bother to go, and of the other, what, 200 people or so, on the
mailing list, that I couldn't talk to, how many other (unclear)
actually might have had something to add. I talked to the Assistant
City Attorney who mentioned that perhaps it was the bases for a
lawsuit and if we. . .I don't know what we can or can't do, I don't know
whether or not there' s any—whether it would be wise to do it or not
but I will say it here for the record that I will at least look into
it.
VanDerbeek: All right. Any further comments in support of your SEPA
" appeal.
Dacfue: One more second, if I may, and then I will be done.
VanDerbeek: All right. You may have as much time as you need
Dague: Thank you. Yes, something else that was brought up by the
Kent Public Schools. I don't know if you've had a chance to read the
letter by them from the Kent School District. It was submitted to the
Planning Department so you should have a copy or you will have a copy.
But, in support of an environmental impact statement, if an
environmental impact statement was done, it would discover these
things in the letter and it's not that long of a letter. Some of the
issues have already been covered so I will skip the ones that talk
about the dangerous roads. But I will mention here their second major
concern is overcrowding at Park Orchard. This is a letter from George
T. Daniels, Superintendent of the Kent School District, and I 'm
quoting part of it. Our second major concern is overcrowding at Park
7
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
Orchard Elementary Schools. Simply stated, we do not currently have
the room in our existing schools for the students who would be drawn
in from a development of this type. O.k. They go on to say that they
would want an contribution in case there was building and it amounts
to quite a bit of money if any of this was allowed. In any case, it
is going to be necessary. The money must come from someplace to
provide for their students and while they feel this, it is obvious,
the developer is drawing in a substantial number of school-aged
children whose daily recreational needs will not be met by existing
parks and recreational facilities. I strongly urge you to require
that sufficient land in the center of the proposed development be
dedicated, landscaped and equipped to meet the needs of the school-
aged children. Again, this affects the health, safety and
welfare. . .also, it is obvious that each new residential development by
its very nature brings an additional traffic burden to an already over
extended streets and roads. This situation not only causes increasing
greater hazardous for the students and staff who must walk these
roadways but in addition causes our cost of operating school buses and
other vehicles on increasing congested, on increasingly congested
(unclear) . Therefore, we urge you to slow down development in this
area and at least require the developer to play a substantial role in „
helping to solve the traffic problems attributable to his development.
I would like to point out that 112th is not the only place where there
would be traffic problems but, in fact, we who live in Kent Vista
usually go through Park Orchard to go where we want because very often
going to 240th, the intersection of 240th and 112th, it's so busy
there we find it not convenient to go that way, so what will happen
and the same with those people who will live in the condos, they will
find it convenient instead to go through Park Orchard, through the
narrow streets and through the places where there are kids walking on
roads without sidewalks, narrow streets, with cars parked close
together. I talked with some of the kids coming down 112th, giving
them the notices of this meeting, and some of them didn't even live on
112th, they said it was more dangerous going through the narrow,
winding roads of Park Orchard because cars would come upon them
suddenly and there are no sidewalks there. All right, that's the end
of my testimony, thank you.
VanDerbeek: I will acknowledge receipt of two items of written
correspondence which will be made a part of the record. First a
letter dated January 27, 1988 from Kent Public Schools from George P.
Daniels, Superintendent, addressed to the Sir Hearing Examiner, I
assume that's to me, that's marked receipt February 3, 1988, I will
consider those written comments as part of the record. There's also a
letter from Carl Ricketts, with respect to this hearing and the letter
from Mr. Ricketts raises issues with respect to notice for this
hearing which I will ask the staff to respond to during their
presentation. All right, at this time, Mr. Tuttle do you desire to
give public testimony in support of the appeal which you filed?
8
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
Warren Tuttle: Now, I will clarify some of the things that I might
have developed that he didn't clarify.
VanDerbeek: Sure, but you have to testify in front of the podium by
stating your name and your address.
Tuttle: O.k. , my name is Warren Tuttle and my address is 11308 SE
235th Place, Kent, Washington, 98031. O.k. , now, at the beginning of
_ the hearing here you were talking about where we had to prove that the
Planning Department made an error. O.k. , I just want to emphasize
that on their, on the Planning staff's recommendation to you, the
nonsignificance, the very end on page 8, o.k. , on some of their, their
final recommendations. On Section E, it says recommendation of zoning
would not appear to adversely affect the health, safety and general
welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent and that's what we are
appealing. Because we feel that an environmental impact should be
done because of the poor conditions of the roadways, o.k. Now, also,
if housing is put in there, State law requires because the roads that
are put in there, would be put in there and they become public roads.
Stop signs will be required, o.k. If condominiums go in there, there
will be not stop signs. We already have a problem with the
condominiums and the apartments next to us as it is without people
failing to yield the right of way, o.k.
VanDerbeek: Are you referencing stop signs through roads the interior
of the development or what. . .
Tuttle: Coming out onto 112th.
VanDerbeek: All right.
Tuttle: Now, we live in Kent Vista we have a stop sign because that
is a public road. Condominiums went in there that is private
property, any road accessing onto 112th doesn't have to because it's
private property.
VanDerbeek: All right.
Tuttle: o.k. Now, one other thing, when we're talking about the
roadway and the extra traffic going through the area, o.k. , as
Mr. Dague mentioned that it would, they would go through Park Orchard,
that means they have to go directly in front of the school, that
means, you know, more safety problems for the kids because 112th, sure
I understand, that 112th down to 240th, eventually 240th will be
widened, o.k. We understand that but people are still going to
continue to go through because there is such a traffic problem, unless
a light is installed and I 've talked with the Engineering Department
and there is no plans for upgrading 112th. Now, when Daybridge day
care when in, there's those picture he had just to show now there are
lines along the highway that road never had any lines until Daybridge
9
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
went in, so you know you can wander anywhere on the road, cars could
go basically anywhere they wanted to, they didn't have to yield the
right of away.
VanDerbeek: Are you saying that when there is no centerline you are
not required to drive on the right hand of the road.
Tuttle: That's the way the cars went, they just went anywhere they
wanted to, because the road is very narrow. According to the Planning
Department, we went out and measured it, it's 22 feet across. There
are some areas that are a little wider in front of our housing
development where they required sidewalks. Now, talking to the
Engineering Department they said that if they put housing or
condominiums in there, roads would be required to be either sidewalks
put in, they said that was City policy. But, now, if that' s City
policy when Daybridge went in, why weren't they required? Or, is
someone telling us something that' s not going to happen? That's what
we are worried about, we need sidewalks for the kids, so we feel that
the staff has made an error in the safety and health of the citizens
of the City of Kent.
VanDerbeek: All right. Any further testimony in support of your
appeal of the Planning Department's mitigated determination , of
nonsignificance.
Tuttle: No, I don't.
VanDerbeek: All right, thank you for your testimony. Is there any
public testimony in support of the SEPA appeal? All right, sir in the
middle and then in the back there.
(Mr. Garrett was not under oath, so Ms. VanDerbeek swore him in. )
Jeff Garrett: I 'm Jeff Garrett, 23512 110th Place SE, Kent, 98031. I
was at the first hearing and I understand your procedure tonight. I
asked some questions at the first hearing regards to the property and
I expected an environmental impact statement to be processed and I was
surprised when I got the notice about this, so I need to come up and
ask the questions again. Maybe, they could be answered by staff
because I didn't receive a staff report. I got the notice of the
hearing but no staff report. I 'm concerned about the report and I
agree with everybody about the health and welfare. But there is a
problem with the property, I believe that an environmental impact
statement would find out, there's a natural aquifers on the property,
springs. A concern of mine would be if property was built on these
springs not only to the detriment of the people living on the property
but to the landowners around it which I 'm one of, we have natural
runoff at all times, off of that property, condominiums or any type of
housing they built on that if there wasn't adequate drainage put on, I
wouldn't want to say disastrous but it has proportions of, you know,
10
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
disaster. We get anywhere from 30 to 40 gallons an hour out of
certain open areas on our property right now, if that land was covered
with concrete, asphalt or any other means that water has got to go
somewhere and its going be basically on anybody living below that
property. The developer has mentioned in the first hearing that they
had some sort of plan for storm drainage if it was deemed necessary by
the City of Kent. I would think an environmental impact statement if
there was any hydrology tests or soil samples taken would show that
-•, the property possibly isn't even suited to have such high density of
buildings. You've got natural forest land there. We've talked about
the density of the overall structure and they're going to save trees
by having, you know, the structure and then have trees all around it.
I was hoping someone would mention that when you put these structures
next to trees, a lot of trees are in there, like was mentioned at the
first meeting are neither natural to the area or were brought into the
area and they have different type of root structures. Looking at the
plan at the first meeting, and I think the plan that was brought here
tonight, they have the trees right next to these condominiums and they
may last one to two years, standing there looking like good trees but
with those structures being so close and with some of those root
systems, I 'm sure those trees aren't going to last and I 'm pretty sure
that an environmental impact statement, if they looked at the
different type of trees that are on the property, it would show that.
You just can't put a building right next to a tree and expect it to
live. I realize, I stated the main point about the hydrology and soil
sample tests, if that is involved with an environmental impact
statement which, I hope, at least it should be, it would show that
there does seem to be a need to show what is going on with that
property at that time. Thank you.
VanDerbeek: All right, thank you for your testimony, Mr. Garrett.
Further public testimony.
Monte Marchetti: I wasn't sworn in, I was a little late, sorry.
(Ms. VanDerbeek swore in Mr. Marchetti. )
Marchetti: Monte Marchetti of 23608 112th Avenue SE and I would like
to. . .
VanDerbeek: Please spell your last name for the record.
Marchetti: M-a-r-c-h-e-t-t-i. I was here at the first hearing. I
too made some points at that time that I would like to reiterate.
Some of the environmental concerns. I know it has been brought up
_.. before but since I live directly on 112th and actually kitty-corner
from the proposed property, I 've seen what's going on up there and I
would like to object as far as the nonsignificance for the safety
reason as well. My mail .box on 112th Avenue SE, there is no (unclear)
so it's right there on the street so the mailman, you know, won't fall
11
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
in the ditch to deliver the mail. But, anyway, it's been knocked over
in the nine-and-a-half years I 've lived there, it's been knocked over
four times, hit by a car. You know, I could have (unclear)
everything's o.k. The thing that I want to bring up is that has the
City Planning Department, I really, I feel have the real obligation to
the community and especially the citizens beyond the, older citizens
that do not have the presence of mind to protect themselves from
potentially dangerous situations. School children, I would like to
point out at this time too that there are three day cares so not just
one major corporation day care on the corner there also a Lutheran
Church that runs a preschool/day care, there's Ozzie's, it's been sold
recently but just up a little ways there another day care. So
actually within a probably a 100 or 200 foot range there we have three
day care centers. I don't know the enrollment of the day care centers
but that in addition to the public school at the other end of the
street. So, we do have a lot of young kids that I feel that if a car
hits, you know, you know you hear the auto/pedestrian type accidents,
you know, if it doesn't result in a major injury, I think, you know,
could be fatal to the kids and I think that is really should be a big
thing of importance for adults to, (unclear) , this fashion to hold as
kind of an honor that there is something that they are really expected
to look out for hazardous. Another environmental concern I have is
the hydrology. I don't know how, I see about two or three years ago,
well really, back up, about six years ago, Clyde Downing, he was a,
you know, infamous builder up on the East Hill. He put in a cute
little development behind our area and probably three or four years
after he was done, how the Planning Department, he went through the
whole schnick with the Planning Department and everything else and he
got his approvals. Now, this development, mind you is. . .
VanDerbeek: Is this development within the City of Kent or in King
County?
Marchetti: I think it' s Kent, it's directly, Kent, thank you. O.k. ,
anyway those were energy saving homes but anyway this on the very
crest of the hill on 112th as you go east, the hill slopes downward,
as you go west, the hill slopes downward. Approximately three years
after the homes were built, Clyde Downing was bankrupt, the people, we
had a rain storm and the people were flood out of their basements.
Now, this is right on top of the actual top of the hill and if you
know that, I refer to testimony that gravity and water does go
downhill. Now, what I would like to point out is, I don't know if
that was nonsignificance, I really don't know the, what went on as far
as putting the plan together on that project with Clyde but I do know
that at the very crest of the hill, these people were flooded out of
their homes. Subsequently, the Building Department or the Engineering
Department (unclear) the first night was look at the footage to make
sure the roadway you could see about approximately four and a half
feet of asphalt from, oh, I would say anywhere from 235th all the way
down, almost to the end of the Valley High project on 112th, had to be
12
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
dug up and storm systems had to be put in to allow these people to,
you know, go back into their homes and live. They could not handle
" the heavy runoff at the very crest of the hill. So with respect to
the nonsignificance and, you know, no hydrology studies, I would say
that perhaps, you know, the past record with the Planning Department,
perhaps it was somebody else then, whose in there now, there has been
some abnormalities as far as the, what has happened, you know, as a
community accepted these projects and this went on. And, they did a
_. good job, they dug up the roadway, they put in culvert pipes and, you
know, its working now, o.k. So, anyway, that's it for the
environmental and I have some other things. Is it o.k. to bring up
anything about property devaluation at this time?
VanDerbeek• No.
Marchetti: O.k.
VanDerbeek: Well, not unless you somehow you think that requiring the
developer to performance an environmental impact statement could
somehow affect that but, I am not permitted in making a land use
decision to require economic arguments because everyone would. . . If
say law permitted decision makers in land use issues to consider
personal economics then the whole world be commercial uses probably.
Marchetti: Well, I talked to my attorney and he told me that if the
land value will decrease, and he's with Olds, Morris and Rancard down
at the Columbia Center, that you do have, you can sue to make up the
difference from what your property was worth prior to the, you know,
unfavorable zoning towards, with respect to the current value of your
property and I think that if we had an environmental impact study and
looked at the community as a whole instead of the interest of, you
know, a few rather than a total community, it would perhaps work out
best for the total community.
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your comments. Is there any
- further public testimony in support of the appeal. Ma'am, and then
I 'll hear the testimony from the two gentlemen in the front.
Debbie Montgomery: I 'm Debbie Montgomery and the address is
23320 113th Place SE. I am member of the community there but I 'm here
tonight representing the Park Orchard PTA. I 'm the president for the
organization. They asked me to speak because this does have an impact
on the school. We have a student body presently of 545 students. I
believe State law requires that you can't have more 30 children in a
classroom. Right now our classrooms are filled to capacity. Even
-• though the bonds and levies have passed, it is going to be a couple of
years before we get new schools. So the impact of 70 more homes in
that area will impact the school. Park Orchard is a nonbussing school
at this point. We do have other busses that come in to our school,
that ship kids out to other schools. So the children that live in the
13
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
vicinity, it's a walking school. A lot of them walk right down 112th.
A percentage of (unclear) I have no idea. We also have the impact
because the time of dismissal with the elementary, junior high is
dismissed 20 minutes, just about 20 minutes prior to the elementary
being dismissed. Most kids come up to 232nd to walk down 112th
Avenue. So you don't only have the impact of the elementary children
going down 112th you have the impact of junior high children which at
times makes the road very impassable. Not only does it create a
problem with the impact of bringing more students in right at this
point. I have talked to Dr. Daniels. There is no more funding to
bring in a portable to house these children. Even though we've got
the bonds and levies past, at this point there is no fund. So we
don't know where we are going o house them and that is the concern of
the PTA. You know we have a responsibility here to our children and
we have our responsibility for their safety and welfare. Thank you.
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Further public
testimony. Sir, did you want to testify?
Rick Foslin: Rick Foslin, 23337 114th Place SE. The area that I want
to talk about is has already been addressed. I just want to add my
comments of concern that I feel that an environmental impact study
would have probably brought to light the conditions that might cause
threats to personal health and well-being. Namely the condition of
the road, 112th. In its present condition right now is a hazard and I
would like to quote from the letter from the school district, George
Daniels, "Our first major concern is 112th Avenue SE, from SE 240th
Street to Park Orchard Elementary. At the present time there is just
only a small fragment of sidewalk covering this entire stretch of
roadway. This lack of sidewalks coupled with the narrowness of the
roadway and lack of shoulders makes this area one of the most
dangerous areas for pedestrians in the school district" . I feel that
probably an environmental impact statement would have brought this to
light and maybe would have caused the Planning Commission to address
the proposal of going back and entertaining plans to improve the
roadway to sufficient safety to handle the proposed additional traffic
that they are considering. An environmental impact study might have
forced the Council or the Planning Committee to put the improvement of
the road before the condition of changing the zoning to allow for
further density in that area. Also, of environmental concern is the
number of people that cross other people's property to get someplace.
A sufficient amount of children coming through the middle of the block
and I just happen to be in the wrong place and had the amount of 10 to
15 students in the morning and 10 to 15 students in the afternoon
through the yard, over the fence, across the bushes because they did
not want to walk the roadway of 112th out to either 240th or down to
232nd. It was sufficiently hazardous to them. . . for them to decide
that and probably too kids are lazy but anyhow that did create a
substantial amount of pedestrian traffic through my yard that I feel
there is a detrimental environmental effect. I think the safety of
14
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
the children should be considered, the health and safety should be
considered in an environmental study and anything that would be
detrimental or add hazardous conditions that would increase the danger
to the children in the area should be highly considered in any
environmental impact study. Thank you.
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Do you wish to
testify, sir?
Tilak Sharma: Tilak Sharma, 11205 SE 235th Street, Kent. I wish to
add a few things to the testimony which has been given earlier. Clyde
Downing was one that was brought up and that is an example on how
sometime the loopholes in the law or some other considerations can
overlook the real issues. When construction start, 36 homes there
were put in, those houses are posted by City of Kent and the building
is substandard. And therefore, people should not move into the
houses. A week later all those posters are taken out,I called the
City of Kent and find out that I want to close my house, what is the
condition of the (unclear) . They said everything seems to be fine.
Within one week the substandard bill was gone and nothing happened
then, nobody (unclear) , nobody put a new bill, so the highly logical I
consideration which I have then brought up on near here , there are
real situations. We can not hide them. There are loop holes by means
of which you can hide them but the effects will still stay there. I
would like to add one or two things, our people have gone to Orchard
and we know the condition of the school and the facilities there, the
temporaries have been mentioned in Dr. (unclear) letter, even if we
have (unclear) for the temporaries, if you go look at the temporaries
my son from my home here has no temporaries and during the summer
season not the summer after the schools but between March and June
they had to put special ice water for the kids so that they could
drink and stay healthy in those temporaries they are not very
conducive to their education. The traffic situation which has been
mentioned earlier all along 240th street the left hand (unclear)
either onto our area or onto the new apartments which have been built
on the other side of 240th is so much now during the last two months
it has increased so much that it takes on the average in the morning
and in the rush hours it takes between five to seven minutes to take a
left turn. And the fact is that all the way up the Benson Hwy the
cars are waiting for this one or two left turners. There is a real
traffic problem. On the average, every year there are about three or
four cars which go in the ditches on 112th Avenue. The police record
should show it. The latest one was just a few months ago. And right
in front of the (unclear) the ditch there with a car. It's rather
risky for the kids to walk back and forth from the school (unclear)
there are footpaths or the sidewalks put in, there is not enough room
space on the road where the cars, the cars can go very easily
(unclear) . There was a one accident on 240th recently and the traffic
was diverted onto 112th Avenue It took me seven minutes to come out of
235th street take a left turn to go towards 240th, just imagine, just
15
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
one incident and when are a 100 or so more cars, what will happen at
that time. I do not wish to make any judgement, or pass any
judgement, but ever since some of the apartments have come into the
area the quality of life has gone down in the (unclear) the crime has
gone up and the stolen, the thefts have gone up. I have lost, my kids
had lost three brand new bicycles during the last six years, five
right from our driveway. The reason for that, in one case the police
were able to recover the pieces of the bicycle and (unclear) the
people and the reason for that is . . .
VanDerbeek: . .They strip down the bikes?
Sharma: Yes, they strip down the bikes, the police has the record.
Now, the reason for that is when the apartments are put in people
don't know each other, because they don't live there long enough.
Therefore, anybody can walk into those areas, strangers they come in.
Now we can't (unclear) that 36 homes. Nobody can go in there
unnoticed. We know right away who is a new person. But in the
apartments and the condos are there at that time because the amount of
stay for each family is much less. People don't know each other,
therefore, the strangers come in and therefore, the theft and the
crime goes up. We (unclear) seldom find out. Thank you.
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Any further
testimony in support of the SEPA appeal. Ma'am.
Debra Tuttle: My name is Debra Tuttle, 11208 SE 236th Place, Kent. I
believe that an environmental impact statement would show that the
sewers are already at capacity in that area. We've already--a letter
in the LeBlanc file to the Kent Planning Department which states that
an environmental impact would show that to be the case. In reference
to driving and congestion, in addition to that, is that. . .well, my
oldest child attends Park Orchard as a kindergartner, I 've received
three letters so far from Park Orchard Elementary requesting us not to
drive our children to school. The school 's too congested, there's too
many cars passing to and from. . .myself, I 'm not going to let a five-
year-old child walk down 112th unprotected without adult supervision.
Therefore, myself and there are many other people in the area, have to
drive our children to protect them. Just some of it. . .they went to
school and got home o.k. That's the school position. They don't want
us having to drive our children, they've asked us not too. When we
call the Kent Planning Department. . . incidentally, I have four more
pictures to add (Exhibit 44) , two of them show the condition of the
last sign, the one that is that is still remaining and two others are
again pedestrian from the condition of the roadway. May I submit,
those.
VanDerbeek: All right, you may pass those to Chris Holden, the
recording secretary and those will be marked as an exhibit to this
hearing.
16
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
Tuttle: Thank you very much. When we called the city of Kent to
report that the signs were removed almost immediately after they were
posted. My house faces directly towards LeBlanc and I have extremely
good visibility of when they are doing something there and when they
are not. It's very noticeable to me. We called the City of Kent to
report that the signs were not there, although we did know what they
said, they were, you know, aware that the rest of the public did not
know, we were told that the City of Kent would not replace the signs,
would not go back and restand them, the signs were dead, they were in
the ditch, broken in the ditch. That the City of Kent would not
replace or set up the signs and we, by law, could not go and reset the
signs. And so there was no way to. . .although we did what we could to,
you know, make the City of Kent aware of the problem. In reference to
devaluation and how that would effect. . .and how the environmental
impact statement would click in with the devaluation problem that
would ago or the resale that would occur. We feel that would lower the
value of the homes which would increase the renting in the area
because I believe a lot of people would not chose to live there, they
would not want to deal with the headaches that would be created, there
would be less care, less maintenance of the area, it would create a
more slum-type setting for those that are there and I believe it would
make a more transit and a more dangerous community all in all for all
of those that would chose to live in that area. And I feel, that an
environmental impact study would show that devaluating an area like
that. I 'm sure you are aware that the configuration of our
neighborhood. it's very definite and defined and we feel that the
entire neighborhood would be affected in some way and that would
create less desirable location and, therefore, make the entire area
less desirable to anybody that moved there or in the future that would
live there, it would create less pride, less care of the property and
like I said more transient property, essentially that's all I ad to
add.
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for the testimony. Further public
testimony in support of the SEPA appeal. Sir.
Carl Ricketts: Carl Rickets, 23533 110th Place SE. I have been sworn
in already and you have in your possession two letters that I 've sent
in. We've covered an awful lot of ground here tonight and it' s
getting late but I will go as quickly as I can. I will raise the
issue of annexation size. . .
VanDerbeek: Excuse me, Mr. Ricketts, you don't have to go quickly,
you should feel like rushing your testimony.
Ricketts: Well, it's late.
VanDerbeek: Not for me. I 'm used to staying here until 10: 30 if I
have too.
17
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
Ricketts: The annexation size and several other items that I've
raised the issue too and other issues that have been raised here
tonight and at the previous meeting. Relate to the study of which I
did receive a copy and in reading it find that, if I understood it
correctly, if, in fact, this is approved, there will be other hearings
covering other items later. Is that not correct.
VanDerbeek: That is correct.
Ricketts: If that be correct then many of the items that we've
covered so far are inappropriate at the time as have to with this
particular activity.
VanDerbeek: Right, because the only issue at this hearing is whether
or not the Planning Department erroneously did not require an
environmental impact statement.
Ricketts: I noted that more than my letters, my concern to the City,
once the people, once it were, approve an activity. When it' s done,
the City changes it mind and they did with the Senior Center. I would
hate to see that happen to the extent that if this were to pass based
on condos that, in fact, after having passed it would be converted
into apartments which would increase the density. Those kind of
things are a matter of concern to me. The traffic issue has been
covered over, over and over but it is very much of a concern to me.
Environmental drainage. My particular site has been in place for 20-
22 years, I pointed out at our last meeting. On both sides of my lot,
drainage routes that accumulate on the LeBlanc property after leaving
my property, I didn't design it that way, that's just the way it
occurs, the growth of the trees, etc. in fact are not natural, they're
planted. They're old, they're very mature, they're very attractive, I
appreciate them being behind my, my back fence do not have any serious
difficulty with the paved areas covered to date in terms of saving ,
those islands that the presenter at the last meeting identified would
in fact be saved. I find that there, the bold issue has been covered
locally in the (unclear) area and I think I heard something there
tonight is, not an issue in terms of trees and shrubbery but is an
issue in terms of cats over which we have no apparent control. I
haven't any of them and would delight in shooting them if I had a gun
to do so. The street, which I believe is 212, I am not, I very
recently acquired the property that I have, but it' s the I believe
north south, that it leads right into the school. I avoid that as
much as I possibly can, much of reasons have already been covered.
The road is extremely narrow, it's extremely heavily trafficked even
when school is out in the summer time, a number of East Indians I 've
noticed there, because they are just are walkers, I don't if they
choose to or if they have to but the fact is the road is covered with
people, going north and south going to the stores, etc. It's very,
very narrow, vehicular and pedestrian traffic is very severe now on
18
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
that street. Fencing, I know within the city that typically within
the city when the property is totally resolved within the city, when a
commercial venture is encountered that a twenty to thirty foot strip
is provided that must be planted and fences are required typically a I
believe a five or six foot cedar fence I think as defined, I have run
into that being a member of a club that has some property here in
town. My back fence is the city limits and I do not know and would
like to know whether that fence which is twenty odd years old falling
down, I 've actually taken out much of it will be replaced by this
construction effort. It doesn't matter to me a whole lot in that I 'm
building a fence in any case, it would be wire, I am not concerned
about people passing through my property, I do have a pit bull, and
they are welcome to pass through if they chose to, I really don't care
I don't think he will either. I have not seen any posted notices
whatever anywhere in the area, none, zero, I became aware of these
hearings and the effort involved based involved based upon the former
owner of the property who on two occasions now has notified me of
activities, the school effort, I don't have that problem myself, I do
understand it looks like perhaps as many as 66 kids based on the norms
that are applied would be there that's two and a half class rooms,
that's only part of the issue schools by definition require a specific
acreage the more kids you put on a given area, the less acreage they
have for their activities and that •becomes a pretty serious problem
all on it's own. one of the other problems I have is times of
construction of different efforts. For instance, when will these
roads go in as opposed to when the construction of the facility would
be built. The roads need to be there first, the lights need to be
there first, (unclear) , the signs need to be there first, not after
all these trucks are involved and all the people get there and six or
eight months later a sign or two or light is fired up or whatever.
The control efforts need to go up first if in fact this activity is
approved. Hydrology, I think they've sized that pretty well, I 'm
concerned with it because I don't what's going to happen to me if in
fact all this water that comes down the hill does across my property,
goes onto the LeBlanc property after it' s improved upon, whether or
not I will run into law suite, there' s a great deal of water, again it
comes down two sides of my property, I have no control over it and do
I want to be first into the position where I have to control it
because I have to pump it out up here. It can be controlled, but not
by me hopefully. Apartments vs Condo, I think they've covered that,
the school, the sewer, the sewer is a real problem, I have a real
problem in that area this morning relevant to sewer back up,
fortunately I was bowling tonight and drank a lot of beef so you can't
smell it but I have a lot of it over my shoes and over my pants this
morning, that' s unfortunate but I do believe that the sewers are
running at near capacity and I think I mentioned this previously.
Home evaluation, I think in fact the valuation of the homes will go
up, not down. I think you can tell that by watching your taxes, I
think that you will find that you will be paying more taxes, which has
absolutely nothing to do with the resale value of that same property
19
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
which I do believe will be going down. I think that covers pretty
much most of the evidence that I had considered, traffic and drainage
are probably the biggest items that I 've heard and that I am
particularly concerned with, I have no desire to impact the city plans
for annexation or to infringe upon the rights of the LeBlanc family in
terms of making their property more saleable. Thank you very much.
VanDerbeek: Thank you for your testimony. Any further public
testimony in support of the appeal? Sir? Do you swear the testimony
will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Alok Mathur: I do. My name is Alok Mathur. My address is 11213 S.E.
235th Place, Kent, Washington 98031. I strongly feel that
environmental impact statement should be required within the last
couple of years I have noticed that my basement it gets flooded a
couple of times a year. And I have also noticed that a couple of
houses in our neighborhood when they were put on sale, the banks
required them to put sump pumps in their crawl space, so I feel it's
really important that that be done before anything anymore development
is done in that area. Thank you.
VanDerbeek: Alright, thank you for your testimony. Any further
testimony in support of the appeal?
Carl Ricketts: I have a written comment, should I submit it now, or
wait till the end of the meeting?
VanDerbeek: You may submit it now sir. You can just pass your
written comments to the recording secretary and then do you have any
comments other than your written comments?
Carl Ricketts: No.
VanDerbeek: Alright. Any further public testimony? Alright at this
time I'll have staff response to the appeal.
James Harris: My name is James P. Harris, Planning Director also
responsible official under the state environmental policy act. There
are a lot of things have been covered this evening, 2 can't rebut all
of them but I do want to discuss a little bit about the environmental
check list and for those who haven't seen an environmental check list
in the audience I will just hold it up and show you just what it looks
like. You can come to the Planning Department and review this very
document anyone that wants to can do this and it's several pages and
it's pages have questions and the questions are related to certain
kinds of environmental impact some environmental impacts that you
might think would be impacts are not even questioned in this
checklist. The question was asked earlier and I want to refer to it
was what condition did we apply to the declaration of nonsignificance.
And that one condition was the developers of the (unclear) garden
20
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
property shall submit a true plan prior to the development of the
property and in conjunction with the site plan or design the developer
shall maximize the protection submitted in trues on this site, the
true plan shall be drawn and submitted to the Planning Department as
outlined in section 15.08.240 of the Kent Zoning Code. The, I think
most of you probably know the (unclear) garden site is a an arboretum,
a rather rare thing in this area, an individual over a long period of
time planted some very rare trees such things as a copper beach tree,
I found on the copper beach tree in the City of Kent, you won't find
may here. White oak, spanish pine, redwood trees, you don't find very
many redwood trees in this country. We feel as the county staff that
most of those trees those that we can possibly save should be saved,
so we are going to be really looking very, very closely at the way
this property develops in the future. One thing I would like to clear
up for the record is that there are two kinds of projects under the
state environmental protection act that we deal with and one is called
a project or non project. This has been identified as a non project.
A non project is a something that deals with a rezone or a zoning code
.-• or some governmental action that regulates or deals with a (unclear)
situation through a regulation. A project declaration of
nonsignificance or environmental check list deals with actual
construction. A contractor is going to come on the site and actually
start digging dirt and someone is going to start actually building
buildings on the site. We are not at that point yet in the
environmental review of this project. The point that we're at now is
-. simply going through a environmental review of a zoning, that's the
initial zoning for this site. The (unclear) staff has reviewed this
reviewed this based on the fact that there's going to probably be some
future action on this site, and someone is going to take out a
building permit and build if it' s zoned for multi-family perhaps
multi-family to a certain density, perhaps 12 units per acre. At that
time the Planning Department staff, myself as the responsible official
will take a very, very close look at the environmental check list
that's submitted with that application and do an exhaustive review of
all of the things that we've heard mentioned this evening. If we did
that today we feel that we would have a premature situation as far as
environmental review is takes place. The (unclear) may be applied if
the council or the hearing examiner recommends approval of a certain
zoning designation that the density will be set if the hearing
examiner opposed that designation or that recommendation but nothing
will happen with the ground, the ground will just sit there the trees
will still be there because no one has taken out a permit to actually
build anything and when the permit is taken out to build something
that's the time when the situation with the streets, the situation
with drainage, the situation of the school district and there is a
specific question to ask in this environmental checklist how will this
project affect schools, how will if affect police and fire service.
And the person who filled this checklist out who is the applicant for
this zoning states that this impact will occur at the time of the
development, that's when the City is going to determine if an
21
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
environmental impact statement is going to be done or if an expanded
declaration of nonsignificance is going to be done. That's one thing
we can do, we can have a person go back, do a traffic study, show us
the impact at 212th and James Street, show us the impact on the
children who are walking to school on 112th, show us the impact on the
internal circulation system, the need for sidewalks. The, (unclear) ,
talk a little bit about our staff report because it was brought up
this evening. The reference was to the staff report that was titled,
Kent Planning Agency, Staff Report for Hearing Examiner Meeting of and
then it says File No. , Appeal AP-88-1, LeBlanc SEPA Appeal.
VanDerbeek: There was some question about that being distributed to
people.
Harris: O.k. that's distributed to the appellants, they are the
people who have paid for and asked the Commission for an appeal from
the. . .on the advisability of us doing a environmental, an EIS,
environmental impact statement or not. The, however, as you well
know, we always do a staff report for every case that comes before the
Hearing Examiner, before the Board of Adjustment, the Planning
Commission and we do a memo usually at the City Council level that
describes the case at hand and the Planning Department does an
analysis of the case at hand. In this case we had. a letter that was
making certain points, we tried to find what points in that letter
that were pertinent to an actual appeal to be heard on the
determination on whether an EIS should be done or not and that's what
we've done on pages 1, 2 , 3 and 4 . Someone here was talking about a
page 8 in a staff report, our staff report only goes to page 4 so they
obviously had some other staff report.
VanDerbeek: I understood the reference to be to the environmental
checklist. Whether it said page 8 of the staff report but the
testimony of the witness, the way that page 8 related to the
environmental checklist.
Harris: O.k. But I think what I really want to say is that the staff
does not feel this yet that someday, we don't know when, if this other
zone for multifamily there may be a development on here on this site
soon, some time in the future or never. At that time, they must then
submit another environmental checklist and go through the whole
procedure all over again. At that time, there is a much closer
scrutiny, not that there wasn't a close scrutiny here, but a much
closer scrutiny at that time because the impacts are real. We know
that they are applying for a certain density, we know .that within six
months the keys are going to be given to new purchasers of homes or
whatever and people are going to be living on this site. When this
site is rezoned, whatever density it is rezoned to, there are no keys
given to anybody to move into any building because there's no building
built. It's not built unit such time as somebody actually applies for
a building permit. And it could well be and I cannot predict in the
22
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
future, that it could well be we will do an expanded checklist or an
environmental impact statement at that time. But, I can't predict
that today, there's no way that I can say in advance that I would do
that. That' s totally improper for the staff to do at this time. I do
want to apologize for some of the notices. We, in the Planning
Department, learn and learn and learn. We are learning an awful lot
from this case. We are learning that in one case, we made the same
mistake twice on notifying someone. I 've learned just recently about
the stakes or the notices that were put into the ground and then taken
out and our feeling is that we don't, we want people to know what's
going on. There has been some question about notifying people within
200 feet not being far enough area out from the center of a piece of
property that's being dealt with, the City Council has talk about
maybe going 500 feet or even more, that hasn't been something that
we've approved or has been approved. But we do want people to be able
to know what's going on in their neighborhood, we post those notices
and often times they are pulled out or knocked down or whatever, and I
take personal responsibility for that kind of thing because it's my
responsibility to make sure that we get public notices out properly.
I 'm not going to talk about streets and School District situations at
this time. If you would like some questions answered on that more
specifically, we do have Gary Gill here who may talk about what might
happen in the future on 112th, when road widening situations go in, at
what point they go in, do they go in only at this property or is there
a widening situation from, all the way from 240th to the elementary
school, is it a half-street or a full street, when it's completed, is
it curb and gutter, sidewalks, trees, that type of thing. The
drainage that was talked about, is something that would be taken into
consideration if a building goes on the site. Also, we be able to
have someone come in and take core samples and find out really what's
on that site. I think that most of the things are really related to
schools and safety and some hydrology. I know that the school 's
situation is really crowded there. We have letters from Dr. Daniels,
the superintendent of the school district on almost all projects in
the City of Kent now and we are trying to work with that school
district to do what we can to mitigate impacts that are related to
schools. At this time, that's all I really have unless there' s some
questions you have.
VanDerbeek: Well, I have some questions about the citizens concerns
with respect to the hydrology issue but perhaps those questions should
be directed to Mr. Gill. Or, you can answer them if you want, I don't
know.
Harris: Well, you could ask them but I probably can't because I 'm not
a hydraulic' s engineer, I know very little about hydrology.
VanDerbeek: Well, I probably shouldn't ask you. All right, thank
you.
23
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
Harris: I 'll answer any question.
VanDerbeek: I 'm sure.
Gary Gill: Gary Gill, City Engineer. Should I wait for specific
questions or would you like me to address some of the general
comments.
VanDerbeek: Well, I guess I have a couple of specific questions that
I will start out with.
Gill: O.k.
VanDerbeek: I guess my main questions has to do with the hydrology
issue that was raised by the majority of the citizens testifying and
I 'm just wondering what your response is to that issue is and what
steps that the City could possibility take through the environmental
review process to deal with some of the currently existing hydrology
issues.
Gill: O.k. I think as far as the environmental review process. I
don't know if there' s anything that we do differently in this
situation than we would under any normal development proposal. As
part of the building process, we look in detail at any potential
drainage impacts that the project would cause on the area and then the
existing problems that already exist in the area. Some of the
problems that were specifically discussed regarding the flooding in
the basement, water under the homes in the development where Clyde
Downing built, we are well aware of. Unfortunately, you've got to
types of drainage systems that you have the public drainage system
which is essentially the catch basins, the storm drains that are out
in the public roadway system that pick up all the water draining into
the street and directed off-site and then you've got private on-site
drainage concerns. And in this particular case, a lot of those
problems were specifically provided on-site builder oriented types of
problems. If the builder had constructed subdrains as part of the
structure improvements to that home and taken those subdrains out and
tied them into a public drainage system when we probably would have
been able to handle the water situation a lot better than he did. As
far as I know, I don't even know, I think that all I have is
perforated drains on the fittings, stubbed out so many feet passed the
house and who knows where it went from there, obviously it didn't get
away from the house too far.
VanDerbeek: Oh, but doesn't the City have the authority to regulate
that kind of thing?
Gill: It's through the Building Code and it's through the Building
Department. And the Public Works Department has the public streets
and the public drainage system. The Building Code does not
24
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
specifically require a builder to take a footing drain and tie it into
a public storm drainage system. And, we've ran into that problem all
over the east ridge area too. You had drains running through
backyards, into people's houses and it's all on private property and
we had no jurisdiction or control over it. Now, I know there's some
legislation that's trying to be, it's being reviewed by King County
and some other public agencies, that may require home builders to pipe
line or directly connect storm drainage facilities that are part of
residential construction, directly into an approved public storm
drainage system. Right now it's not a requirement as part of any
building code in the City or in King County. What I would say, as
part of the on-site geo-technical investigation and the hydrologic
investigations that are done by the private developer, the Building
Department and the Public Works Department would have to review those
reports and attempt to require adequate storm drainage control
facilities to be put on-site to try to alleviate any potential
problems. But, it's pretty hard to catch them all.
VanDerbeek: All right. Did you have any further response to the
comments of the public concerning the appeal.
Gill: Well, what we looked at was with regard to part of the property
as potentially zoned for multifamily use and the rest of it's
residential, I think, ten acres residential and a little over five or
six acres is multifamily. The impact that's going occurring from that
type of development is not any different than the residential
development impacts created from other residential developments in the
area. When you already have traffic problems or drainage problems and
we try to review those and require the property owner to mitigate
those impacts as part of this development. In all cases, they would
be required to construct on-site storm water control or drainage
control facilities as part of their development and this would be on-
site storm water detention facilities. We are looking as part of our
storm drainage management, over-all management plan for the City, part
of this drainage basin goes into the Garrison Creek system and we are
in the process of constructing so the regional storm water detention
facilities to alleviate some of the flooding, erosion problems that
are taking place in that particular basin. So, as far as the
adequacy, an environmental impact statement required on this
particular proposal would not enlighten us anymore on the storm
drainage or traffic problems in the area than we are already aware of.
We are in the process on widening SE 240th Street from 104th to 116th,
designs are underway right now. We hopefully would have that project
under construction sometime this summer. That would be constructing a
full five lane arterial section all the way from 116th to 104th. That
also includes future provisions for traffic signal at 112th and 108th
Avenue SE. The signals wouldn't necessarily be installed at this time
but we would have to look and see whether the traffic warrants were
. met to require signals to be installed. The, looking at the
difference at what would take place if that six acres were developed
25
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
as residential versus multifamily and the number of trips, peak hour
traffic trips that would generated is 15 more trips than what would
take place if it were residentially, single family residential for
that six acres. We don't feel that 15 additional peak hour trips is
going to unduly overburden an already overburdened traffic system. So
the future plans are to widen and improve this roadway, 112th Avenue
as well as the arterial that would serve the area. As far as what
would be our, what our normal measures would be, I don't know if I
even need to go to explain this but I think Mr. Harris said that this
would help explain the situation of what we normally require. At the
time when somebody comes in with an environmental proposal, an
environmental checklist for multifamily development, we look at the
impacts on the streets and arterial systems in the area. We've got
several requirements that take place: we require the developer to
participate in the regional transportation improvement projects that
are planned as part of the Kent general area which would be the
proposed 277th, 224th, 192nd arterial corridor projects which are
identified in our Transportation Master Plan. We also would require
the developer to make immediate improvements to the roadway which
immediately abuts his property and some times we look at whether or
not we have the ability to create a larger project. Our preference is
to try to do a larger roadway improvement project rather than do a
piecemeal improvements adjacent to each property as it develops. We
would require that the property owner to execute a no-protest LID
covenant for future widening and improvement of 112th Avenue SE to
residential collector standards which would be essentially a 36-foot
wide street, curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, storm
drainage, and normal improvements that are required for new streets
under the present standards. And, this particular developer obviously
would not have to bear the cost of improving a substandard roadway all
the way from 240th to the site. Nobody could economically even begin
to afford to pay for improvements of that magnitude. However, if -
adjacent property owners along 112th which to participate in a program
or a project of that nature then they can always submit an LID
petition requesting that the City form an LID project, a local
improvement district project, for widening and improvement of that
roadway. We would be more than happy to accommodate them. So, I
believe some of the comments regarding the Park Orchard area which is
in King County, there are no sidewalks, it's a residential platted
street and I believe they also have the option within Park Orchard to
create LIDS for putting in sidewalks in their own residential
neighborhoods. If there is a real serious safety problem with
children, then I guess we would encourage them to do that. It's not
within the City of Kent, so we don't really have any control over that
part of it.
VanDerbeek: All right, any further comments.
Gill: Unless you had questions.
26
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
VanDerbeek: No, I didn't have any questions. Thank you for your
testimony, Mr. Gill. Any further response to the appeal by Planning
staff. Mr. Hansen?
Jim Hansen: Jim Hansen, Kent Planning Department. I wanted to make
at least one concluding comment because I think it's important that
the public understand the process and we've had a problem in the past
and we'll probably continue to in the future because I think the way
the development process works and the zoning process is confusing,
always will be. But, I' ll try once again, I think, to explain it.
That this particular appeal is dealing with one issue and one issue
only and that is the establishment of zoning on this site that will
eventually result in the number of units or the number of homes that
can be built. That's really the only issue. Some time later, in a
second stage or a second phase, we will have before us and the public
will have an opportunity through the environmental review process,
actual development plans which will show how many units they want to
build, what they will look like, how they will be located on the site,
which trees will be saved and so on. And, at that time, Gary Gill our
City Engineer and all of us will be more specifically concerned in the
evaluation of the impacts to your neighborhood, to the streets and so
on. At this time, we aren't ignoring that potential impact, it simply
isn't the issue before the City. The issue really only relates to the
number of units, the number of homes they can eventually build on the
property. I hope that's just a little clearer. Thank you.
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your comment. Any further
response to the appeal from the City. Any rebuttal comments from the
two persons who filed the appeal, any concluding comments. All right.
Please step forward.
Dactue: I (unclear) to the record, I 'm Dennis Dague. Just want to say
that, what I know about filing with the Planning Department is what I
now from the Fire Department is that it' s the worst response area that
they have. Again, I would like to say, they call it a nonproject but
plans have already been submitted. . .conceptual plans but they know
basically what they want. I think it' s a confusing word to those who
are not working in the Planning Department and I think it to be clear
that in fact there's a project, a definite project in mind. But until
we see the actual plans, we see conceptual plans. There is a project.
O.k. (unclear) both the checklist and we should consider the fact
this checklist just considers just a few items here and there, this is
" exactly what I think. It doesn't consider anywhere near enough or
deep enough, an environmental impact statement is needed. The
checklist is insufficient, especially for a development of this
magnitude. They say, (unclear) trees, they want to save rare trees
and I would love to save all the rare trees, it (unclear) I wish we
could. Whose going to maintain these rare trees. Condo owners who
may end up renting their apartments, homeowners would maintain these
rare trees, someone else living in condos, if they get bloat or a
27
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
disease who will maintain them. If they are really concerned with an
impact to the environment on this site, and that rare trees are a
consideration that is, (unclear) environment they want to save certain
rare trees then let' s do it right. Let's get the kind of development
in there, the kind of people in there, who will, in fact, save these
trees, who will preserve these trees and nurture these trees. Renters
aren't going to and I 've got a feeling that a lot of people who own
the condos will eventually move out, move into a home, do whatever,
and (unclear) , will be just like apartments. Again, they mentioned
that they want to save the trees and once again, someone mentioned,
who, will the trees live, what kind of soil is needed for the trees,
(unclear) asked by the (unclear) , and by the way, what about the fact
that they are going to have buildings in there and the trees will now
have more shade or less shade, or more water or less water. I wonder
if you could consider that in the environmental impact statement. Are
these so particular rare trees really conducive to living in the kind
of conceptual development that we have presented here. O.k. They
said that only the applicants, myself and Mr. Tuttle were to get the
staff report with our notices. I suppose this was just an oversight
or mistake that, in fact, they sent them out to everybody. Well, I
consider the testimony and procedure about people, who not only
(unclear) for us, I again state, that I have no doubt that we were
damaged by people who thought it wasn't, probably wasn't going be need
to come here when they received that staff report. And, I don't what
avenues we have open to us but if we aren't successful here we will
pursue all of them. Improper posting, improper notification has cost
us the time and the money to come here. We could have been at the
first meeting and presented all these arguments. We feel the City is
responsible for this, we make the motion for the record for whatever
it cost us to come here to file this appeal. We are going to add a
100 or so names, as many people as we can find, anywhere around the
LeBlanc development, proposed development, to be added to the mailing
list for the Kent Planning Department. So, in fact, we have to know
about it, consider (unclear) put signs back up when we told them two
or three times that they are down. And in fact, inconsiderate enough
to mail more than 200 feet. Considering the fact that they are
inconsiderate enough to put something negative in the notice of this
meeting and we can only hope that, in fact, they will mail all the
notices to all the people and not accidently leave out some of the
most important (unclear) because this time didn't happen to get a
notice sent to the very person who last time got over a hundred
signatures so they didn't, some people in the community say they, in
fact, they did not want the condos development, this was a few years
ago and this particular person who started this petition, he didn't
get his, and his is within 200 feet and by the way I have the
signature, I don't know if that's something you need, but the Kent
Planning Department, if it's something you need to see, if it's
something important I would like to (unclear) now, but my questions
is, if it's already in the LeBlanc file, so (unclear) , something you
already have.
28
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
VanDerbeek: What. . .are you referencing the signatures that were in
the SEPA appeal file.
Dague: Actually, what I'm talking about is two years ago, this man
cam out with a petition and submitted over a hundred signatures from
people in the community, around the area, saying they don't want to
have this developed in this way. This man did not get a notice of the
hearing you attended on December 16.
VanDerbeek: Was that petition in connection with zoning hearing for
the Comprehensive Plan?
Dague: Was that either for a Council meeting or zoning, I 'm not sure,
I don't have it in front of me right now. I have it here, but not in
front of me.
Harris: I can identify that Madam Hearing Examiner.
VanDerbeek: Can you clarify that, Mr. Harris?
Harris: Yes, two years ago we had the hearings on the Comprehensive
Plan change, he is referring to files related to that. That went
through the Planning Commission, Planning Commission made a
recommendation to the City Council, City Council passed on the
Planning Commission recommendation. You would not have those files.
VanDerbeek: No, I don't think that the information in that particular
petition would. . .
Dague: Is relevant, o.k.
VanDerbeek: Would be of assistance to me in determining the SEPA
appeal.
Dague: O.k. I ' ll just note then, in fact, the man who had enough
initiative to start that is, happen to be the person within 200 feet,
whose name is Carrett (?) , didn't get a notice. If I were he, he
would have notified (unclear) , and we could have nipped this in the
bud, hopefully, at the first hearing. O.k. , the Engineer mentioned
that certain developments and buildings went up in Kent and there were
certain problems with them. So the question is, who's watching them,
who's watching over these builders, who's supposed to make sure these
are done right. If they had trouble watching over the builders in the
past, how do we know they aren't going to have the same troubles in
putting in a huge complex (unclear) a significant problem that would
be too expensive for anybody to really effectuate a remedy. Who's
going to look over the construction of the condos. I noticed it
seemed like the person up seemed to be passing the buck. Well, that's
not my department, that's the Department of Public Works, well that's
29
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
the department of this or that. Well then, who in the heck is going
to do it and I don't know what kind of things that come out in the
environmental impact statement but is that the kind of thing you can
find out actually, who is responsible for every aspect and phase, so
you can just give the answer, so we can know who to go to, to get the
answers. Well, like I say, I don't know the, how far an EIS can go,
but if not, can an environmental impact statement or an environmental
impact statement (unclear) just tell me just who in the City of Kent
is responsible, and just what they can require of a builder and the
lack of an ability to control a private developer definitely affects
our community. So, I would hope there would be something that could
come out in the environmental impact statement, the responsible
parties within the City of Kent, (unclear) mention to that. They
mentioned a stop light at 112th, 240th as though that's going to be,
hey we're taking care of a problem. The fact is that's going to make
the situation worse only because now there' s a lot of traffic by the
school that goes down to 216th to use the stop light there and
(unclear) oh, wow, this is great, fantastic, now they can use the stop
light here. They are going to attract out of area traffic down 112th
that now bypasses us so we will not only have all the condo traffic
but will have all the traffic that exists right now and then out of
area traffic that is attract to a stop light plus people that go down
240th, they get caught behind traffic, go, wow, hey, I 'm going to get
out of here and they will be attracted down, back ways to get home. I
think it' s going to make the traffic worse. He mentioned something
that instead of having 20 homes, you had 76 units, you would only have
about 15 more trips during peak hour and I would just like to know
what school he learned that two plus two is five. An environmental
impact statement now could have saved all these things, at least I
would think so. We would have the answers now. I 'm appalled that a
development of this magnitude isn't required, up front, to do
something like that. What is a no-protest LID? Does that mean that
if a certain percentage of the homeowners say, o.k. we' ll do it, and
only a couple opposed or is that nobody opposes and by the way, on
this (unclear) , there are only two or three homeowners but there are
large sections of land they are on, so are they going to bear the
cost, no matter how much hundred of thousands of dollars it costs to
put in the sidewalks, etc. But, they obviously can't afford it and
for that matter, I 'm not sure that the entire Kent Vista can. It's
isn't like we have a lot of homeowners to share this cost with, plus,
the people that are making a profit on this, the developer, are the
ones that are causing the impact. I don't understand why it is, that
they should be the one's sharing the cost when in fact, the values,
people doing articles, I didn't bring them, wished I had, some of it,
in fact, (unclear) the City, or the (unclear) , the people, the
developers ought to share more of the costs and one last thing is that
the City of Kent, I understand, can require the developer to make
improvements but they may be off-site. In fact, they might be miles
away. How, do we know that, in fact, the improvements that they do
require of this developer would be for our community, that we won't
30
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
have our impacts lessened. I noticed, for instance, that on the
(unclear) division, which is right down the street, they are saying,
well, he can go ahead and he can. . .we might require that they put
sidewalks in or improve the street or whatever, or they give the
option of improving a place two or three miles away. So, how do we
know about what's happening in Kent, that, in fact, we have problems
but one of the outs they are giving us is, you can add to the
corridor, and that's going to be called the 228th corridor or
something like that. That's great for whoever lives two or three
miles away but that doesn't the impact here but apparently would
satisfy the legal requirement. Maybe be stuck without (unclear) as
mentioned. But, I guess, you said, the gentleman over here, said that
this is all a matter of zoning, this entire meeting is a matter of
zoning. We were told at the very beginning that this is simply not an
environmental impact statement. We have been told, that in fact, that
this meeting was accomplishing the zoning whether, we can bet it would
be a little bit differently. So. . .
VanDerbeek: No, no, no. You are misscharacterizing the testimony.
The issue is, at this hearing, and the only issue is, whether or not,
what are the environmental impacts associated with the recommended
zoning proposed in the annexation proceeding and whether those impacts
require an environmental impact statement. This is not a hearing that
has anything to do with the actual zoning.
Dague: I misunderstood his remarks, and I apologize for that. But,
also, and I 'm not sure if this is the place. I guess I will ask it
and maybe it will be answered somewhere else. Is there anything that
we can do, at this point, to keep it single family or to make it
single family? I guess interim is single family zoning, so can we
keep it single family. And, also, there was a meeting that we were
at, you presided over on December 16 and I don't know what things we
could have done, since we missed your meeting, we didn't know about
it. I don't know what else we could have done besides what we are
doing here. But, I know that we went to the Planning Department and
said that we missed the meeting, didn't know about it, what can we do,
is there anything we can do? And, we were told we can go to the City
Council meetings, and about the only other thing we can do, when they
come up. The only other thing we can do is to file a SEPA appeal. If
there are other remedies, we were not informed even though we asked.
I will say they seemed to bend over backwards to discourage us from
filing it. But, just, upon us, it was a waste of time and that we've
never had it done before and, if, (unclear) is when I called up the
first time, the Planning Department, to find out what was going on
here and I found out the first time, I said what does this all mean
and I was told that it means he can build single family homes and I
said that' s good, I like single family homes and I thought about it,
and I thought, well, I better ask, is that all he can build, and I was
told he could build duplexes if he wanted to. . .
31
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
VanDerbeek: What possible relevancy does what you were told by the
Planning Department have to this hearing, by the Planning Department.
Dague: A lack of judgment, I should have had an environmental impact
statement. If I can't trust them in one area, I can't them to use
good judgment to say a checklist was enough. I was eventually told,
when I asked, that they could, the fact that condos were proposed.
VanDerbeek: All right, any further comments in rebuttal.
Daque: I have no further testimony, thank you.
VanDerbeek: All right, thank you. Mr. Tuttle did you have any
response.
Tuttle: (Unclear) . I'm Warren Tuttle, and the Planning Director was
talking about basically he pushed off the issues we brought up
basically about the safety of the roads and the water problems. Hey,
those are real. They got to be attended to before. We as citizens,
you know, the way I feel, he says, that' s their department or another
department, o.k. What recourse do we have, he says, at the time we
give the permits, that's when we are going to make the decisions but
the Engineering doesn't realize, I 'm sure they realize, though, that
he said an additional 15 trips per day, o.k. , how do you take 70 unit
and only get 15 additional trips, o.k. 15 people out and 15 in, that' s
30 trips per day. That road, through which I 've looked through the
files, has an average of 2 , 100 trips per day on that narrow road, it's
in the file.
VanDerbeek: I know, I heard the testimony to be 15 additional p.m.
peak hour trips per day. In other words, during the afternoon peak
hour trips 15 additional. . .
Tuttle: How do you get that out of a proposed 70 units, I mean 15
trips.
VanDerbeek: That was the testimony.
Tuttle: That' s what I 'm trying to say, it doesn't add up. O.k. , and
as far as the impact, on, like the hydrology, o.k. Now, I 've looked
at pictures of the LeBlanc area which are in the file which are
slides, o.k. It shows downed trees. Everyone that lives in that area
knows that' s hardpanned. My trees in my yard are not very deeply
rooted. What' s to say when they put apartments in there, how do we
know how deeply rooted these trees that they have in there are now.
The picture show that there are already fallen trees in there.
Granted, that some of the trees have been there 40 years, o.k. But if
they put additional condominiums and things in there, whose to say
those trees are going to stay there, whose to say they are going to
fall. How do we know. I know that the Planning Department's
32
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
explanation weren't very well at all. Because the buildings are
planned, they are saying that at a future date, that they may come and
do this. Now, Mr. Dague talked about a petition and the signatures,
o.k. Originally, they had it so that 236th, if you look at that plan,
who go through, o.k. It seems to me that to appease these people on
the King County side, they decided o.k. they aren't going to put 236th
through, o.k. And we see that on the plans, whatever, contemporary
plans, whatever they call it, that road doesn't go through anymore, so
everything comes out onto 112th. So, I feel that the issues here are
being evaded by the Planning Department, that there should be a
statement (unclear) made. Because, you know, especially with the
trees on there, we don't know how deeply rooted they are, you may not
be able to build on there, you might not be able to save any of those
trees. And, I 'm not saying, the Engineer was talking about the
roadway, he says that County, am I correct, is that what he said.
VanDerbeek: That's not what I heard.
Tuttle: Because I going to say, how could it be both City limits on
both sides and the road still be County. Now, when he talked about
County roads by Park Orchard. Now, Park Orchard has a walkway coming
through their driveway, through the access, they made one. It's
asphalted, they've taken and put little blocks so the kids can walk
through. Now, on the other side of Park Orchard where he' s saying
there's not sidewalks, there are sections of sidewalks in Park Orchard
and there is allowable walkway where there isn't on 112th. So, I
feel, you know, can't say the County hasn't done anything why should
they do anything but there is room on the County side for the children
to walk and be off the road. That' s all I have.
VanDerbeek: All right, thank you for your testimony. No additional
rebuttal testimony from the public is permitted on the SEPA appeal.
All right, at this time I will close the public hearing with respect
to File #AP-88-1. I will issue written findings of facts and
conclusions of law and decision with respect to this appeal within 14
calendar days from today's date but I believe there may be a City
holiday in there, I don't know whether or not that will affect the
time schedule but the secretary is nodding her head affirmatively, so
it may but in any event I will issue written findings and decision on
this matter as well as a recommendation to the City Council on the
LeBlanc Annexation. I will indicate that the Rule of Ex Parte
Communication strictly prohibits my conversing with anyone or
receiving any information in any manner concerning the hearing outside
of the record. Because everyone has the right to hear all of the
testimony and so I would strongly discourage anyone from approaching
_ me after the hearing and attempting to tell me anything because after
sitting here for several hours and the other LeBlanc hearing I would
hate to have to disqualify myself so that we would have to start back
at the beginning so I would remind audience about the Rule of Ex Parte
Communication. Thank you for appearing.
33
KENT PLANNING AGENCY
STAFF REPORT
FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF
FILE NO: #AP-88-1 LEBLANC SEPA APPEAL
REOUEST: An appeal of the Determination of
Nonsignificance for the LeBlanc Annexation
Initial Zoning #ENV-87-101.
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE: LIN BALL/GREG MCCORMICK
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Determination of Nonsignificance
On December 11, 1987, a Determination of Nonsignificance
(DNS) was issued for the initial zoning of the LeBlanc
Annexation area. The Planning Department staff recommended
that the 5. 85 acre area known as the LeBlanc Gardens be zoned
MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential, with a maximum
density of 12 units per acre and the remainder of the
annexation area be zoned R1-9. 6, Single Family Residential
(approximately ten acres) .
The Planning Director concurred with the staff
recommendations and a DNS was issued by the Director under
his authority as SEPA Responsible Official for the City of
_.. Kent.
Dennis M. Dague whose address is 11218 SE 234th Place and
Warren J. Tuttle whose address is 11208 SE 235th Place, have
filed an appeal of the DNS. This appeal was made on
January 4, 1988, within the time frame for appeals as set
forth in Chapter 12 . 12 A, Kent City Code, Section 520,
- Appeals.
The SEPA threshold determination was made following WAC 197-
11-330, Threshold Determination Process.
B. Location
The LeBlanc Annexation area is located south of SE 232nd
Street and west of 112th Avenue SE and is approximately 15
acres in size.
1
Staff Report
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
II. HISTORY
In July 1984, Land America Corporation representing Leo LeBlanc,
requested an amendment to the East Hill Plan Map for the LeBlanc
Gardens area from SF 4, Single Family 4 to 6 units per acre to MF
12, Multifamily Family 7 to 12 units per acre. Mr. LeBlanc' s
intention was to develop this area in a PUD or cluster type of
development rather than single family in an effort to preserve as
many of the unique trees in the gardens area as possible.
The City of Kent Planning Commission held public hearings on
January 15, 1985 and February 26, 1985 to consider the East Hill
Plan Map amendment requested by Mr. LeBlanc. At the February 26
meeting, the Planning Commission passed a motion unanimously to
recommend approval of the requested change to the City council .
On March 18, 1985, the City Council considered the requested plan
map amendment and passed a motion approving the requested change.
On April 1, 1985, the City Council adopted Resolution #1051
amending the East Hill Plan Map.
In June 1987, Ordinance #2727 was passed annexing into the City of
Kent a 15-acre area known as the LeBlanc annexation. The newly
annexed land was given an interim zoning designation of R1-201
Single Family Residential, minimum lot size of 20, 000 square feet,
until such time as the Hearing Examiner and City Council establish
the initial zoning for the newly annexed land. As part of the
initial zoning process, an environmental checklist was completed
by the City. The initial zoning is considered under SEPA (WAC
197-11-704 2bii) to be a nonproject action. A nonproject action
involves decisions on policies, plans, or programs as opposed to a
project action which deals with a specific project.
III. NATURE OF APPEAL
The Kent Planning Department received on January 4, 1988 , an _
appeal and on January 5, 1988 , an addendum to the original appeal
of the DNS issued for the initial zoning of the LeBlanc annexation
area. The appeal submitted by Dennis Dague and Warren Tuttle
addresses several issues relating to the SEPA review and the
development of the LeBlanc Gardens area. Also submitted with the
appeal was a petition with several signatures of persons concerned
about the development of the LeBlanc Gardens site. These
signatures have not been verified, but a review of the addresses
indicate that the petitioners are both City and County residents
in the vicinity.
The following is a discussion of the issues raised in the SEPA
appeal and Planning Department comment on each issue.
2
Staff Report
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
1. Appellants request that none of the LeBlanc Annexation area
be zoned for multifamily development.
Planning Department Comment
This issue raised by the appellants is not related to the SEPA
process and should be addressed during the initial zoning hearing
process. The SEPA Ordinance #2494 adopted by the City allows for
procedural appeals (Section 12. 12 A. 520.A2a1) of the SEPA process.
This issue does not appear to be related to procedural matters.
2. The appellants request that a Traffic Impact Study be
completed for City, SEPA, plus public review prior to
issuance of a Determination of Nonsignificance.
Planning Department Comment
The initial zoning is considered a nonproject action under SEPA.
Requiring a traffic study at this point in time would be
premature. The appropriate time to require this sort of
information would be when an environmental checklist is submitted
for a site specific plan for a development on the property in
question. This will allow for the most accurate evaluation of the
traffic impacts as they relate to a specific development. A
complete and thorough assessment of both pedestrian and vehicular
traffic needs is not only inappropriate at the nonproject stage,
but also impossible without specific plans.
3 . The appellants request that a Tree and Vegetation Plan be
submitted for City, SEPA and public review for the LeBlanc
Gardens area.
Planning Department Comment
Prior to recommending the initial zoning, the Kent Planning
Department required that a conceptual site plan for the proposed
condominium project be submitted addressing the preservation of
trees and vegetation. That plan was submitted and displayed at
the public hearing held on December 16, 1987 .
As mentioned earlier, since the initial zoning of the property is
a nonproject action under SEPA, it is not appropriate to require a
site specific tree plan to review as part of the SEPA process.
The City staff does recognize the importance of preservation of
some of the significant trees on the site because of their age and
species. The Zoning Code contains regulations governing the
preservation of trees. In order to strengthen the Ordinance in
this situation, the DNS issued for this initial zoning did contain
a condition that a tree plan must be submitted prior to
development of the LeBlanc Gardens property. This plan must
maximize the preservation of significant trees. The tree
3
Staff Report
LeBlanc SEPA Appeal
#AP-88-1
preservation issue would be addressed again during the SEPA review
for a specific project and during the development plan review
process.
4. The appellants request written plans showing how and when
environmental impacts will be mitigated and how mitigation
measures will be financed.
Planning Department Comment
Again, this request is premature. At such time as an
environmental checklist is submitted for a site specific
development plan, the impacts can be identified and mitigation
measures established for the identified impacts.
5. The appellants request that an Environmental Impact Study be
completed for the proposed condominiums.
Planning Department Comment
Assuming the appellants are referring to requiring an Environment
Impact Statement (EIS) , this would not be the proper time to
require an EIS for a conceptual project. The initial zoning
proposed by the City staff is in conformance with the City's East
Hill Subarea Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
When a checklist is submitted for the condominiums, the
environmental issues of that checklist will be reviewed and a
determination will be made on the probable impacts of the project
at that time. If it is determined that there are significant
adverse environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated, an EIS
will be required.
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
January 25, 1988
4
CITY OF I ENT
.KL•,H Planning : .
ST
� ! Y •b
222ND ST o 3E 222ND rT
SE '223RD
7 B
it si 515
W x N y M
2 W Z u ^T
[ ., SE 224TH ^ ST
18F 17 40%[ SE'x�aT„ ,N, ` aJi SE E" 22PRD
STH <224TN SE 225TH
---bbb 3E y1 m lu w
< i E STH u
c �' L/M/ SE
2asTH
- <
i SE 226TH ST a m ` \•\ ^< +TWA + w
S WW x G .S.", >
f v S
9 22BTH e iN SE uu
ST 1 227TH 3T o< .� N
� 3E 220T2STN ST SE 225TH
I 14 I SE 229TN a� foe SE ST x N
J 29THt I
pL ST
J < I (P"1) (") N i OS4+ y e4' SE 230 H
ST
tx- SE 231ST •\ x SE1 '�a fly SE 23IST PARK RCHA
o S 23IST ST t- �� �•t' W 1CLC NTARY
(Pvl) ST xN ■
3 232N0 ST < .. PL.H �` Jf 232ND ST oW SCH L
. ST ,( 3 232N0 SE 232ND ST w yE �< E232N0 '
•( ST SE 232N0 K 2]2ND 4t y w k.
[;•: a f7`'T1�yE 233R0 A( P
._ ` � r��,INnTP ♦OS f V Sl q V
!a ^
N '�. a• ny = sTH'"= 'o M1�� r- se
235 TH 231
S 236TH N P qi� SE 235TH ST AY 3T flat
(Pvt)
W O
2 e H SE 236TH pL u'e W014r
q > a 11k.
�'� SE 237TH ST >�^
< Y p6 < r[OQ NPS[fVO�
A IN,..1. ` •\ x A �•� .
" ` N cPvl) m I.E 23BTH m nt^
._ r�T•-, W (Pvl) SE 239TH \ ST
ST
8 D N
It P S a ,18 17
' r q t SE orH Sr.
PlOOu EAST HILL
3 2415T ST rN ELEMENTARY
Z ; SCHOOL
S 242NOQ
ST N
. S 243RD
ST G N <
H N q I SE 244TH > S ST
O W
> p w N
> < O 1
q
N
Fx• W S 246TH
PL
x 2 N
W
a k < d i4STH ST dE N 248TH " ST
2 '4
tt� W
APPLICATION LeBlanc SEPA Appeal LEGEND :
NUMBER-4AP-88-1 DATE--February 3, 1988,
application silo 2=
REQUEST--SEPA Appeal
VICINTY MAP city limits -- — ---
Scale== 1":1,000' � .
1
CITY OF KENT
planning:
0 -
Li 0-
232 10
1pp7 rt r
. ,.� f
�0f� a °I o _,,•
L1 y4. � ❑ o� !
rf d fl i E
♦q � J u_ r'J�ry1\l '
S.E. 233TN 3T.
C:
('� f
.'r
00
L•
.\ n
APPLICATION NAME LeBlanc SEPA Appeal LEGEND°
NUMBER--AAP-88-1 DATE--February 3, 1988 application site I
REQUEST--SEPA Appeal toning houndary�
TOPO/ZONING City Ilmil$
Scale = 111:2001
CITY OF KENT
OFFICE OF THE
LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
IN RE THE MATTER OF )
ORDER EXTENDING TIME
LEBLANC SEPA APPEAL )
#AP-88-1 )
AND )
)
LEBLANC ANNEXATION )
#AZ-87-5 )
THIS MATTER having come on regularly for public hearing
before the undersigned Hearing Examiner on February 3 , 1988 and
December 16, 1987, respectively and the undersigned, having
reviewed the record and file herein and deeming herself fully
advised, it is now, HEREBY,
ORDERED that the time for consideration of this SEPA appeal
and annexation request shall be extended and the undersigned
shall issue a written decision and recommendation, respectively,
concerning the same ' on or before February 24, 1988. This
extension is pursuant to the authority granted the undersigned in
City of Kent Ordinance #2233 .
Dated this 17th day of February, 1988.
4DANE ANDERBEEK
Hearing Examiner
CITY OF KENT
OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
IN RE )
ORDER REVISING
LEBLANC ANNEXATION ) CONDITIONS
#AZ-87-5 )
THIS MATTER having come on regularly for public hearing
before the undersigned Hearing Examiner on December 16, 1987, and
the undersigned having received the request for reconsideration
in a timely manner, having reviewed the record and the file
herein, and deeming herself fully advised, it is now, HEREBY,
ORDERED that the condition requested is reasonable and
attached herewith as though set forth in full is the revised
Findings and Recommendation of the undersigned showing the added
condition as underlined.
Dated this 23rd day of March, 1988 .
D ANE L. VANDERBEEK
Hearing Examiner
- FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT
FILE NO: LEBLANC ANNEXATION #AZ-87-5
APPLICANT: CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
REQUEST: A request to set the initial zoning on approximately 15
acres of land.
LOCATION: The property is located south of SE 232nd Street, east
of 112th Avenue SE.
APPLICATION FILED: June 15, 1987
DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE: December 11, 1987
HEARING DATE: December 16, 1987
RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: February 24 , 1988
March 23 1988 revised conditions
RECOMMENDATION: Recommended zoning for the LeBlanc
Gardens area is MRG, Garden Density
Multifamily Residential, 12 units per
acre. The recommended zoning for the
-remainder of the site is R1-9. 6, Single
Family Residential, minimum lot size of
9 , 600 square feet.
STAFF REPRESENTATIVES: Kathy McClung, Planning Department
Greg McCormick, Planning Department
Ken Morris, Public Works Department
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Bill Kreager
Robert Thomas
Carl Ricketts
Monte Marchetti
Jeff Garrett
Ernest Stowe
WRITTEN TESTIMONY: Carl Ricketts
R. M. Thomas
Judith M. Redding
Jeff & Shirley Garrett
INTRODUCTION
After due consideration of the evidence presented by the applicant,
all evidence elicited during the public hearing, and as a result of
the personal inspection of the subject property by the Hearing
Examiner, the following findings of fact and conclusions shall
constitute the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner on this
application.
„� 1
Findings and Recommendation
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The City of Kent Planning Department requests the undersigned to
recommend initial zoning on approximately fifteen acres of land
which was annexed to the City of Kent in June 1987 .
2 . The subject site is approximately 15 acres in size and is located
south of SE 232nd Street and east of 112th Avenue SE.
3 . The site is currently zoned R1-20, Single Family Residential.
This is an interim zoning designation assigned to all newly
annexed land until such time as the Hearing Examiner and City
Council establish initial zoning for newly annexed areas.
4 . The Planning staff is recommending that the area known as LeBlanc
Gardens which is approximately 5.85 acres in size be zoned MRG,
Garden Density Multifamily Residential, with a maximum density of
12 units per acre. The remainder of the annexation area, or 9 . 15
acres, is recommended to be zoned R1-9 . 6, Single Family
Residential.
5. The East Hill Plan Map designates the LeBlanc Gardens area as, MF
12 , Multifamily 7-12 units per acre. The remainder of the
annexation area is designated as SF 6, Single Family Residential,
4-6 units per acre.
6. The southern portion of the subject site is known as LeBlanc
Gardens. The evidence establishes that the LeBlanc family has
owned the subject property for over 40 years. This site was
developed as botanical gardens over 45 years ago when several
grooves of trees unique to the Puget Sound region were planted
here. Accordingly, since the site has gained national attention
for its garden and landscaping, the limitation of residential
density on the site would make it possible to preserve as many of
the unique botanical features of the site as possible.
7 . The northern portion of the site is single family residential on
large lots with the exception of the northern most parcel which
is developed as a church.
8. Prior to the annexation the subject site was zoned SR 7200 in
King County. This is a density of six units per acre maximum
with actual density depending upon the availability of such
services as water, sewer, paved streets and sidewalks that are
available or could be provided to the subject site.
9 . At the time of the public hearing, numerous residents from the
vicinity appeared to express concern with respect to the uses
which would be permitted on the newly annexed land.
2
Findings and Recommendation
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
10. Concerns were expressed with respect to tree preservation,
pedestrian safety, inadequacy of 112th Street for additional
traffic and pedestrian safety, and the need to protect single
family neighborhoods from encroachment by more multiple family
development.
11. Additionally, concern was expressed with respect to the safety of
children who frequently walk to and from the adjacent elementary
school and are enrolled in the day care at 240th and 112th
Street.
12 . Further, the residents expressed concern with respect to the
affect which building will have upon the old tree root systems
which might be weakened by buildings being placed immediately
adjacent to them.
13 . With respect to adjacent land uses the evidence establishes that
Park Orchard subdivision, located in King County, lies to the
west of the site. The Park Orchard area is zoned SR 7200 and
lots in the development range from 7 , 200 to 7, 500 square feet.
This neighborhood currently has a density of approximately six
units per acre. To the northeast of the site the Eastridge
subdivision exists with a density similar to that of Park
Orchard. Land to the south has been developed with multifamily
uses including Kings Place and Kenton Ridge apartments. These
areas are developed at a density of approximately 20 units per
acre. Commercial uses exist to the south and west of the
property. There is a commercial area at the intersection of
104th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street.
14 . Although the residents who live in the vicinity expressed some
concern with respect to storm water runoff, Planning staff
indicates that there are no apparent flood control problems on
the site.
15. The subject property is bordered on three sides by predominantly
single-family residential uses. In addition, 112th Avenue SE to
the west of the subject site is classified as a residential
collector. Development on the subject site will generate
considerable traffic. Traffic impacts associated with future
development on the site will need to be exactly determined and
mitigated once the applicant submits a final site plan.
16. The staff report, with its recommendation that the LeBlanc
Gardens area be designated MRG, Garden Density Multifamily
Residential, with the remainder of the annexation area be
designated R1-9. 6, Single Family Residential, is incorporated
herein by reference as though set forth in full.
µ 3
Findings and Recommendation
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
CONCLUSIONS
1. The City of Kent Zoning Code gives the undersigned no discretion
with respect to recommendation for zoning on newly annexed land.
Specifically, Kent Zoning Code Section 15. 09.055 D indicates "the
decision of the Hearing Examiner shall be limited to recommending
initial zoning designations which are consistent with the current
Comprehensive Plan" .
2 . For reasons which are entirely unclear to the undersigned, the
Comprehensive Plan and the East Hill subarea Plan were amended in
April 1985 to designate portions of the subject property from
single family, 4-6 units per acre, to multifamily, 7-12 units per
acre.
3 . Considering the proximity of single family uses on three sides of
the subject site, it is difficult to ascertain why the currently
existing Comprehensive Plan designates portions of the site as
multifamily.
4 . However, given the total absence of discretion granted the
undersigned in annexation hearings, I am mandated to recommend
initial zoning consistent with the currently existing
Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
For each of the above reasons, the recommendation of the Hearing
Examiner for initial zoning on the LeBlanc Annexation area is that the
LeBlanc Gardens area be designated MRG, Garden Density Multifamily, 12
units per acre. The remainder of the annexation area should be
designated R1-9. 6, Single Family Residential, with a minimum lot size
of 9, 600 square feet with the following condition:
1. If the applicant makes a significant change to the conceptual
site plan, the initial zoning designation on the newly annexed
land should be brought back to the Hearing Examiner for review.
For purposes of this condition, a significant change include, but
shall not limited to:
a. A landscape buffer of less than 30 feet,
b. Different size or configuration of buildings on the site,
and, or
C. Different percentage of site coverage.
2 . The owners of property adjacent to 112th Avenue SE shall deed to
the City of Kent sufficient property for street purposes such
that 30 feet of right of way exists as measured from the
4
Findings and Recommendation
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
north/south centerline of the southeast quarter of Section 17 ,
Township 22 Range 5 W.M.
Dated this 23rd day of March, 1988.
D*NEANDERBEEK, HEARING EXAMINER
Request for Reconsideration
Any party of record who feels the decision of the Examiner is based on
error of procedure, fact or judgment, or the discovery of new evidence
' may file a written request for reconsideration with the Hearing
Examiner no later than 14 days of the date of the decision.
Reconsideration requests should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner,
220 S. Fourth Avenue, Kent, WA 98032 .
Notice of Right to Appeal
The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written appeal
to Council is filed by a party of record within 14 days of the
decision. The appeal must be filed with the City Clerk and state the
basis of appeal which may be errors of fact, procedural errors,
omissions from the record, errors in interpretations of the
Comprehensive Plan or new evidence. See ordinance #2233 and
Resolution #896 for specific information.
5
vim
CITY OF ���
_1
March 9 , 1988
r I
�IN CTy�I
Ms. Diane L. VanDerbeek
Suite 312 Key Bank Building
10655 NE Fourth Street
Bellevue, WA 98004
RE: LeBlanc Annexation #AZ-87-5
Request for Reconsideration
Dear Ms. VanDerbeek:
In your Findings and Recommendation for the LeBlanc Annexation
Zoning #AZ-87-51 the following condition was not included. This
was a condition the staff had recommended as part of an addendum
to the staff report:
The owners of property adjacent to 112th Avenue SE
shall deed to the City of Kent, sufficient property for
street purposes such that 30 feet of right of way
exists as measured from the north/south centerline of
the southeast quarter of Section 17 , Township 22 ,
Range 5 W.M.
Please reconsider this condition and add it to your Findings.
Sincerely,
MCU
Kathy McClung
Senior Planner
KM:ch
cc: Public Works Department
•.
,: I
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT
FILE NO: LEBLANC ANNEXATION #AZ-87-5
APPLICANT: CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
REQUEST: A request to set the initial zoning on approximately 15
acres of land.
LOCATION: The property is located south of SE 232nd Street, east
of 112th Avenue SE.
APPLICATION FILED: June 15, 1987
DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE: December 11, 1987
HEARING DATE: December 16, 1987
RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: February 17, 1988
RECOMMENDATION: Recommended zoning for the LeBlanc
Gardens area is MRG, Garden Density
Multifamily Residential, 12 units per
acre. The recommended zoning for the
remainder of the site is R1-9 . 6, Single
Family Residential, minimum lot size of
9, 600 square feet.
STAFF REPRESENTATIVES: Kathy McClung, Planning Department
Greg McCormick, Planning Department
Ken Morris, Public Works Department
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Bill Kreager
Robert Thomas
Carl Ricketts
Monte Marchetti
Jeff Garrett
Ernest Stowe
WRITTEN TESTIMONY: Carl Ricketts
R. M. Thomas
Judith M. Redding
Jeff & Shirley Garrett
INTRODUCTION
After due consideration of the evidence presented by the applicant,
_ all evidence elicited during the public hearing, and as a result of
the personal inspection of the subject property by the Hearing
Examiner, the following findings of fact and conclusions shall
constitute the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner on this
application.
1
Findings and Recommendation
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The City of Kent Planning Department requests the undersigned to
recommend initial zoning on approximately fifteen acres of land
which was annexed to the City of Kent in June 1987.
2 . The subject site is approximately 15 acres in size and is located
south of SE 232nd Street and east of 112th Avenue SE.
3 . The site is currently zoned R1-20, Single Family Residential.
This is an interim zoning designation assigned to all newly
annexed land until such time as the Hearing Examiner and City
Council establish initial zoning for newly annexed areas.
4 . The Planning staff is recommending that the area known as LeBlanc
Gardens which is approximately 5. 85 acres in size be zoned MRG,
Garden Density Multifamily Residential, with a maximum density of
12 units per acre. The remainder of the annexation area, or 9 . 15
acres, is recommended to be zoned R1-9 . 6, Single Family
Residential.
5. The East Hill Plan Map designates the LeBlanc Gardens area as MF
12 , Multifamily 7-12 units per acre. The remainder, of the
annexation area is designated as SF 6, Single Family Residential,
4-6 units per acre.
6. The southern portion of the subject site is known as LeBlanc
Gardens. The evidence establishes that the LeBlanc family has
owned the subject property for over 40 years. This site was
developed as botanical gardens over 45 years ago when several
grooves of trees unique to the Puget Sound region were planted
here. Accordingly, since the site has gained national attention
for its garden and landscaping, the limitation of residential
density on the site would make it possible to preserve as many of
the unique botanical features of the site as possible.
7 . The northern portion of the site is single family residential on
large lots with the exception of the northern most parcel which
is developed as a church.
8 . Prior to the annexation the subject site was zoned SR 7200 in
King County. This is a density of six units per acre maximum
with actual density depending upon the availability of such
services as water, sewer, paved streets and sidewalks that are
available or could be provided to the subject site.
9 . At the time of the public hearing, numerous residents from the
vicinity appeared to express concern with respect to the uses
which would be permitted on the newly annexed land.
2
Findings and Recommendation
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 ,
10. Concerns were expressed with respect to tree preservation,
pedestrian safety, inadequacy of 112th Street for additional
traffic and pedestrian safety, and the need to protect single
family neighborhoods from encroachment by more multiple family
development.
11. Additionally, concern was expressed with respect to the safety of
children who frequently walk to and from the adjacent elementary
school and are enrolled in the day care at 240th and 112th
Street.
12 . Further, the residents expressed concern with respect to the
affect which building will have upon the old tree root systems
which might be weakened by buildings being placed immediately
adjacent to them.
13 . With respect to adjacent land uses the evidence establishes that
Park Orchard subdivision, located in King County, lies to the
west of the site. The Park Orchard area is zoned SR 7200 and
lots in the development range from 7, 200 to 7, 500 square feet.
This neighborhood currently has a density of approximately six
units per acre. To the northeast of the site the Eastridge
subdivision exists with a density similar to that of Park
Orchard. Land to the south has been developed with multifamily
uses including Kings Place and Kenton Ridge apartments. These
areas are developed at a density of approximately 20 units per
acre. Commercial uses exist to the south and west of the
property. There is a commercial area at the intersection of
104th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street.
14 . Although the residents who live in the vicinity expressed some
concern with respect to storm water runoff, Planning staff
indicates that there are no apparent flood control problems on
the site.
15. The subject property is bordered on three sides by predominantly
single-family residential uses. In addition, 112th Avenue SE to
the west of the subject site is classified as a residential
collector. Development on the subject site will generate
considerable traffic. Traffic impacts associated with future
development on the site will need to be exactly determined and
mitigated once the applicant submits a final site plan.
16. The staff report, with its recommendation that the LeBlanc
Gardens area be designated MRG, Garden Density Multifamily
Residential, with the remainder of the annexation area be
designated R1-9. 6, Single Family Residential, is incorporated
herein by reference as though set forth in full.
3
Findings and Recommendation
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
CONCLUSIONS
1. The City of Kent Zoning Code gives the undersigned no discretion
with respect to recommendation for zoning on newly annexed land.
Specifically, Kent Zoning Code Section 15.09 .055 D indicates "the
decision of the Hearing Exaipiper shall be limited to recommending
initial zoning designations which are consistent with the current
Comprehensive Plan" .
2 . For reasons which are entirely unclear to the undersigned, the
Comprehensive Plan and the East Hill subarea, Plan were amended in
April 1985 to designate portions of the subject property from
single family, 4-6 units per acre, to multifamily, 7-12 units per
acre.
3 . Considering the proximity of single family uses on three sides of
the subject site, it is difficult to ascertain why the currently
existing Comprehensive Plan designates portions of the site as
multifamily.
4 . However, given the total absence of discretion granted the
undersigned in annexation hearings, I am mandated to recommend
initial zoning consistent with the currently existing
Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
For each of the above reasons, the recommendation of the Hearing
Examiner for initial zoning on the LeBlanc Annexation area is that the
LeBlanc Gardens area be designated MRG, Garden Density Multifamily, 12
units per acre. The remainder of the annexation area should be
designated R1-9 . 6, Single Family Residential, with a minimum lot size
of 9 , 600 square feet with the following condition:
1. If the applicant makes a significant change to the conceptual
site plan, the initial zoning designation on the newly annexed
land should be brought back to the Hearing Examiner for review.
For purposes of this condition, a significant change include, but
shall not limited to:
a. A landscape buffer of less than 30 feet,
b. Different size or configuration of buildings on the site,
and, or
C. Different percentage of site coverage.
4
Findings and Recommendation
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
Dated this 24th day of February, 1988.
DIANE VANDERBEEK, HEARING EXAMINER
Request for Reconsideration '
Any party of record who feels the decision of the Examiner is based on
error of procedure, fact or judgment, or the discovery of new evidence
may file a written request for reconsideration with the Hearing
Examiner no later than 14 days of the date of the decision.
Reconsideration requests should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner,
220 S. Fourth Avenue, Kent, WA 98032 .
Notice of Right to Appeal
The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written appeal
to Council is filed by a party of record within 14 days of the
decision. The appeal must be filed with the City Clerk and state the
basis of appeal which may be errors of fact, procedural errors,
omissions from the record, errors in interpretations of the
Comprehensive Plan or new evidence. See Ordinance #2233 and
Resolution #896 for specific information.
5
. ...
01 CITY OF KENT
planni ng
U I I ~>s
h o0
y Single Family -
4 1 8 , 0
4
C�j
- LeBlanc Property
9 �.T. C]
a 0 ��1 _
Kent City Limits C3
�]
Single
�o -Family
Multifamily \
(^ w c
_ a
WS, t . �lu EMI
o
Ut 1 0
1 �
s'�• !T� S.E. 240th Street L
-.trl
APPLICATION Name LE BLANC GARDENS LEGEND:
Number Date 12/18 84 application site
Request COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE zoning boundary w,uw•
city limns
SCALE = 1 N:200
CITY OF KENT
planning . .`
S c
rb
�O a ,.yQ o
O `'......�`r
E7, R1; 60
l i FAWV
I <
�76
7/\ �r��1"" n
JO S.E. 23'
V�V 7 l-•vat.' '.
� ;• ot�Iia �
o y .. p o
U
V
• J y _
S.E. 23 STH 3T.
l d
MRG Gar e De sit / L Dc` s C
cl f
) 233T1
L"
v c=
y� � I
1 H
I� D f 1 Y
.L z }
HEARING EXAMINER 'S RECOMMENDAT
APPLICATION Namo__ re a AN(' LEGEND :
Number Az-R7.3 Dale —71/4/R7 application site i
PORUast ANNFXAl ON ZONING zoning boundary =--
TOPO/ZONING City limits ""
SCALE = I°:zoo'
CITY OF KENT
OFFICE OF THE
LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
IN RE THE MATTER OF )
LEBLANC ANNEXATION )
ORDER EXTENDING TIME
_... ) e
#AZ-87-5 )
THIS MATTER having come on regularly for public hearing
before the undersigned Hearing Examiner on December 16, 1987 with
the public hearing held open for further information until
December 23, 1987 .
FURTHER, on January 5, 1988, a Request for Appeal on the
SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance issued December 11, 1987 ,
was filed and the undersigned having reviewed the record and file
herein and deeming herself fully advised, it is now, HEREBY,
ORDERED that the time for consideration of this initial
zoning request shall be extended and the undersigned shall issue
a written recommendation concerning the same on or before
February 17, 1988 . This extension is issued pursuant to the
authority granted the undersigned in City of Kent Ordinance
#2233 .
Dated this 6th day of January, 1988 .
DIANE L. VANDERBEEK
HEARING EXAMINER
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES
December 16, 1987
The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to
order by the presiding officer, Diane L. VanDerbeek, Hearing
Examiner, on Wednesday, December 16, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the Kent
City Hall, Council Chambers.
Ms. VanDerbeek requested all those intending to speak at the
hearing and those wishing tq receive information concerning the
hearing, to sign in at the sign up sheet by the door. Staff
reports, agendas, and the description of procedure of the hearing
were available by the door. Ms. VanDerbeek briefly described the
sequence and procedure of the hearing. All those who intended to
speak were sworn in.
The December 16, 1987 synopsis minutes for Goodwin Professional
Center ICE-87-6 are separate from the following verbatim minutes
for LeBlanc Annexation #AZ-87-5.
LEBLANC ANNEXATION
#AZ-87-5
The following correspondence was received: Carl Ricketts (two
letters) , R. M. Thomas (map attached) , Jeff and Shirley Garrett,
and Judith Redding.
_ (Tape 2) Grecr McCormick: Greg McCormick, city Planning Staff.
The LeBlanc Annexation was passed in June 1987 under
Ordinance 2727 and is composed of approximately 15 acres. Staff
recommends that the area known as LeBlanc Gardens, which is
approximately 5. 85 acres in size, to be zoned MRG, Garden Density
Multifamily Residential, with a maximum density of 12 units per
acre. The remainder of the annexation area or--which comprises
9. 15 acres is recommended to be zoned R1-9. 6, Single Family
Residential. Currently, this land is under an interim zoning
designation of R1-20, Single Family Residential, with minimum lot
size of 20, 000 square feet. The interim zoning is in effect until
the Hearing Examiner and City Council hold the required public
hearings and establishes the initial zoning for the newly annexed
area. The LeBlanc Annexation area is located south of 232nd
Street and east of 112th Avenue SE. The property is approximately
15 acres in size.
Zoning in the area includes, to the south of the site, MRM, Medium
Density Multifamily Residential, with a 23-unit per acre density
and to the east across 112th is R1-7 .2, Single Family Residential.
The northern most area of this site is developed with a Church and
central area of the site is developed with single family
residential on large lots and the southern area has some single
family dwellings and the most of the area is in a botanical
garden. The LeBlanc family developed this site as a botanical
1
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 ,
garden in the early 19401s. The site has several species of trees
which are unique to the Puget Sound region. In addition to the
unique trees several native shrubs and flowers have been planted
making the site a special, natural area worthy of preservation.
This particular area--this particular site was featured in a story
done by Sunset Magazine giving the LeBlanc Gardens national
exposure.
A preliminary site plan submitted on December 4 by the applicant
for the LeBlanc Garden area addresses the conservation of the
unique vegetation that exists on the site and we posted that on
the board over here. It's proposed to be a seventy-unit
condominium complex and the trees that are identified on here are
unique in most cases, Copper Beech, Black Pine, Spruce, Spanish
Fir, several Sequoia Redwoods, White and Red Maple and Magnolias
and some other species that are unique.
Staff feels that the MRG, Garden Density Multifamily with a
maximum of 12 units per acre, would allow greater flexibility in
site planning which would result in a larger amount of vegetation
to be preserved on the site. It is understood that the
preliminary site plan was submitted and is conceptual at this
stage. However, staff recommends that if there is substantial
change in the preliminary site plan that has been filed with the
Planning Department that plan should be reviewed and brought back
before the Hearing Examiner. This particular area is a mixture of _.
multifamily and single family residential with some community
facilities in the form of a church on the north portion, up in
this area, I believe that is the footprint for it, and on the
north side of 232nd is Park Orchard Elementary School. Land uses
to the east of the site is generally single family residential,
small subdivision that enters onto 212th at this point which is to
the northern end of the LeBlanc Garden site and east of, excuse
me, west of the site is the Park Orchard Subdivision and Eastridge
Subdivision to the northeast. These areas provide a majority of
single family development in the area. In addition there are a
number of smaller plats and large lots that have been developed
for single family residential use in the area. Land uses to the
south of this site have been developed with multifamily uses
including Kings Place and Kenton Ridge apartments which are "
developed at a density of approximately 20 units per acre. The
core of the commercial area exists at the intersection of 104th
and 240th Street which lies southwest of this site. At this time -
I would like to show a short video of the annexation area.
The video was shown.
As was earlier noted, the LeBlanc Gardens area is noted for its
unique and significant vegetation. The area has been developed as
a botanical garden which includes several species of trees that
are unique to this region including Catalpa trees, Sequoia
2
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
Redwoods, Norway and Colorado Blue Spruce, Spanish Fir, Copper
Beech, White and Red Oak, Japanese Larch, Magnolia and Japanese
_ Black Pine. Parcels to the north of the evergreen area, I have
some native evergreen and deciduous trees.
The initial zoning was reviewed under the State Environmental
Policy Act and a mitigated pN$, Declaration of Nonsignificance was
issued on December 11, 1987 for the proposed zoning. The
Comprehensive Plan which was adopted by the City in 1969 addresses
a broad range of land use regulations. From the comments received
from the various City departments, the Comprehensive Plan as well
as the East Hill Plan, will be reviewed as it pertains to this
annexation zoning request. Under the City-wide Comprehensive
Plan, the Natural Environment/Open Space Element, the Overall Goal
being to ensure the preservation of land for a variety of open
space uses within the City of Kent. Goal 1 is to encourage open
space throughout the City. Objective 2 under that goal is to
encourage private development of open space and Policy 2 under
that is to promote the incorporation of open space/natural
elements on existing developments.
The area on the southern portion of the annexation area known as
LeBlanc Gardens, I believe, will be the area that's going to be
recommended as zoned MRG, 12 units per acre, has been developed
for several years and has been recognized nationally for its
unique and significant vegetation. The northern part of the
annexation site is recommended to be zoned as R1-9 . 6, Single
Family Residential, which requires a 9, 600 square foot single
family residential lots. The MRG designation is to act as a
transition area between the higher density residential to the
south and the single family residential to the north and to the
east of the site.
- Diane VanDerbeek: Excuse me, is the area that you are
recommending MRG, does that follow the same line as on the East
Hill Plan Map where it's recommended Multiple Family, 4 . . .
McCormick: Yes, it follows. . .
Diane VanDerbeek: Also, I think there is, isn't there a
typographical error in the staff report that references the
development to the south of the site as having 201 units per acre,
that's Manhattan.
McCormick: Yes, that should be 20 units per acre. The area known
as LeBlanc Gardens is approximately this area here, in here, and
the area north of that would be the area recommended MRG, excuse
me, R1-9.6 and that's essentially the same, referring to the East
Hill Comp Plan Map. It's the same area under the Comprehensive
Plan that is designated Multifamily MF 12 which is Multifamily 7-
12 units per acre. Under the East Hill Comprehensive Plan the
3
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
Human Environment Element the Overall Goal being to enhance,
through good design, aesthetic qualities of the natural and
manmade environment to promote the health, safety and welfare of
the community. Goal 2 being to. . .development that will preserve,
maintain and enhance East Hill's natural and manmade environments.
Objective 1, preserve those natural features which_ contribute to
the aesthetic quality and Yufral feeling that exists on the East
Hill i.e. streams, lakes, significant views, tall evergreen trees,
woodlands and pastures. Policy 1, consideration shall be given to
the integration and natural features such as streams, lakes,
views, woodlands and pastures into the design of residential and
commercial development. The recommended zoning designation for
the southern area of the annexation area would allow a clustering
of dwelling units on the site. This would encourage innovative
site plans and integrate as many of the grooves of trees into
future development as possible and, as noted on the site plan,
many of the significant trees under that plan have been preserved.
This area would also act as a buffer between high density
multifamily developments to the south which range, are in the 20-
unit per acre range to the large lot, single family residential
areas to the northeast and northwest of the project. The subject
site is bordered to the east by 112th Avenue SE which is
classified as a residential collector. The preliminary site plan
does not contemplate the extension of 236th and with this
development that is being proposed, that would not, the extension
of 236th would not be necessary.
The Planning Department has reviewed this proposed zoning in
relation to the Comprehensive Plan, current zoning, land use,
street system, flood control problems and comments from other
departments and agencies and finds that the Comprehensive Plan
designates the LeBlanc Gardens area as MF-12, Multifamily 7-12
units per acre. The remainder of the property in the annexation
area is designated as SF-6, Single Family Residential, it should
be 4-6 units per acre. The property is currently under an interim
zoning designation of R1-20, Single Family Residential which will
remain in effect until such time that the City Council passes the
initial zoning for the property. Land uses adjacent to the
annexation area include to the south, multifamily residential at
approximately 20 units per acre. North, single family residential
on large lots. Further north is the Park Orchard Elementary
School and a church. To the west, single family residential and
to the east, single family residential with some vacant land. The
City has recently adopted amendments to the Zoning Code which
includes standards and criteria to be used by the Hearing Examiner
and City Council to evaluate a request for rezone and that's
covered under Section 15. 09 . 050 A3 of the Kent Zoning Code.
Staff feels that it is appropriate to use these criteria also when
establishing the initial zoning for newly annexed land. The
4
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 ,
initial zoning should only be established if the City Council and
Hearing Examiner feel that the zoning is consistent with the
following standards and criteria:
1. The proposed zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
2. The proposed zoning and( subsequent development of the site
would be compatible with development in the vicinity.
3 . The proposed zoning will not unduly burden the transportation
system in the vicinity of the property with significant
adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated.
4 . Circumstances have changed substantially since the
establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the
proposed zoning.
5. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health,
safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of
Kent.
The Planning staff has reviewed the proposed zoning in light of
these criteria and finds that:
1. The Comprehensive Plan designates LeBlanc Garden area as MF-
12 , Multifamily Residential 7-12 units per acre. The
remainder of the area is designated SF-6, Single Family
Residential, 4-6 units per acre. The recommended zoning
would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The lid of,
generally or normally under MRG zoning you are allowed a
density of 16 units per acre. However., to keep in, in
keeping with the Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends that be
limited to 12 units acre. The single family designation to
the north is R1-9 . 6 which works out to be roughly four units
per acre which is also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
designation for the area. The annexation area, as I
mentioned before, is bordered on the south by multifamily on
the north, east and west by predominantly single family and
the recommended MRG zone would act as a transition from the
higher density which I believe is or which the MRM allows 23
units per acre but these developments have been developed at
approximately 20 units per acre. It would act as a
transition area from that density to the lower density single
family to the north. The annexation area is bordered on the
west, on the east by 112th Avenue which is classified as a
residential collector. The necessity of street improvements
will be determined at the time of environmental and
development plan review, once the permit process is entered
into by the developer of the property. It is anticipated by
5
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
staff that all of the traffic impacts will be able to be
mitigated.
This area was zoned SR, Suburban Residential, under King
County prior to annexation. Staff 's position is that if the
MRG designation is given to the LeBlanc Gardens area, the
increased flexibility in .site design will result in a greater
number of the unique species of trees being saved on the
site. The zoning recommended for the balance of the area is
comparable to the King County designation prior to
annexation. And, finally, the recommended zoning would not
appear to adversely affect the health, safety or general
welfare of the citizens of Kent. The City staff
recommendation is that LeBlanc Gardens area be designated
MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential with 12 units per
acre maximum density and the remainder of the annexation area
be designated R1-9.6, Single Family Residential, with a
minimum lot size of 9, 600 square feet.
During the course of the environmental review for this annexation
zoning some additional comments were received from the Kent Public
Works Department concerning the transportation system in the area
of the LeBlanc annexation. The Public Works Department is
recommending that the following condition be applied to the
approval of the initial zoning of the property. That prior to or
in conjunction with the development of the property in accordance
with the herein established zoning designation, the owners of
property adjacent to 112th Avenue SE shall deed to the City of
Kent sufficient property for street purposes such that 30 feet of
right of way exists as measured from the north/south centerline of
the southeast quarter of Section 17, T 22 N, R 5 E. , W.M. Can I
answer any questions at this time.
VanDerbeek: What, what's the amount of lot size permitted under
the former County zoning, SR, Suburban Residential? Isn't it
12 , 000 square feet.
McCormick: The answer that I got from the person I talked to at
the County was that it depends on what's happening there now and
I 'm not really sure what that meant but I asked that question and
that was the response I got. I was under the impression that was
around 10, 000 square feet but I didn't get that answer.
VanDerbeek: You mean that if someone wants to do a development in
King County on, if someone wants to do a subdivision on SR zoned
land, a developer, and they walk into the County and say I have a
piece that's this size, how many lots can I make, the people at
King County are going to say, it depends on what's happening there
now.
6
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
McCormick: Well, I'm under the impression that they have a pretty
flexible zoning ordinance and they have a lot of sub, they have a
lot of classifications that in certain situations you can develop
say, a site to a higher density than would normally be allowed
under that general zoning designation but I 'm not real familiar
with King County code.
VanDerbeek: Well, I think that type of flexibility is for some
sort of plan, what's called a planned unit development but there
must be a minimum lot size.
McCormick: Well, I asked the question and that was the response I
got from the person I talked to at the County.
VanDerbeek: Do you think you could possibly find that out.
McCormick: Sure, I could check into it again and see if I can't
get a better answer than that.
VanDerbeek: All right. And the other question I had was with
respect to the area designated that you are recommending for
multiple family zoning, MRG with, yeah, MRG, you are recommending
that there be a limitation of 12 units per acre which is the
maximum density recommended by the East Hill Plan. Why in the
area to be recommended single family residential are you
recommending at the low end of the density scale as recommended by
the East Hill Plan in other words four units per acre and then on
the multiple family area why are you recommending the developer be
permitted to have the maximum units, number of multiple family
units.
McCormick: Well, under the MRG zone, just the straight MRG zone
you are allowed 16 units per units so actually you are reducing
the net density under that zoning district by four units per acre.
We do not have a zoning designation that exactly matches the
Comprehensive Plan designations so that's why we went with a MRG
with 12 units per acre which also offers a good transition between
the 20 units per acre to the south and the larger lot residential
to the north.
VanDerbeek: Oh, but in other cases, in other cases where staff
has recommending that multiple family zoning be used as a
transition zone and MRG zoning designation is used there has been
a previously recommended a smaller number of units per acre and
I 'm thinking of that zero-lot line development, Walnut Tree or
Park or something wasn't that seven units per acre.
McCormick: I think it was six units per acre. MRG, six units per
acre.
7
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
VanDerbeek: And that's essentially a development pattern which is
somewhat similar to this one in that the neighborhood there on one
side there was intense multiple family development and then on the
other side there was single family development, so what facts are
different here to justify the different density recommendation.
McCormick: Well, I believe, tbat particular development was a zero
lot line development and was more--would have more of a single
family residential appearance with common walls for the residences
this is more of a--it' s a condominium type of project and, you
know, different configurations and the density recommended was
felt by staff would be a compromise, not a , compromise, but would
be a happy medium between what's to the south and realizing the
potential for subdividing this particular piece of property into
single family, should it be zoned single family and have the
significant vegetation on the site probably be all but taken down
if it was subdivided into single family residential lots.
VanDerbeek: Well, I guess, one of the staff's justifications for
recommending multiple family zoning the site is that there would
be additional flexibility to cluster development to preserve more
of the vegetation which exists on the site but if density were
more strictly limited, wouldn't you preserve more?
McCormick: That' s right you could.
VanDerbeek: For example, the East Hill Plan is recommending
multiple family 7 to 12 units per acre. Well, if you recommended
MRG, seven units per acre then more trees would be left.
McCormick: That' s correct, there would probably be more trees
left. But with the design that has been submitted the major areas
of significant trees have been preserved. That was a
consideration that was taken into account when staff recommended
the 12 units per acre was the site design that was submitted.
And, the applicant has done' a good job of incorporating that
vegetation into a site design and accomplished close to 12 units
per acre.
VanDerbeek: I guess my question is that basically the East Hill
Plan for that particular LeBlanc Gardens area recommends
multifamily 7 to 12 units per acre, so basically we are going 36
units over the minimum number of units recommended in the East
Hill Plan for the southern portion of the site and then you want
to recommend the least density possible for the northern portion
of the site where the single family is recommended. I guess I
don't see the, I don't understand the rationale for that
recommendation.
McCormick: Well, I guess, I ' ll just kind of repeat myself. Staff
looked at the site design prior to recommending what the,
8
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
recommending the density for the zoning. The applicant was able
to incorporate the majority of the vegetation which, I think, is
.._ the main issues on this particular piece of property and was able
to incorporate that into the site design to preserve most, if not-
-I won't say all, but most of the significant trees on the site.
The lots to the north run in the area of close to an acre to about
" an acre and a half from what I have been able to tell from the
Assessor's map and staff felt that the 9.6 zoning designation
which requires 9, 600 square feet would probably be less than the
size of many of the lots in the area but compatible with the lot
size in say the subdivision just to the east of the subject site.
VanDerbeek: Well, but, but, staff is suggesting that one thing,
that it's appropriate for me to consider the same standards that
considered for a rezone proposal one of which is impacts on the
transportation system and so, basically, the way I see it that the
density recommended on the southern portion of the site would
result in 36 additional multifamily units and, you know, I can ask
Mr. Morris the number of trips per day for multifamily, I can't
remember it exactly but, you know, there's a conclusionary
statement here that, you know, probably will be able to mitigate
all the traffic impacts at the time of environmental review and
plan review which is probably true but, I guess, I 'm still not
seeing the justification for 12 units per acre on the southern
portion of the site for that recommendation. But, you already
answered by question twice and if you don't have any other
comments, then I won't put you on the spot any further. Thank
you. Any further testimony from staff. All right at this time I
will hear from the applicant or the applicant's representative.
Bill Kreacier: Madam Examiner, my name is Bill Kreager. I 'm an
architect and planner with the Mithun, Bowman, Emrich Group and
privileged to work on the LeBlanc Gardens site and it has been a
privilege because it's been a lot of fun. It' s a wonderful site.
Before I get into my plan presentation which is a brief slide
presentation I would like to clarify a couple of things/questions
that you have raised previously to staff. One, I was the
architect/planner of record on the Walnut Park project and
appeared before you in this room during the approval process. You
asked the question relating the density transition at Walnut Park
which is a zero lot line detached unit community and its
relationship as a buffer, a transition to what was proposed by
staff here. If I might turn on this and illustrate this again.
What we are looking at here is the MRM zoning which is currently
23 units to the acre and I 'm told it was developed at 20 units to
the acre and what we will say politely what is an existing project
of bland quality. We are going transitionally between the 20
acres, these buildings and the single family area, the drop would
be 20, to 12, down to 9 . 6 and that's where we're headed at this
point. So we have a 20, a 12 and a 9.6 up there. At Walnut Park
we were going from the Shires which is a townhouse community with
9
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
a density of approximately, but they are totally different from
what we are proposing here at LeBlanc where they are looking at
around 12 units to the acre. At Walnut Park we were doing six
units to the acre as a transition to single family which were
much, much larger lots than that. So we were going there 12, 6
and then I don't know what the other lots were but great big, you
know, still undivided pieces of ground. So, if we had 12, 6 and
big, then here we are looking at 20, 12 and 9. 6, it is the same
sort of incremental, almost half the density drop.
VanDerbeek: It's 20, 12, 4. See that's what I don't understand,
four units per acre to the north--20, 12, 4 . '
Kreager: . O.k. , then, I won't make any statement about the 4 point
but I want to relate to you what had happened at Walnut Park and
how that, since you've raised that project, how that transition
was made and based and ultimately approved. I would like a
clarification from staff. I haven't seen on this drawing or the
other documentation where exactly the line is. You were standing
in front of the drawing, so we couldn't see it back here.
The line between the 12 and the 4 . I 'm presuming, it appears on
this map here, that the incremental jump is about like that there.
We are looking at this piece which is completely LeBlanc residence
and the gardens and all of that as the 12 and then from the upper
portion of LeBlanc's, I 'd say their property line up is the 9. 6.
Is that correct?
VanDerbeek: I 'm sorry, it's entirely out of order to ask
questions of staff. You can direct questions to the chair and
then I can direct staff to answer that question at the time of
rebuttal testimony.
Kreager: O.k. , fine, that's my question to confirm where that
line is actually going to be.
VanDerbeek: All right.
Kreager: Do we have the slides? You were going to do slides for
me. Where usually are slides set up?
Short discussion concerning the setup of the slides was made. A
short recess was called by the Hearing Examiner.
Kreager: O.k. The discussion that I 'm going to illustrate with
the slides is addressing specifically on page 8 of the staff, item
D which has to do with their position on the MRG designation as a
tool for flexibility to allow us to maintain as many of the trees,
existing trees, on the site as we can. I think items A. B, C and
E were covered very, very well by staff and so I won't take the
time of the Examiner to hear those. Turn on the slides. The site
10
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
plan for the purposes of the slides, can everyone see that, is it
too light, o.k. It's also nice, this is the first opportunity, I
believe, the neighbors have had a chance to see what -we are
proposing to do, so it's great to have you all here and questions
follow later on. For the LeBlanc Gardens site, it's 40 years.
Mr. LeBlanc, who's here with us this evening, started planting the
trees there some 40 years agp and the goal of the site planning
and the entire philosophy is as "says here, is to increase the
flexibility and site design resulting in a greater number of the
unique trees to remain in the area" . The site itself has become
somewhat overgrown. He's had a lot of problems with kids in the
area coming in and breaking down trees, there's been a maintenance
_ problem just protecting the trees from them. What we are trying
to do at this point is maintain or create a site plan that will
allow the maximum amount of trees in clumps to be saved. What we
are proposing, if I speak from here, can I be heard on the tape.
What we are proposing to do then is to run off of 112th, a looped
site circulation road that will minimize the amount of vehicular
access points to it. In other words we're clustering our parking
within the uniclusters or villages themselves. What this does, it
allows us to have a narrower road and thereby save more and more
of the trees, that's sort of the goal. Everything we are doing
here is to maintain the site. It is a joy as a planner to be able
to attract a site of this nature with everything in place in the
way of landscaping. It' s really a delight. In clustering the
homes then, we're buffering with existing landscaping, both side
to side and also back to back so that we are able to maximize the
use of the trees for the benefit of the people who will be buying
homes in the community as well. We are going to be illustrating
the homes themselves. We are going to illustrate the entry
feeling and the buffer feeling with slides of other projects in
the Bellevue, east side Kent area rather than come along and show
you drawings that would show anything I want to show in the sense
that an architect's drawing make something pretty lousy look
pretty good. It's simpler, I think, to illustrate what we are
looking to do with slides of existing projects that we all can
relate to. Let's start with the entry.
(The slide presentation was started. ) Right near the entry is a
row of Magnolia trees planted 40 years ago. The trees them don't
even bloom for the first 20 years of their existence. To have a
40 year old canopy of trees over the entry is a delight to a site
planner. We're going to be doing that. We've chosen to put the
trees in an island illustrating the entrance to Kalhiana out in
Issaquah which is an island type entry. Oops, can't do that
without putting a showed in. Excuse me, if I 'm in the way. With
the island up the center, separating and maintenance of existing
landscaping on either side, there will be an architectural entry
statement of sports. This is from the point at Mill Creek up in
Mill Creek, Washington. The effort would be to provide screening
and privacy from 112th so that the units along there wouldn't have
11
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 Ir
any of the noisy from that street, and so, that the community
itself will have a dignified and attractive entrance. Just as we
did here at the entrance to Mill Creek we will be using berms and
landscaping and maintenance of existing trees to create a
separation, a sound buffer and a definite sense of entry to the
community. I might mention here, although I will be mentioning a
little bit more later, that- the, the width and designation of that
road has a lot to do with whether it becomes public and it only
becomes a publically owned piece of ground/road, if, in fact, it
had to go through and connect to, am I broadcasting? Am I
recording? O.k. It would only become a public right of way if
the City required us to carry it straight on through to 236th, we
don't want to do that for a number of reasons, I will get into
after the slides. But, if it remains a private road, it's a
narrower road and we can maintain a lot more landscaping and
existing vegetation with it. Looking at the architecture. I 've
mentioned already that the units themselves are clustered around
parking courts, each unit will have a minimum of two parking
places, some of the units will have double car garages, some will
have single. There will also have parking immediately in front of
them. There will be no parking on the loop street at all, again,
in order to keep that street as narrow as we can within reasonable
standards to maintain more of the landscaping.
VanDerbeek: How will the no parking on that street be enforced if
it's a private street. -
Kreager: The Homeowner's Association. Initially there will be
signs, also there will be adequate parking to carry the parking
that would normally be in front of someone's home. So, the front
of this home has its own double-car garage, there is additional
parking in this parking apron and like that. The width of the
street will be such also that it will be comfortable to drive and
pass but not to park on it itself. The parking there will be far
in excess of the required parking anyway, both for the City
requirements for parking per unit and also for the market
requirements. If we look at the architecture of these, I would
illustrate it with a project known as Stonebridge which is in
Juanita, Washington, which is a condominium of approximately the
same density on an area that is buffered actually buffered from
existing single family neighborhoods. Stonebridge itself is a
similar scale. The architectural character may be different from
this but the scale of two-story homes with pitched roofs, one-
story in some areas, two stories to balance the home will give
more of a feeling of a detached scaled product. As I mentioned
earlier, each of the homes will have a private entrance, a private
access point, its own attached garage. The rear of the homes will
look out into landscaping in the buffer area and the buffer area
in this case is a 30-foot wide, fully maintained, landscaped
buffer area. If we look at it specifically, we'll see that it's a
wonderful thing. The buffer area itself, 30-feet, goes all the
12
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
way around the site. The, where are we, on the north side of the
site we have a full row of the white oak, there's a huge bank of
rhododendrons along here which will be faced by all the units
facing in that direction. So, there's privacy and there's that
wonderful buffer. Moving around, we have Doug fir and there's a
whole row of huge evergreens along here. Again, which will be
maintained. They're so big, that the house right here on 236th is
almost enveloped in them. It's just a beautiful background for
that home. Those, of course, are all remaining. Coming along the
south side of the site, there's a row of existing trees. Many of
them are poplars, there's spruce, there's an intermix in here.
This will all stay. Unfortunately, there'-s an open space here
which will be replanted. The drawings that we are using to
illustrate show only the existing trees, they do not show the
infilling and the additional planting that will take place to
create additional buffer and additional inplanting. But, the
buffer that we're looking at and the scale of the project is very
similar to what we are looking at here at Stonebridge. From the
neighbors perspective, we about 30 feet from the house. The
landscaping is in front of us. This is sort of the scale and
character that would be visible, is visible, and I 'm not sure it
will be with all of these evergreens in here to the neighboring
community. One of the fun things that we are doing with this,
again, this is the point of Mill Creek. This is an attached home
but what we are doing and I 'll illustrate off here. As often as
possible, the ends of the cluster, these units will face outside
the cluster in such a way that it will have the appearance of a
front door and a private garage which is the same tool that we've
used with these homes at Mill Creek which are attached homes. It
_. gives a very much lower density, more single family scale to the
community. The courts themselves will be heavily landscaped.
Each home, of course, will have its own front door and focus. As
close to a single family in character as we can come in a detached
development. The emphasis will be on landscaping. The community,
the Homeowners Association will be maintaining all of the public
spaces, public spaces in the sense of the community dedicating
open space so that all these areas will be pruned, will be
maintained, the buffer lawns will all be permanently maintained.
Its not on a neighbor by neighbor, whatever I feel like doing this
weekend basis. It will always be an attractive neighborhood. And
emphasis also on privacy.
A little bit on the interior. It's not a planning issue but for
the character and the scale of the homes. Typically they will be
one-level and two-level homes. Because there is so much beauty
outside there, there will be a lot of window, we want to bring the
environment into these homes. That's what makes it so desirable
to live there. The buffering. . .let's go back to the site plan a
little bit, the areas in and among the homes themselves would be
in fields. The areas where we're doing new planting and
pedestrian ways and the like will be in field with medium
13
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
vegetation or vegetation sympathetic to the kind of planting that
is already there and in areas of open space, we probably will be
using the same technique that was used successfully before which
is an in fielding of native wild flowers. In an area which is
community maintained, it works just beautifully. This is the
Providence Point project out above Lake Sammammish at Issaquah
where this same technique haseworked very, very attractively. The
overall goal then is to maintain as much of the gardens as we
possibly can. It would make the project more financially
successful for the developer to keep the trees and it would make a
whole lot better neighbor for the people around the outside. If
you took and plotted this as a Single Family development and gave
each owner the rights over the trees in his yard which he would
have, I would project that you would lose a whole lot more trees
than you will by allowing this kind of development and sensitive
maintenance of the trees. That's what we are at LeBlanc Gardens.
I have a couple more points, but I'll turn off my projector.
A couple of items that have come up in the staff report. One is
the issue of the extension of 236th Street. The staff is not
recommending that it happen, the street current deadends into the
property line right now. There's a, not really a cul-de-sac but a
number of very, it's like cul-de-sac living, it's a very pleasant -
neighborhood on the other side. We don't want to run through, we
don't want to carry that through to 236th for a number of reasons.
One, it would be a severe impact on the neighbors in that it would
generate a lot of through traffic from our community as well as
theirs through ours, shortcuts over to the commercial area. More
cars means safety problems, that' s a very quiet street and we
don't want to inflict our traffic upon that neighborhood. In
addition, if that road goes through then it becomes a public right
of way which requires a much wider ownership, a wider road,
different standards than private roads would have and I'm afraid
we would losing, looking at losing a lot more of the existing
trees. Another question I would like to address would be the
situation on 112th. The staff has recommended that the. . .the
Traffic Division has recommended that the right of way be allowed
to increase to a total of 60 feet. We have no problem at all with
that. We do have a question though, there is a thick buffer, it
showed up in the film presentation of exiting laurel and evergreen
along that street that is in the right of way now. If staff were
to later on require, they have not so far on that side of the
street, that sidewalks and curbs and everything be put in then
that full buffer which would shield the community from the
existing single family homes on the east side of 112th would come
out. Now, we are anticipating in a (unclear) trees would be
running a fence for privacy and, again, screening, from that
street but at the same time we would much prefer to have those
trees maintained as a buffer and a nice, lush green line along
112th. To my understanding, the Kings Place and the Kent Ridge
were not required to do and the most recent project on that side
14
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
' LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 ,
of the road was the day care center down at the corner of 240th
and they also did not. So, my question has to do and I would
address it to the Hearing Examiner for reference to the staff with
the dedication of that right of way, is there an intent, what is
the situation with traffic as far as the relationship of the
improvements on 112th. That's the completion of my presentation.
It has been an existing project to plan. It's seldom, if ever,
that an architect/planner gets this beautiful piece of ground to
work with.
VanDerbeek: Thank you. Further presentation on behalf of the
applicant or not. All right. At this time T will hear the public
testimony with respect to this matter. All right. Sir, why don't
you take it first.
Robert Thomas: I'm Robert Thomas of 23520 110th Place SE in Kent
and my property. . .back property line forms a boundary of the
LeBlanc annexation. I think I first must apologize to you, Madam
Hearing Examiner, for the chauvinistic assumption in my written
submittal when I addressed you as Dear Sir.
VanDerbeek: It's all right, I'm used to it.
Thomas: I would like to bring us back to a state of reality from
the state of architectural euphoria that we've just enjoyed and if
I could I would like to use the overhead projecting, if it's still
- working. What I have is the same map, but somewhat different
scale.
VanDerbeek: Mr. McCormick, would you help the witness focus that
please.
Thomas: What I would like to do is to repeat principally one of
the points that I made in my written submission and then couple of
additional ones that have occurred during this_ evenings testimony.
The property under consideration for rezoning is shown in yellow
on this particular map. I too will attempt the trick of moving
with the microphone. The area in green shown around here is
single family residential. At present, the LeBlanc Gardens
section is the southern end of this. This, at the moment, is
single family residential and the church at the top. We've had a
great many instances where we are being told that we are being
provided with a buffer zone between multiple residence and single
family. This area in here is supposedly providing a buffer to
whom I 'm hard put to understand since that are apartments right
here, right next to this development already and this really is an
extrusion into an existing, single-family residential area. I
have lived in that particularly area for almost 20 years now and
there are a number of my neighbors in the audience who, I know,
brought property in that area because we knew it was zoned single
family. Now, to change the zoning at this time, I think, is quite
15
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
unjustified and to use the argument that this development would
provide a buffer, I think is completely fallacious. In a previous
case, the Planning Department issued the opinion that an
additional 236 trips a day onto 104th Street which is a five-lane
highway was totally unacceptable. Seventy units, in merging out
onto 112th is an absurdity if you consider that statement. At
present, it's hardly able tb fake the traffic that exists and even
though the current plan does not call for 109th or 236th,
whichever it is, to be extended into the property, I would hazard
the suggestion that people who would live in such a development
who had an intent of traveling north would not travel down 112th,
they would go north to 232nd and then issue forth into Park
Orchard and the architect for the proposed project made the
comment that they did not want to open up that street because he
felt it would provide an unacceptable traffic level in a
residential area. That is going to happen anyway. An argument
also used in the previous hearing was that if you allowed a
particular zoning in an area that was not currently zoned for that
purpose, some of the requests would be likely to follow. Once a
precedent has been set it would be very difficult to deny further
applications. I fail to see why the current proposal which says
multiple residents on one chunk and single residential on the next
shouldn't next year become multiple residential on that entire
piece of property. So I think the whole application lacks merit.
Thank you.
Vanderbeek: Thank you for your testimony Mr. Thomas. Other
witnesses? I don't care, any order is fine.
Carl Ricketts: I am Carl Ricketts, 23533 110th Place SE. Two of
the documents you have there were provided by me. One was
delivered just today; it was not mailed with the one dated the
14th. I am not adverse to annexation, per se. I am adverse to
the fact that this area where I have two of the border lines,
specifically here, on two sides and most of what has been said to
date has been reasonably accurate in terms of the beauty of the
area, the flowers, the trees, etc, with one possible exception.
There are some flowers there that are on berry vines, they are
like' 50 foot canes, I 've measured them. It is still beautiful,
there are some beautiful hollies, etc. in that area. There is a
fence along that area, a little cedar fence, 20 odd years old that
is falling down. In fact, on my property it literally completely
fell. I 've cleaned that up and I 've also removed another section
that was dangerous. I have not yet replaced it. We've talked
about traffic. In this area, and I 'll point to the other drawing,
in order for me to go to Safeway which is down here, I planned it
out in such a way that I can make all right-hand turns. That is
today; that isn't after they put a whole bunch more vehicles and
people up into that area. It is almost impossible to utilize
240th or Bensen if you want to go left, so you plan everything
ahead when you're going somewhere if you're coming out of this
16
Hearing Examiner verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
general area up here. The roads, as you can see, are all crooked
and were not designed as throughways, they're for local access and
_ when this is opened up as stated by Mr. Thomas (and incidently I
concur with everything you had to say) vehicles will be going
every which way up there and cars are nothing but grief. Now I 've
been active in the City's planning for their police and for their
fire, I know what the problems are up in that area for that
activity and it's severe. I know what the planning is for streets
and they do have some plans but that brings us up to date, just up
-.. to date, the plans that are in effect today, just bring us up to
date. They don't talk about all this expansion. I have friends
who live on 240th where some more complexes have already been
built. They are adding sewer. Those people haven't asked for it,
they're being assessed high amounts of money to add to these
sewers that the apartments need. Now we have adequate supply up
there, our sewers work well, we have adequate water. We haven't
been. . .had to cut back severely or anything of that nature but as
soon as we start adding more people, more requirements we are
going to have more difficulties. Wells have to drilled, (unclear)
pay for the drilling of wells to get us more water, we're going to
pay for it, all of us. Streets have been widened, sewers have to
be made larger or extended. That developer is only going to pay
for that area right around there, not the rest of it. The problem
may be clear down here in downtown Kent. We're all going to have
to pay the bill. The only people that's really going to make out
and, again, I 'm not adverse to an individual doing something with
their property, selling it, building it up, doing something with
it, that isn't my argument is what you do with it, that is my
argument. So I would like to see as stated in my letter which I
would like to become a matter of record, that the City put a stop
to all expansion, multifamily, for a while until we catch up. All
of our people have been running for office for the last three
elections that I 'm aware of, have been in favor of doing something
similar, holding up the multifamilies, let's catch up a little
bit. We can't even get to work appropriately. I have to be to
work at 7 : 30, I get up at 5:15 so I can get there, that's from
that area today. So there is a lot of problems and this is just
some of them. The letter that I've provided gives the pro's and
the con's from my point of view and, again, I'm fully aware that
the City needs to square off its boundaries, to do that you need
F" annexation but the mechanics of doing it are very, very important
to all of us. So, I 'm totally against this application. one more
thing that I would like to mention. I do have a background in
engineering. I would like to show this one slide for just a
moment, if I may, your slide. In the field of cartography, these
little lines here are contour lines. I know that area, this is my
house, right up there, it tells me that these lines are about five
feet apart, or two meters depending on what kind of a measure that
they used. The property that is immediately behind those
buildings is, and my neighbor next door can attest too, is in fact
a pass. It actually drops down about five feet. I would like to
17
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 ,
point out one thing and indicate where another one exists just
like it. There, and there's another one right there. Now my time
with the University of Idaho in the field of hydraulics tells me
one thing, water runs downhill. When you see (unclear) typed out
on a map, a contour line, heading up, it points up towards where
the water is coming from.
Another thing, distance between contour lines. Look how far apart
they are. Know what that tells me? It's darn near flat, it's
darn near flat. Where's all that water going. Right now, today,
its not 12 percent but is a very wet lands. I think that needs to
be taken into consideration. Now, is the developer going to put
in some mechanics for removing that water and taking it to the
sewer that's already at capacity or are they going to have to make
it bigger. Now, how are you going to handle these kind of things.
And, these are the things that are important to me. None of this
is a benefit to me or any of my neighbors that I 'm aware of except
the owners of the property today and they have every right to do
something to it. I 'm not arguing with that and the developer. The
developer is going to make his money and then he' s going to be
long gone. The rest of us is going to have to pay the bill later
for all these grandiose ideas. We haven't even got into the
schools, the inner transportation problems and what not which I
would hope the City takes under consideration. I don't want to
take any more of your time, I think you get the idea. Thank you
very much.
VanDerbeek: Thank you for your testimony. Further public
testimony.
Monte Marchetti: My name is Monte Marchetti. My address is
23608 112th Avenue SE. I would just like to show.
VanDerbeek: Would you spell your last name for the record?
Marchetti: M-a-r-c-h-e-t-t-i. My house, I live right on 112th,
like I said. This is my house, as you see here. This is an
overhead view and I too have trees on my property bordering all
around my property. I've got, right here on the corner of the lot
where the City's, where the Engineering Department is recommending
moving the road back, I have about an 80-year-old cherry tree that
would have to come out. You know, as long as we are talking about
preservation of the, you know, the natural beauty, that tree kind
of means a lot to me. My concerns with this, and first of all I
would like to say that my neighbors to the north are children of
the LeBlancs or their son and the LeBlanc's have been, you know,
really good neighbors and I really, you know, appreciate them as
neighbors, like they've been in the neighborhood for 40 years.
Now, directly across from my house is the entrance to the Valley
High condominiums. Now, I don't know how familiar everyone is
with the secondary market for paper. . . for condominiums. They
18
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
generally sell well the first time out, you know, the new
microwave and everything but when you go to try to resell them,
really the banks don't want the paper and as I think a lot of
people would attest to there is not much secondary market for
them. Now, I know this because there has been a lot of for sales
of the unit across the street. I've seen the cars come and go.
I've taken my daughters acpogs the street to trick-or-treat and,
you know, the neighbors aren't there for more than six months and
then you get this turn around and that's a less desirable type of
,., neighbor than say the LeBlanc's or other long-standing citizens
that are going to stay in the community. This concerns me because
it generally diminish, I feel, the value of the residential
property that is more appropriately laid out and, you know, all
the services and amenities available than this type of higher
density. Even though, you know, on pictures and everything it
looks like they've done their homework. One of the major concerns
•- in terms of the. . .one of the policies here was for the safety and
welfare of the community as far as the street goes, I've been
concerned for some time of the substandard condition of the road
on 112th. I have a daughter, two years old, and a daughter, five
years old, and, luckily I have a half-acre lot right on 112th and
I have a fenced yard with a six-foot chain link fence. I can't
let my children play in the front yard because of the traffic
-- situation. Without any, even the way it stands right now, today,
most of the joggers get Christmas presents of these highway suits,
you know, with the florescent lights on them so they can run up
and down the streets. It' s not conducive, when you know, we show
pictures of Mill Creek, a Japanese development, and compare this
with the situation that is present up there today, it's kind of a
mockery to the infrastructure as it exists in our own area and try
to relate this to some Japanese-owned development and, you know,
another area entirely different. That safety concern bothers me,
because we do have, if you take the map and if we would go down a
little further to 240th, we've just had a new, say this is 240th
and 112th, we have another problem here with traffic. We have a
brand new, I don't know how many, probably 20 plus units per acre
and they have a driveway that is trying to get out, to get onto
240th, facing directly. You've got this chicken chase every
morning with 112th going this way, who's going to go left, who's
going to go right, head-on to each other as well as bumper to
bumper going down 240th on a slope, gaining speed from their cars,
coming down. Personally I go up to 236th, zig-zag backwards, go
down Benson Hill so I can get to work, seven miles away, in a
reasonable fashion. These are some of the concerns that I have, I
have others but mainly is the, you know, what happens down the
road with the condominiums. I know that people have these funds
and they put them all in together. Well, at the Valley High
condominiums for years they were being swindled out of the
Homeowners dues and they were hiring fictitious people to do work
and paid them with money and the work never got done. The siding
pulled back out, the parking lots went to pieces until it got to
19
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 ,
such a, in just you say in seven years, got to such a degraded
state that finally it was uncovered that this was going on. Also,
my neighbors now over at Valley High, temporary, you know, they
may be gone soon, I hope some of them, because they are in the
diesel truck business now, they start out at 3:30 in the morning,
crank up the diesel engine, and they warm the truck up for two
hours, you know, this is not. the kind of thing that I'm looking
for in the neighborhood, you know, where we have in one picture
the architect painting, you know, St. Thomas Aquinas, across the
street and I'm thinking, oh, God, the diesel truck starting up at
3 :30 in the morning. So, let's just, you know, say that I'm not
really highly in favor for more of this high density until we can
straighten out some of the traffic, straighten out some of the
other safety concerns and these kind of issues. I would like to
see and I fully agree with development and doing things as far as
economically and turning your land and, you know, I appreciate all
that but I really feel that we should have something that is more,
that this is going to be a more substantial, long-term type of
development. That people are going to stay an it's going to be a
benefit to me and my neighborhood and community. That's basically
what I would like to say.
VanDerbeek: Thank you for your testimony. Further public
testimony?
Jeff Garrett: I 'm Jeff Garrett and I live at 23512 110th Place SE.
First of all I would like to apologize to you also about my
letter, I believe I probably went overboard in the apartment
situation when I first got the notice. Apartments first sprang to
mind, I just found out tonight that the Valley High was
condominiums, they look like apartments and that was the first
fear that came to my mind that apartments were coming into the
area. The developers, I have to give them one thing, they put on
a very slick presentation and if I was going to buy in the area, I
probably would be in to do so just by their slide by their
slide show but I feel that it is necessary that you take into
consideration where the other units were placed. Kloohonie, Mill
Creek and I wasn't sure of the other area, they did show. . .
VanDerbeek: Juanita.
Garrett: O.k. , Juanita. I 'm not real sure from where I seeing
the developments and looking at their pictures, I can't see that
type of development being built in the LeBlanc Gardens. They
didn't mention anything about prices of the condominiums but the
ones in Kloohonie, I know, a lot of people that moved up from the
Phoenix in my office, they went to go look out there and those
were substantial cost and that' s not the general area if you look
at the South King County, what home sales are going, I just don't
believe that that area is going to be built like a Kloohonie or a
Mill Creek there in the LeBlanc Gardens. And the pictures are
20
Hearing Examiner verbatim Minutes
' LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 ,
really wonderful, but there again, what's to say what really will
be built there. The idea of keeping the trees, that's a great
idea and I understand the idea of single family homes probably
couldn't reduce the number of trees but the perversity of the
whole situation is that you do have the trees there now, you have
natural setting and you want to preserve this by putting in
condominiums, it's a little, bat beyond me. It's a form of double
speak, I believe. Speaking of the water problems here, I noticed
in the staff report, there were things that their wasn't any flood
control problems that they noticed, drainage didn't seem to be a
problem, so that any storm drainage would be, if necessary, would
be looked at when the units were built or the in process of being
built. When I. . .I just bought last year, in the house, I live on
110th, and we have a considerable slope in our backyard. I know
the units from, at least what we've been able to see, we haven't
distinguished the property line yet that I know of tonight on
where these units are going to be, but we are talking about the
whole fifteen acres possibly being designated tonight. There is
considerable runoff, let's put it that way, at least onto my
property, and the slope goes further away from me and I notice
some of the other neighbors have runoff problems. If you have a
good rain, a whole days rain, three days later_ if it's not raining
you still have runoff, I mean it keeps running, it's not just
trickling down. Out streets are full on 110th at times, down by
the Pringles, if you don't keep the storm drain clear, you've got
a lake. You know, I guess the other thing, this is going to be
City land and City things are happening on it and unfortunately
you're affecting County residents. Everything in here says, no
problems for the City, no problems for City residents. Well,
you're affecting County residents and there doesn't seem to be
anybody here from the County. We were told that the County
couldn't even come up with a great answer on what they want to do
with the land themselves. I think you do have a water problem
there that does need to be looked at a little bit more, maybe, you
know, it would be great, I would love the water problem to be
taken care of because I sick of having the runoff in my yard and
in my basement so maybe, you know, if you do get some units you
can get, you know, the City might have this great plan of
diverting all the water in one big storm system, you know, I would
be all for that if that could help them. There are other concerns
that are here, the Park Orchard Elementary, I 'm looking forward to
having my children attend there. I haven't been associated with
the school as of yet and I 'm not sure what its capacity is. There
again, if the condominiums are of the such as they show at Mill
Creek and Kloonhonie, that might not lead to a burst of children
coming into the neighborhood. If they are of a lower standard,
more like the area around us where condominiums are now, you are
going to have a much higher density of children. I 'm not sure
right now if it needs to be addressed to see if Park Orchard could
handle, you know, the influx of children. I would like to
emphasize to, everybody has been talking about, 112th, that is a
21
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 '
street with open ditch, the City is recommending that it be
widened. Widened in it just increases the traffic on it. It's
not an easy area to get out of and, I think, several people have
mentioned that to you, it's just not an easy area to get out of,
there's about two ways of getting out and its a little over
utilized right now. And there is also the concern that, I
believe, Mr. Thomas raised, 'on if these units do, if they are
placed where they are right now, what is there to say they will
not continue on up. I believe that if they get started here it
would easily be determined that more units could be build, because
it would just be another buffer to the single family homes. This
area is single family, believe it should stay the way it is or a
consideration of utilizing more open space, large lots and keeping
it single family, thank you.
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Further
public testimony on this application.
Ernest Stowe: Yes, I 'm Ernest Stowe: 23625 112th SE Unit G 201,
Kent,_I kind of feel like a thief in the night, I 'm the chairman v
of the board of the Valley High Condominum Association. That
land unit area just south of the proposed rezone. Since we are a
high density area we really don't concern ourself with if its
going to be rezoned a high density area per se. The things that
we do concern ourselves with and before I get into that, I
purchased into Valley High prior to its building. So I have seen
it from ground up. I was the original chairman of the board. I
was off the board for a while from burn out. I came back on a
couple of years ago. Unfortunately I haven't lined my pocket like
some of the testimony has been alluded to here tonight. We are
now self governed. I think we have done giant strides. This is a
problem all condo associations run into. Our concern at the
association level if you recall the video that was shown earlier,
the one twelfth, looking both ways, the area adjacent to Leblanc
Gardens is a laurel hedge and is probably at least 20 feet high.
Where we enter 112th from our driveway, our visibility is very
limited to the north, now. With the proposed widening of the
road, I would anticipate that would have to come out. Probably
that would not bother us at all because it would be much safer.
All the traffic now with their not putting 236th through where
they enter onto 112th, now this means they are going to be
probably within 100 - 150 feet north of our entry way. We have 80
units, they' ll have 70 units. That's going to throw a lot more
traffic on 112th. Some of them have said that they go north.
Taking them through Park Orchard. I do that sometimes too, just
to get rid of the traffic down on James St. or 240th. -
School busses. School busses travel that road also on their way
to and from Park Orchard. In the evenings, nights, its a part
time drag strip also. Because there are no -- The only place to
coming in is 235th, and from there all the way to 232nd, from our
22
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 +
area, the bottom line of the annexation to 232nd is no cross
streets except 235th. Our area has people who ride Metro. They
have to walk from 236th down to 240th, James St. to catch a Metro
bus. Here again, we are talking about and as set forth by the
planning dept, here, the roadway is substandard, and quoting two
lanes of pavement, narrow, gravel shoulders, and open ditches.
This is not conducive to .walking. Very dangerous, very dark.
There is one light from James St. to 236th. I think there is one
light about 237th. One overhead, sodium vapor. There have been
alluded to the traffic at 240th and 112th in the mornings. This
morning I waited there, and this was at about 6:40 in the morning,
I was first in line, but I still had to wait about 3 or 4 minutes
to enter the traffic going, making a right turn. I wasn't even
trying to go across traffic, but making a right turn. Coming home
at night, I make a left turn there. I've had cars pass me on the
shoulder on the right hand side, going East bound. We've got 80
units, Ken Ridge also has an entrance that goes onto 112th. I
don't know how many units that services that particular entrance,
but I would venture a guess, only a guess, you're probably talking
20 to 30 units, maybe even 40 that would use that entrance. The
day care center at 240th and James, 240th and 112th now, been open
a year, year and a half, is generated a lot of peak hour traffic.
People coming in and dropping off their young children. Drop them
off in the morning, pick them up at night. Here again, you are
generating right turns, you are generating left turns, cross
traffic. The Royal first traffic someone alluded to the coming
down 112th, you run directly towards this driveway coming out of
Royal First which is south of 240th. These cars, you really do
play chicken. They have no stop sign over there other than their
good graces and common sense. And they have to go across and turn
left, whereas we only have to turn right. And that is very bad.
Now, we don't have a problem with the annexation or the zoning per
se, the only thing we are concerned about is the traffic. We
would recommend that there be no rezone until the traffic problems
are mitigated, whatever that means. That is, we would like to see
240th and I believe, I believe these are plans to be accomplished,
240 upgraded from 108th, I believe it is to 116th, upgraded to 5
lanes. I 'm not sure what the timing is on that. Also, in line
with the planning commission statement about the substandard 112th
street, we would like to see that upgraded from substandard, to
include walkways, at least one, on one side or the other from
240th at least to 235th. This would give the people who live in
our area and the people who live in the proposed area, a
opportunity to walk safely out of traffic from their homes to
James Street, 240th, and then they could go on down to the
shopping center at Benson Center 240th and Benson.
Couple of more things I picked up as we were sitting here. I'm
not sure what an EIS Nonsignificance is. If I recall correctly,
that means they don't need an EIS.
23
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 '
Vanderbeek: That is correct.
Stowe: I 'm not sure they don't. Maybe they don't need it for
planning, but I would certainly hope they would have an EIS for
the building and the approval of their plans. If I recall
correctly, the things that, V have addressed here, have a direct
bearing on an EIS.
The tree root systems: The trees are very nice, they are very
old, they have very big root systems. We have many of these
popular trees along the southern border of LeBlanc Gardens
encroaching on our area, significantly. The trunks are planted
within probably .within 6 feet of our fence line. And if you are
familiar with popular root systems, they just really travel
because they are a shallow rooted tree. And we have them
encroaching almost to our foundations in one of our areas. My
guess is when they start their development, they will have to be
removed anyway. So, I guess that is all I have got to say.
Vanderbeek: Alright. Thank you for your time. Further public
testimony on this proposal? There appearing to be no further
public testimony at this time I will hear rebuttal comments first
from the staff, if there are any. There are a couple of
questions, did you get those Mr. McCormick, or did you want me to
go through those?
McCormick: Fire away.
Vanderbeek: Ok. There is a question with respect to 112th St.
improvements, and whether or not the developer will be expected to
participate in putting in curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. There
was the question about surface water runoff and what improvements
would be required in that regard. There was a question with
respect to where the line is in terms of the . multiple family
recommendations which staff is making versus. the single family.
Then there was the question concerning the need for an EIS.
McCormick: First in regard to the 112th St. improvements. What
is recommended by the staff of the public works dept. is that the
property owners along 112th be required to deed the necessary
property to have a 30-foot half street right of way on the west
side of 112th, have a 30-foot right of way on that side of the
street. At this point there would be no improvements required.
Those come at the point in time when the development plans have
been submitted for review and the Environmental checklist for the
project has been reviewed.
Vanderbeek: The proposal is for 30 feet on the west?
McCormick: On the west side of 112th.
24
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 ,
Vanderbeek: So what eventually, you want a 60 foot right of way?
McCormick: Now, I think that would be what Public Works would
plan on getting in that area, would be a 60 foot right of way.
Vanderbeek: How wide is the right of way there now?
McCormick: It wasn't specified in the staff report, and I don't
know what it is currently. But I would estimate it probably 36 to
40 feet looking at the road way and the ditches that are existing
now.
Vanderbeek: All right. You still have the opportunity for
further rebuttal at this point. I didn't see it as the addendum
anyway, maybe it is Carol 's. All right, you may continue.
McCormick: The question regarding the requirement of an EIS, at
this point in time it was not felt that the requested zoning was
significant to the point where it required an Environmental Impact
Statement. That doesn't cover any proposed development on the
site which time when the plans are brought in for submittal for
review another environmental check list will be required for that
project and a separate environmental review will take place with
those specific development plans. In terms of storm water runoff,
that is a public works department area, and generally, all I can
tell you is what happens generally in these instances, is that the
public works department requires that each development provide
some kind of volume of on site storm water detention and that is
usually in the form of a holding pond or that sort of thing or
underground vault that is designed to hold a specified amount of
storm water runoff for a specified storm or a specified storm
duration. I 'm sorry, what was the other question that had come
up?
Oh, the boundary line. At this point the staff is recommending
that the MRG zoning be applied only to the area that we have the
site specific plan for. The LeBlanc zone property also to the
north of this site which is in this area here, the staff is
recommending this area south of this line here approximately be
recommended MRG. Anything north of that line which should
coincide with this line here, be zoned single family residential
R1-9. 6.
Vanderbeek: All right.
McCormick: Ok, a couple of the other concerns, one concerning the
buffer strip, the Kent zoning code had provisions that on any
undeveloped piece of property that contains or has trees six inch
calliper or larger a site specific tree plan is required and that
in cases where it is possible, that as many trees of that size be
25
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 ,
preserved, so prior to any development occurring on this site, a
site specific tree plan will be required and reviewed by the
planning department to see that it is in compliance with that
section of the zoning code.
The traffic generation precedent set for future zoning. The staff
is recommending that part pf, the area that is designated on the
comprehensive plan as MF 12 be zoned to MRG, 12 units per acre.
This would not be setting a precedent for rezoning property from
single property to multifamily. LeBlanc's came in, it has been
two- and one-half to three years ago now, to approach the City
with the concern to preserving as many trees on the site as
possible when it came time to develop the property. The staff sat
down with the LeBlanc's and felt that in order to accomplish that
goal that the zoning of a multifamily type of development where
you could use a more flexible site design techniques and not have
the subdivision type of development go on there that they could
preserve the maximum number of trees. Of which was a concern of
both the applicant as well as the city. It was agreed upon during
the process of the Comprehensive Plan amendment that the MF 12
would be a reasonable designation for that property. Currently
there are plans for improvement of 240th. I can't say
specifically what those plans are, I am under the impression that
those improvements to 240th are to begin early this year. I
believe the engineering has been done on this project, and I
believe construction is supposed to start in the spring of 1988.
I 'm not sure specifically what those improvements are, I know
however, it will be improved to a four lane facility with a
continuous left turn lane. As far as traffic signals, I 'm not
sure what is proposed for traffic signals on 240th.
As far as development impacting the city's transportation system,
it is not only development that occurs within the city, but
development occurs in close proximity of the city that is going to
have an impact on traffic. As been testified, tonight, there is a
significant problem on 240th which results from the numerous sub-
divisions going on in the county that are east and out 240th from
anywhere from a mile to 3 or 4 miles out of town. Those sub-
divisions in conjunction with what is happening in the city are
impacting the system. I don't think you can point the finger to
what is happening in the city is creating the traffic problems
that are solely the cause of the traffic problems on the East
Hill. Royal Firs does have a driveway that comes out on 112th,
however that is not their only access out onto 240th. They have
another one further west, so you don't have the entire development
all the traffic funneling out of one driveway. There is another
access onto 240th west of 112th. That all the rebuttal comments I
have unless Ms. McClung has some as well.
Vanderbeek: I have a question. What is the zoning to the west of
the site?
26
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#kAZ-87-5
McCormick: The zoning to the west is the Park Orchard area. That
is King Co. , and I believe it is suburban residential, but I 'm not
sure what density.
Vanderbeek: Well, would you please find out, I am going to leave
the record open for you to, find out the density of the zoning to
the west of the site and also that the permitted density on the
site prior to the annexation under King Co. zoning. I want to
know the minimum lot sizes, and the number of home units per acre
permitted under the existing zoning. Ms. McClung, do you have
some rebuttal comments?
McClung: Yes, I do. There were a few things that Greg didn't
cover and I want to add them. On the issue of where 112th meets
240th, my memory may not be correct, and I invite any interested
citizen to call our office and verify this after Friday. I will
check with the Engineering Department, but I believe that the
Royal Firs development was required to pay into a traffic light
for that intersection. And I could check on the time plan for
that particular traffic light. Just because it came up tonight I
thought it might be good to bring it up again. Also it was
brought up that this project affects county residents. That is
true, but I wanted to bring out that. it is the city who has the
utilities in that county area. We service that area with water
and sewer and maintain those systems. So any problem that we
create here as far as utilities goes, is our own problem. There
was also a question about the school district and I just wanted to
let people know that the school district is notified whenever a
development comes in through the environment review. They get a
copy of the site plans and they do let us know when they feel a
project is significantly impacting the school district. As far as
the EIS issue is concerned, at the time this goes through a
development review should this rezone be approved, a whole new
environmental review will be done. At that time the property will
be posted and we will welcome any public input at that time.
Lastly, because this came up since the staff report has been
written on another project. I would like to suggest adding
another condition should the zoning be approved as recommended
that if there is a significant change to the plans as shown, that
they be brought back to the Hearing Examiner for a public hearing.
Vanderbeek: How do you define a significant change in the site
plan?
McClung: In this particular case, I don't think the density is as
much an issue as the scale of the project. It has been
represented tonight as basically one and two story buildings. If
the height of the buildings were changed, I would consider that a
significant change. It's been represented with a 30 foot buffer
around the site. If that were to change or if the trees were to
27
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
be removed through the development process. Those types of
things.
Vanderbeek: All right. Thank you for your comments. Is there
any rebuttal comments from the applicant or the applicant's
representative?
Bill Kreager: A few very brief comments. Most of the comments
this evening have to do with the very real concerns over traffic
and utilities. The project as it proceeds through the process
will be responding in complete compliance with all the standards
of the city of Kent. And those will be focused, obviously, upon
the specific needs of traffic and utility loads the project will
engender. In addition, having to do with the value of the
property, I am not going to get into the sociological definition
of condominium and the rest of that. The floor price on these
homes is anticipated at this point being between a low of 85 and a
high of 110, 000 dollars. So, these truck drivers may make a lot
of money, and we can't control that. But I would suspect that the
same kind of people who live in the surrounding community will be
becoming the neighbors in the new project.
Vanderbeek: All right. Thank you for your comments. At this
time I will leave the record open for the submission of additional
evidence by the city. Specifically, I want to know the density to
the west of site, how that entire area is zoned, along the entire
frontage of the site, if it is zoned differently, the area located
in King Co. I want to know the minimum lot size permitted under
that county zoning. I want to know the number of units per acre
under the county zoning. I am also interested in determining the
number of units per acre permitted on the actual site prior to its
annexation into the City of Kent. And I want the historical
county zoning designation and the minimum lot size on the site
prior to its annexation. I would invite either the city or the
applicant or both to submit that information to me in writing.
Can that be done within one week? All right. I will set December
23, at 5: 00 pm, as the deadline. I would assume that city
employees only get Christmas Day and New Year's Day off, right?
No extra time off? All right. That being the case, I think that
the 14 days for the commencement of my decision would start on the
24th. Unless there is some objection to that from the city. All
right. So that appears to conclude the hearing with respect to
this matter.
Hearing closed at 10:00 a.m.
28
KENT PLANNING AGENCY
ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT
FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 1987
FILE NO: #AZ-87-5 LEBLANC ANNEXATION
APPLICANT: CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
REOUEST: The request is to set the initial zoning on
approximately 15 acres of land.
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE: GREG MCCORMICK
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: The LeBlanc Garden area - MRG, Garden Density
Multifamily Residential
The remainder of the annexed area - R1-9 . 61
Single Family Residential, minimum lot size of
9, 600 square feet.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
During the couse of the environmental review for the LeBlanc annexation
zoning, some additional comments were received from the Kent Public
Works Department concerning the transportation system in the area of
the LeBlanc annexation area.
The annexation area is bordered to the east by 112th Avenue SE which is
classified as a residential collector. The street has a public right-
of-way widthof 40 feet while the actual paving is approximatley 22
feet. One Hundred Twelfth is considered a substandard roadway with two
lanes of pavement, narrow gravel shoulders and open ditches.
The Public Works Department is recommending that the following
condition be applied to the aproval of the initial zoning of the
property:
1. The owners of property adjacent to 112th Avenue SE shall deed to
the City of Kent, sufficient property for street purposes such
that 30 feet of right of way exists as measured from the
north/south centerline of the southeast quarter of Section 17 ,
-- Township 22, Range 5, W.M.
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
December 11, 1987
•. 1
KENT PLANNING AGENCY
STAFF REPORT
FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 1987
FILE NO: #AZ-87-5 LEBLANC ANNEXATION
APPLICANT: CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
REOUUE_ST: The requesp is to set the initial zoning on
approximately 15 acres of land.
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE: GREG MCCORMICK
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: The LeBlanc Garden area - MRG, Garden Density
Multifamily Residential
The remainder of the annexed area - R1-9 .61
Single Family Residential, minimum lot size of
9 , 600 square feet.
I. GENERAL INFORMATION _
A. Description of the Proposal
The LeBlanc annexation ( annexed in June 1987 ,
Ordinance #2727) is composed of approximately 15 acres.
Staff recommends that the area known as the LeBlanc Gardens
which is approximately 5.85 acres in size be zoned MRG,
Garden Density Multifamily Residential, with a maximum
density of 12 units per acre. The remainder of the annexation
area or 9 . 15 acres, is recommended to be zoned R1-9 . 6, Single
Family Residential .
All newly annexed land is given an interim zoning designation
of R1-20, Single Family Residential, minimum lot size of
20, 000 square feet. This interim zoning remains in effect
until the Hearing Examiner and City Council establish the
initial zoning for the newly annexed area.
B. Location
The LeBlanc annexation area is located south of SE 232nd
Street, east of 112th Avenue SE (see attached vicinity map) .
C. Size of Property
The annexation area is approximately 15 acres in size.
1
Staff Report
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 '
D. Zonincf
The property is currently zoned R1-20, Single Family
Residential. Prior to annexation, the property was zoned SR,
Suburban Residential, under King County zoning.
E. Comprehensive Plan `
The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive Land
Use Plan in 1969 . This Plan, updated in 1971 and 1977,
addresses a broad range of land use , considerations. The
goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan
represent an expression of community intentions and
aspirations concerning the future of Kent and the area within
the Sphere of Interest. The Comprehensive Plan is used by
the Mayor, City Council, City Administrator, Planning
Commission, Hearing Examiner and City departments to guide
growth, development, and spending decisions. Residents, land
developers, business representatives and others may refer to
the plan as a statement of the City' s intentions concerning
future development.
The City of Kent has also adopted a number of subarea plans
that address specific concerns of certain areas of the City.
Like the City-wide Plan, the subarea plans serve as policy
guides for future land use in the City of Kent. The area
under consideration in this instance is covered by the East
Hill Plan.
The East Hill Plan Map designates the LeBlanc Gardens area as
MF12 , Multifamily, 7 to 12 units per acre, the remainder of
the annexation area is designated as SF6, Single Family
Residential, 4 to 6 units per acre.
CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT - OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: INSURE THE PRESERVATION OF LAND FOR A VARIETY
OF OPEN SPACE USES WITHIN THE CITY OF KENT.
GOAL 1: ENCOURAGE OPEN SPACE THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
Objective 2 : Encourage private development of open
space.
Policy 2 : Promote the incorporation of open
space/natural elements on existing
developments.
2
Staff Report
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 ,
Planning Department Comment:
The area in the southern portion of the newly annexed area is
known as the LeBlanc Gardens. The LeBlanc family has owned
the subject property for over forty years. The family
developed the site as a botanical garden in the early 1940 's
by planting several groves of trees unique to the Puget Sound
region. Several years ago this site gained national
attention in Sunset magazine for its garden and landscaping.
Limiting the residential density on this site would make it
possible to preserve as much of this unique site as possible.
The northern part of this annexation is single family
residential on large lots except for the northern most parcel
which is developed with a church. The zoning for this
section of the annexation area reflects the implementation of
the Comprehensive Plan Map for this area. The recommended
zoning of R1-9 . 6, Single Family Residential , will stay in
character with the surrounding residential neighborhoods.
EAST HILL PLAN
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: ENHANCE, THROUGH GOOD DESIGN, THE AESTHETIC
QUALITIES OF THE NATURAL AND MANMADE ENVIRONMENT TO PROMOTE
THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY.
GOAL 2 : Development that will preserve, maintain and enhance
East Hill ' s natural and manmade environments.
Obiective 1: Preserve those natural features which
contribute to the aesthetic quality and
rural feeling that exist on the East Hill,
i.e. , streams, lakes, significant views,
tall evergreen trees , woodlands and
pastures.
Policy 1: Consideration shall be given to the
integration of natural features such as
streams, lakes , views, woodlands, and
pastures into the design of residential and
commercial development.
Planning Department Comment
The recommended zoning designation for the southern portion
of the annexation area would allow for clustering the
dwelling units on the site. This would encourage innovative
site planning to integrate as many of the groves of trees
into future developments as possible. This area would also
3
Staff Report
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 '
act as a buffer between higher density multifamily
developments to the south (201 units per acre) and large lot
single family residential to the north.
II. HISTORY
A. Site History
This area was annexed into the city in April 1978 . The
northern most area of this annexation site is developed with
a church. The central section of the area is developed with
single family dwellings on lots ranging in size from .96 to
1. 31 acres.
The southern parcel of the area is known as LeBlanc Gardens.
The LeBlanc family developed this site as a botanical garden
in the early 19401s. There are several species of trees on
the site which are unique to the Puget Sound area. In
addition to the trees on the site, several native shrubs and
flowers are interspersed making this site a special natural
area worthy of preservation. Several years ago, Sunset
Magazine did a feature story of the LeBlanc Gardens giving
the site national exposure.
A preliminary site plan, submitted on December 4 , 1987 , for
the LeBlanc Gardens area addresses the conservation of the
unique vegetation that exists on the site. The plan for
LeBlanc condominiums contemplate development of the 5. 85 acre
site with 70 condominium units which results in a density of
11. 97 units per acre.
Staff feels that the MRG, Garden Density Multifamily
Residential, maximum of 12 units per acre, zoning will allow
greater flexibility in site design resulting in a larger
amount of the site' s vegetation being preserved. It is
understood that the preliminary plan that was submitted is
conceptual at this stage. However, staff recommends that if
there is a substantial change from the preliminary site plan
on file in the Planning Department, that the plan should be
brought back before the Hearing Examiner for review.
B. Area History
The East Hill area of Kent was first settled in the early
1900 ' s . Since that time commercial and residential
development have grown steadily.
The property in this area is a mixture of multifamily and
single family residential and community facilities in the
form of a church and Park Orchard Elementary School just
north of the annexation site.
4
Staff Report
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
The LeBlanc Family has owned the gardens area for nearly
fifty years. Part of the original homestead was sold for the
Park Orchard subdivision adjacent to the east of the site.
III. LAND USE
Land uses adjacent to the annexation area includes single family
and multifamily developments and community facilities. Park
Orchard subdivision lies to the west and Eastridge subdivision is
to the northeast. These areas provide a majority of the single
family development in the area. In addition, there are a number
of smaller plats and large lots that have been developed for
single family residential use.
Land to the south has been developed with multifamily uses
including King' s Place and Kenton Ridge apartments which are
developed at a density of approximately 20 units per acre.
Commercial uses exist to the south and west of the property. The
core of this commercial area is the intersection of
104th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
A. Significant Physical Features
1. Topography and Hydrology
The area's topography is generally flat with a slight
east to west slope. The slope is approximately zero to
three percent.
2 . Vegetation
As pointed out in earlier sections of this report, the
site known as LeBlanc Gardens has significant
vegetation. This area has been developed as a botanical
garden which includes several species of trees that are
unique to this region. Some of the trees are considered
rare. Some of the unique species on the site are
Catalpa trees, Sequoia Redwoods, Norway and Colorado
Blue Spruce, Spanish Fir, Copper Beach, White and Red
Oak, Japanese Larch, Magnolia, and Japanese Black Pine.
The parcels to the north of the garden area have some
native evergreen and deciduous trees located on them.
5
Staff Report
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5 +
C. Significant Social Features
1. Street System
The subject site has access to 112th Avenue SE which is
classified as a residential collector. Southeast 236th
Street terminates, at the west property line of LeBlanc
Gardens. The preliminary site plan does not contemplate
that SE 236th will continue through the property to
connect with 112th Avenue SE. Such an extension would
radically alter the site plan and would likely lead to
destruction of significant numbers of rare plant species
identified on the site.
2 . Water System
Most of this area is served by City of Kent water.
There are existing water lines in 112th Avenue SE,
SE 232nd and SE 236th Streets. Water mains will have to
be extended or upgraded where development occurs if
inadequacies exist or water line are nonexistent.
3 . Sanitary Sewer System
The City's sanitary sewer system serves portions of the
newly annexed area. Lines exist along SE 232nd Street
ending 280 plus/minus feet east of 110th Place SE and at
the easterly end of 109th Avenue SE (SE 236th Street) .
Main line extensions will be required in accordance with
the Comprehensive Sewerage Plan as development occurs in
this area.
4 . Storm Water System
Storm drainage requirements will be determined at the
time of development.
5. LID's
There are no existing or proposed LIDS for these
properties at this time.
VI. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
The Planning Department has reviewed this proposed zoning in
relation to the Comprehensive Plan, current zoning, land use,
street system, flood control problems and comments from other
departments and agencies and finds that:
6
Staff Report
" LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
A. The Comprehensive Plan Map designates the LeBlanc Gardens
area as MF12 , Multifamily, 7 to 12 units per acre, the
remainder of the property is designated SF6, Single Family
Residential, 5 to 6 units per acre.
B. The property is currently under an interim zoning designation
of R1-20 , Single Family Residential . This interim
designation is given to all land annexed into the City until
such time as the initial zoning designations are determined.
C. Land uses adjacent to the annexation area include; south--
multifamily residential (approximately 20 units per acre) ;
north--single family residential, Park Orchard Elementary
School; west--single family residential ; and east--single
family residential and vacant land.
D. The annexation area has access to 112th Avenue SE which is
classified as a residential collector. The site is bordered
to the north by SE 232nd Street. Southeast 236th Street
terminates at the west property line of LeBlanc Gardens.
E. There are no apparent flood control problems on the site.
F. The City has recently adopted amendments to the Zoning Code
which included standards and criteria to be used by the
Hearing Examiner and City Council to evaluate a request for
rezone (Section 15. 09 . 050 A3) . Staff feels it is appropriate
to use these criteria when establishing the initial zoning
for newly annexed land. The initial zoning should only be
established if the City Council determines that the zoning is
consistent with the following standards and criteria.
1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
2 . The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the
site would be compatible with development in the
vicinity.
3 . The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the
transportation system in the vicinity of the property
with significant adverse impacts which cannot be
mitigated.
4 . Circumstances have changed substantially since the
establishment of the current zoning district to warrant
the proposed rezone.
5. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the
health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of
the City of Kent.
7
Staff Report
LeBlanc Annexation
#AZ-87-5
The Planning Department has reviewed this application in
relation to the Comprehensive Plan, present zoning, land use,
street system, flood control problems and comments from other
departments and finds that:
A. The Comprehensive Plan Map designates the LeBlanc
Gardens area as MF12 , Multifamily Residential, 7 to 12
units per acre; the remainder of the area is designated
SF6, Single Family Residential , 4 to 6 units per acre.
The recommended zoning would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
B. The annexation area is bordered on the south by
multifamily development, to the north, east and west is
predominately single family residential . The area
recommended to be zoned MRG will act as a transition
from the higher density (23 units per acre) multifamily
to the south and the single family area to the north.
C. The annexation area is bordered on the west by
112th Avenue SE which is classified as a residential
collector. The necessity of street improvements will be
determined at the time of environmental review and
development plan review. It is anticipated that all of
the traffic impacts will be able to be mitigated.
D. This area was zoned SR, Suburban Residential under King
County prior to annexation. The staff' s position is
that if an MRG designation is given to the LeBlanc
Gardens area, the increased flexibility in site design
will result in a greater number of the unique tree
species being preserved. The zoning recommended for the
balance of the area is comparable to the King County
designation prior to annexation.
E. The recommended zoning would not appear to adversely
affect the health, safety and general welfare of the
citizens of Kent.
VII. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Staff recommends to the Hearing Examiner the following:
A. The LeBlanc Gardens area be designated MRG, Garden Density
Multifamily Residential, 12 units per acre.
B. The remainder of the annexation area be designated R1-9 . 6,
Single Family Residential, minimum lot size of 9, 600 square
feet.
8 KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
December 9 , 1987
_ CITY OF KENT
planning . .::
J Li
�w- o 23210
,
1 c
V
r < � ( l
°Ipi°��
S.E. 235TH ST. �7
(`� s
j S.E f
! (..1 � 235T1
?d
�- a !
APPLICATION Name_ Le Rim: LEGEND
Numller. 87-87_3 Dale „/a/R, application silo i
bequest--ANNEXATION ZONING zoning boundary.--.:
TOPO/ZONING City limits "m
SCALE = 1":200'
CITY OF KCNT
_ planning .
ST
rb
6
�LSE
222HO ST 7 222ND I"1
i ST 515
W x W I
�^Wto.I. y
4 7 8 SE 224TH ST^ < PD - J ^0. <mE
18 17 �d SE 2 TH J0r1 SE 22MY
• ��� 0Ur SE 2251H n < PL
224TN Q,• SJE 223TH
<
t 3T < E
6 STH >w
I r LlMI SE 2PLTH
C LL
I SE 226TH 37
S 223TH I O
1 ST SE 22STH 3T< SE 228TH
I I SE 229 W JD SE ST
7 I
29T% I
W I W N PL Q" Jti ST > t
'2 < I (PN) 41
(PA) yL� <�.5 U SE 230 H
ST
< ;O 9
II- SE 231ST I 2 SE 'Lr f\' SE 231 T 1LPARK RCHA
m I S STIST F ST \ ; C 230TH�� aq1� ST Im i{SCH LTARY
S 232ND < PL. '\ 'Pf 232ND ST 6w
ST I S 232ND .� - SE 232ND ST w SE .•i E232NC
•1 p ST 3E 232ND PL 232ND
`Tr SE 233R < A f LA
vl y�� 1004 Om 9` n •<•
H y J 9 4S(l. Q
x W 0 O 233 iH 231
h _ ♦ 3E 236TH 3T AV ST Bar
j S 236TH \ 0'.
ST
SE 236TH PL u j�
w < u SE 231 TN ST (rip EL H'rseevol•
E 238TN m A nVL
SE 239TH ST Arch
J O ryV < $ O „ ST
1 PL = Ix- ry w
ST w .18 17 o i SE OTH ST
tu2 C Pod U•H•q EAST HILL
3 241ST ST ¢ ELEMENTARY
m SCHOOL
3
'~u S 242NOQ
ST a
S 243RO
SE 244TH a ST
H y W I O W
w I Q N W
< w
O �
t F 1 ^
m
P
H W S 246TH
1 a i T,> S
W
a 248TH ST SE 248TH ST
w
P > I <
<
APPLICATION NameJg,eRlanc LEGEND
Number-AZ-8"7-3 Dale Novc►T,ber y,tga� . application site 12M
Regllesl Ln=A't)h Onihr..
viGini� Matte � city limits — — —
SCALE _ �'` = ►,000' -L_J''
Kent City Council Meeting
Date May 3 , 1988
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: SURPLUS PROPERTY 102ND/240TH
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set for a public
hearing on the sale of a 50 by 50 parcel located in the vicinity
of 102nd Ave. S.E. and S.E. 240th which the City has declared
surplus . The City Clerk has given the proper legal notice.
3 . EXHIBITS•
4 . RECOMMENDED BY•
(Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc . )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS•
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT•
CLOSE HEARING:.
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember )_seconds
the hearing be osed and a call for bids be authorized to offer
the property for sale with a minimum acceptable bid being the
appraised value.
DISCUSSION:-
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 2B
s188st a N
0
B 202 a1 SE20051 S
d'i < Q
3206 a1
cc p 9 208 91
207
C N
N
F < u CO
— a212s1 �
N S 213 PI
i
Flr
8216SI
/i ffi 8220at < <>
"xt N S 222 SI SE 222 81
. ,f.;'::•� a 224 at SE 22151
y2' 8227 P1 aE 226 B1
t SE 22
_
' Ke t y Hall . a
> ti y - SE 231 SI
81 ollce Station < Y SE23261
.. n7 V Kent 4
Library < N W
9231SI n norlalP A Q g
3
S 238 y
Vol 0
_. Jarnu8l Q V < Y
e 8 241 <
•,. O St W Tam, renca n 1 I S 24 k
r < ci Iln 91 > > r § SE 2/4
N
• 1 owe, N eOq <o
. .I ` • ` V a' a
Hwr 16omp 3�` C W
r i IOer Ca rpue Park N
wsl
H m oc Lp
CO VI 5AD
Walnut
n P Maple 81
r 826181 N q F 2 SI
' Location Map '7
1111 9IS266SI N
a SE
i �4"
a 277 at
w
PROPERTY AT
240_th. and 102nd
OLYMPIC APPRAISALS
A FULL SERVICE APPRAISAL COMPANY
CONSENT CALENDAR (r
3 . City Council Action: r
Councilmember k+ moves, Councilmember
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through L be approved.
Discussion
Action
3A. Appro
val of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
April 19, 1988 and authorization to correct the minutes of
April 5 , 1988, on page 5, as follows :
1989 Community Development Block Grant Funds
(3 ) allocate 6% of planning and administration .,
3B. Approval of Bills .
- Approval of payment of the bills received through May 9, 1988
after auditing 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
4/15/88 59840 - 60243 $966,015 . 83
Approval of checks issued for payroll :
Date Check Numbers Amount
4/20/88 103117 - 103713 $601, 145 .40
Council Agenda
Item No . 3 A-B
Kent, Washington
April 19, 1988
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7: 00
~- p.m. by Mayor Kelleher. Present: Councilmembers Biteman, Dowell,
Houser, Johnson, Mann and White, City Administrator McFall, City
Attorney Driscoll, Planning Director Harris and City Engineer Gill.
Councilmember Woods, Finance Director McCarthy and Public Works Director
Wickstrom were not in attendance. Approximately 120 people were at
the meeting.
PRESENTATIONS Drinking Driver Task Force Poster Recognition
Awards. Mayor Kelleher noted that the Kent
Drinking Driver Task Force has conducted a "Keep
A Friend Alive" poster contest for Kent, High-
line and Federal Way students in an effort to
raise student awareness on sober driving and
safety belts . He announced the winners of the
contest and presented each with a certificate.
The Mayor also thanked the Boeing Aerospace
Company for their commitment of printing costs,
as well as all the volunteers who helped make
the contest a success .
Barber Shop Harmony Week. Mayor Kelleher read
a proclamation declaring the month of April
1988 as Barbershop Harmony Month in the City
of Kent. He then introduced the SEA-TAC
Chapter of the Society for the Preservation
and Encouragement of Barber Shop Quartet Sing-
ing in America, Inc. , who sang several songs.
Volunteer Week. The Mayor declared the week
of April 17-23 , 1988 as Volunteer Week, and
noted that the City of Kent has volunteers
working in numerous departments and offices.
He then introduced Information Desk Volunteers
Ann Erickson, Helen Barber and Kathy Crock and
presented them with flowers and a certificate.
Student Employment Week. The Mayor read a
proclamation declaring the week of April 17-23 ,
1988 as Student Employment Week in the City
of Kent.
Victim Rights Week. Mayor Kelleher read a
- proclamation declaring the week of April 17-23 ,
1988 as Victim Rights Week and presented the
proclamation to Kathleen Groshong of the Drink-
ing Driver Task Force.
April 19, 1988
CONSENT CALENDAR JOHNSON MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A
through M be approved. Biteman seconded and
the motion carried.
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3A)
Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes
of the regular Council meeting of April 5, 1988.
HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3H)
SANITATION The Lakes Short Plat. ACCEPTANCE of the bill
of sale and warranty agreement for continuous
operation and maintenance of approximately
4, 572 feet of water main improvements and
approximately 2, 413 feet of sanitary sewer
improvements constructed in the vicinity of
James Street and 64th Avenue South for the
Lakes Short Plat Development and release of
cash bond after expiration of maintenance
period.
STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3J)
LID 297 - Meeker Street Improvement. AUTHORI-
ZATION to transfer $32 , 000 from the Unencumbered
Sewerage Funds to this project for settlement
of the outstanding claim against this project,
as approved by the Public Works Committee.
SEWERS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3F)
LID 334 - Derbyshire No. 7 Sanitary Sewer.
ADOPTION of Resolution 1167 setting May 17 as
the date for a public hearing to consider the
creation of LID 334 for sanitary sewer install-
ation in the Derbyshire area.
WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3K)
Clark Springs Improvements - Fund Transfer.
AUTHORIZATION to transfer $47 , 000 from the
Unencumbered Funds of the Water Utility to
this project to compensate for the project
overrun due to previously approved additional
work, as approved by the Public Works Committee.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3L)
Clark Springs Building Improvements. ACCEPT
as complete the contract with Clements and
Son Construction for the Clark Springs build-
ing improvement project and release of the
retainage after receipt of the necessary
releases from the State.
2 -
April 19, 1988
SURPLUS PROPERTY Surplus Property - 520 Scenic Way. This date
has been set for a public hearing on the sale
of an 8 ' strip of utility property in the
vicinity of 520 Scenic Way which has been
declared as surplus to the City' s needs. The
City Clerk has given the proper legal notice
of the hearing. The Mayor declared the public
hearing open. There were no comments from the
audience and DOWELL MOVED to close the public
hearing. Houser seconded and the motion carried.
JOHNSON MOVED that a call for bids be authorized
to offer the property for sale with the minimum
acceptable bid being the appraised value.
White seconded. Motion carried.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3G)
Surplus Property - 102nd S.E. and S.E. 240th.
ADOPTION of Resolution 1168 setting May 3 as
the date for a public hearing on the sale of
surplus property located in the vicinity of
102nd S.E. and S .E. 240th.
EQUIPMENT RENTAL ( CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3I )
Surplus Equipment. DECLARE as surplus the
various pieces of equipment as listed in the
Committee ' s minutes and authorize the Public
Works Department to offer same for sale at
public auction and to sell the vibrator/static
roller to the City of Snohomish for its appraised
value, as concurred with by the Public Works
Committee.
TRAFFIC CONTROL (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3E)
LID 333 - Traffic Signal - 72nd Avenue S. and
S. 180th. ADOPTION of Resolution 1166 setting
May 17 as the date for a public hearing to con-
sider the creation of LID 333 for a traffic
signal at 72nd Avenue S. and S. 180th.
HISTORICAL Linda Vannest , 13521 S .E. 266th, stated that
PRESERVATION she is President of the Neeley Mansion Associ-
ation, and announced that there will be a tour
of White River Valley Historial Sites on
May 21 . Vannest noted that the Ponsey house,
built around 1899•, is presently for sale, and
is concerned that the historical landmarks in
Kent are disappearing. She suggested that the
City either enter into an historical preserva-
tion interlocal agreement with King County or
- 3 -
April 19, 1988
HISTORICAL set up their own review board through the
PRESERVATION Planning Department. Harris noted that they
have discussed an interlocal agreement with
the County in the past and that it is very
complicated. He said that the Planning Com-
mittee has also discussed this matter. Bite-
man noted that not all owners of historical
property would be interested in having their
property classified as an historical site.
White asked that this matter be referred to
the Planning Committee and a recommendation
brought back to the Council. The Mayor
requested that staff notify Vannest as to when
the matter will come before the Planning
Committee.
REZONE Kantor Recreational Vehicle Park Rezone No.
RZ-88-1 . This date has been set for a public
meeting to consider the Hearing Examiner ' s
recommendation of conditional approval of the
Kantor RV Park Rezone. The request is to
rezone approximately 14 acres from M2 ( limited
industrial ) to MRM (medium density multi-
family residential ) . The property is located
on the north side of 262nd Street and bounded
to the east by a Puget Sound Power and Light
Company right-of-way and on the west by SR167 .
Greg McCormick of the Planning Department
pointed out the area on the map and noted that
in addition to the rezone, a mobile home park
combining district request has been submitted
and reviewed by the Hearing Examiner. He
noted also that a shoreline substantial develop-
melt permit has been submitted, reviewed and
approved by the Hearing Examiner and forwarded
to the State for review. McCormick noted that
the RV park code stipulates that in order to
get the combining district overlay, the site
must first have a residential designation
other than R1 . He noted that one of the condi-
tions is that the rezone to MRM be directly
tied to the development of the recreational
vehicle park and •that if there are any sub-
stantial changes to the plans , that the Hearing
Examiner will require a new public hearing.
Upon questions from White, McCormick clarified
this condition and Mayor Kelleher noted that
this parcel had been zoned M-2 and was not
4 -
April 19, 1988
REZONE designated as agricultural. It was determined
that without this rezone, manufacturing use
would still be allowed there. Upon Biteman' s
question, McCormick described the access to
the proposed park.
- DOWELL MOVED to adopt the findings of the Hear-
ing Examiner, to concur with the Hearing
Examiner ' s recommendation of conditional
approval and to direct the City Attorney to
prepare the required ordinance. Biteman
seconded and the motion carried.
COMBINING DISTRICT Kantor Recreational Vehicle Park Combining
District No. CD-MHP-88-1 . This date has been
set for a public meeting to consider the Hear-
ing Examiner ' s recommendation of conditional
approval of the Kantor RV Park mobile home
park combining district to allow the develop-
ment of a recreational vehicle park. The
property is on the north side of So. 262nd
Street and bounded to the east by a Puget Sound
_power and Light Company right-of-way and the
west by SR167 .
There were no comments from the audience and
BITEMAN MOVED to adopt the findings of the
Hearing Examiner, to concur with the Hearing
Examiner ' s recommendation of approval with
one condition and to direct the City Attorney
to prepare the required ordinance. Dowell
seconded and the motion carried.
ANNEXATION ZONING (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3C)
Le Blanc Annexation Initial Zoning No. AZ-87-5.
AUTHORIZATION to set the Council meetings of
May 3 and June 7, 1988, as the public hearing
dates to consider the Hearing Examiner ' s
recommended initial zoning for Le Blanc Annex-
ation No. AZ-87-5. The property is located
south of S .E. 232nd Street east of 112th Avenue
S.E. and is approximately 15 acres in size.
PRELIMINARY (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3D)
SUBDIVISION Josey Glenn Preliminary Subdivision No. SU-88-1 .
AUTHORIZATION to set May 17, 1988, as the
public meeting date to consider the Hearing
Examiner ' s recommendation of conditional
approval of the Josey Glenn preliminary sub-
division for nine residential lots. The
subject property is located on the southeast
corner of S.E. 232nd and 112th Avenue S.E.
5 -
April 19, 1988
CONDITIONAL Goodwin Professional Center No. CE-87-5 Appeal.
USE APPEAL This hearing was postponed to this date by
City Council action on April 5, 1988. The
hearing will consider an appeal of the Hear-
ing Examiner ' s denial of Goodwin Professional
Center conditional use permit No. CE-87-5.
The request was for a conditional use permit
to allow retail uses for up to 50% of a planned
development in the O Professional and Office
Zoning District. The subject property is
located on the east side of 104th Avenue S.E.
south of S.E. 248th Street.
Greg McCormick of the Planning Department des-
cribed the area. Upon White ' s question, Harris
noted that although the Planning Commission
was to report to the Council regarding addi-
tional commercial zoning on East Hill, the
Council ' s resolution regarding 20% reduction
of multifamily zoning is delaying any changes
to the East Hill Plan. Mayor Kelleher clarified
that Resolution 1123 in effect, stopped any
ongoing work on the East Hill Plan until the
multifamily reduction proposal had been resolved.
He pointed out, however, that a majority vote
of the Council could forego the provisions of
a resolution. White noted that the area con-
tinued to grow even though work on the plan
had halted.
The Mayor declared the public hearing open.
Robert West, attorney for the Goodwins, noted
that 50% retail use in Office zoned property
is permitted by the Zoning Code under a con-
ditional use. He described the limited com-
mercial uses proposed for this complex, noting
that the Goodwins had potential tenants for
such retail activity. He noted that limited
commercial businesses which might be used by
employees of the area, such as a barber shop
or a deli are shown in the Zoning Code. WHITE
MOVED to continue the hearing to May 3 to
allow time to study the concerns listed by
the appellant. Houser seconded. Dowell noted
that West ' s notice of appeal showed a list
entitled "Assignment of Errors" and asked
if the Hearing Examiner had addressed this.
It was determined that the applicant had not
asked for reconsideration by the Hearing Exam-
iner but had appealed directly to the Council .
- 6 -
r
April 19, 1988
CONDITIONAL Dowell opined that the Council should hear
USE APPEAL the Hearing Examiner' s answers to the allega-
tions in the appeal letter. It was deter-
mined that the Council could ask for input from
staff or from the Hearing Examiner. Driscoll
suggested that this could be referred to the
Hearing Examiner as a reconsideration, in
which case she would provide a written response.
White withdrew his motion, and MOVED to close
the public hearing and to remand the matter
to the Hearing Examiner for her written
response to the issues . Houser concurred and
seconded this motion, which then carried
unanimously.
STREET VACATION Brutsche Street Vacation No. STV-88-1 .
This date has been set for a public hearing
to consider the petition of Leo and Norma
Brutsche to vacate portions of North 2nd
Avenue, North 3rd Avenue and two adjacent
alleys. Proper legal notice has been given
by the City Clerk.
µ The Planning Department has recommended that
the vacation be approved with the condition
that the City be compensated at half of the
full appraised value of the area being vacated.
Harris noted that these were "paper" streets
only, which had never been developed. Jerry
Klein, attorney for the Brutsches , showed a
sketch, pointing out that portions of these
same streets and alleys had been vacated in
1964, under Ordinance 1265. He stated that
J compensation to the City was not required then,
and asked that the City not make this con-
dition a part of the approval. City Attorney
Driscoll determined that Ordinance 2333 pro-
viding for such compensation states that com-
pensation may be required, based upon the
-•• administrative costs of the street vacation.
Dowell suggested that the City negotiate the
costs with the applicants . WHITE MOVED to
close the public hearing. Biteman seconded.
Motion carried.
BITEMAN MOVED to approve street vacation No.
STV-88-1 conditioned upon the payment of $100
for administrative costs and for the City
Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance
upon receipt of such funds. Mann seconded.
- 7 -
April 19, 1988
STREET VACATION Upon further questions, McFall suggested that
$100 would not cover the City 's costs and
Biteman and Mann agreed to change the motion
to reflect that the City be compensated for
"out of pocket" expenses, to be determined.
The motion carried unanimously.
PARKS AND Kent Commons Alterations. Two bids were
RECREATION received on April 14 for the Kent Commons
Alteration Project with HBI Construction Ser-
vices being the low bidder. The department
and architect recommend award of the construc-
tion contract to HBI Construction Services in
the amount of $18, 488. 60 for the following:
Base bid $15, 654 . 50
Alt. 1 1 , 749. 60
Alt. 2 654 . 50
Alt. 3 430 . 00
Total $18, 488. 60
DOWELL SO MOVED. Houser seconded. Upon
White ' s question, McFall noted that this is
well below the architect ' s estimate. The
motion then carried.
PERSONNEL (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3M)
Lead Mechanic Position. APPROVAL of the
reclassification of the Maintenance Supervisor
position in the Equipment Rental section of
Public Works to that of Lead Mechanic, as
approved by the Public Works Committee and
Personnel Department.
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of
the bills received through April 21 , 1988
after auditing by the Operations Committee at
its meeting at 8: 30 a.m. on April 29 , 1988 .
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
3/4/88 58867 - 58868 $ 64,418.42
3/15/88 - 3/25/88 59366 - 59399 947.886.75
3/13/88 59415 - 59812 672,418.53
Approval of checks issued for payroll:
Date Check Numbers Amount
4/5/88 102520 - 103116 $610,399.28
8 -
April 19, 1988
REPORTS Council President. White announced that City
staff will meet informally with Salt Air Hills
residents at the Marcus Whitman Presbyterian
Church at 7: 00 p.m. on April 25 . Council-
members are invited to attend.
White stated that the Council would meet with
Lyle Sumak at the Red Hen Pantry at 5: 30 p.m.
on April 26 .
White reported that he and Councilmember Mann,
along with Mayor Kelleher and City Administrator
McFall, had attended the National League of
Cities meeting in Washington D.C. As a member
of the steering committee, he attended trans-
portation and communications meetings. He
noted that the number one issue was concern
over the future of the Federal Highway and
Transportation programs .
Paul Mann noted that he had attended workshops
on energy, natural resources and community and
economic development. He pointed out that he
had tapes from these sessions and would make
them available for other Councilmembers .
Parks Committee. Dowell noted that the Com-
mittee would not meet in April, and that the
next meeting will be on May 25 .
Administrative Reports. McFall announced that
the Kent Planning Department has received a
Merit Award from the American Planning Associ-
ation and the Planning Association of Washington
for the work done on the multifamily density
issue which is currently before the Council .
A formal presentation will be made at a
future Council meeting.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8: 45 p.m.
Marie Jens n, CMC
City Clerk
9 -
�0 Kent City Council Meeting
Date May 3, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: CENTENNIAL COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of Mayor Kelleher ' s
appointment of Russell Dunham to the Centennial Committee to
replace Steve Harris .
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 . 3C
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
DATE: April 25, 1988
TO: Jim White, City Council President
City Council Members
FROM: Dan Kelleher, Mayor
SUBJECT: CENTENNIAL COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT
For your information, I have appointed Russell Dunham to the City of Kent
Centennial Committee, effective April 1988.
Mr. Dunham will fill a vacancy of the five member Centennial Committee.
2602A-07A
Kent City Council Meeting
Date May 3, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE FOR REZONE OF KANTOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE
PARK
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Ordinance No. rezoning Kantor
Recreational Vehicle Park from M2, limited industrial, to MRM,
medium density multi-family residential, with certain conditions
as approved by the Council at its meeting on April 19, 1988 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: City Council
(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
ORDINANCE NO.
ij
it AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, relating to land use and zoning,
providing for the rezoning with conditions of
approximately fourteen (14) acres located on
the north side of South 262nd Street and
bounded to the east by Puget Power 6 Light
Company right-of-way and the west by SR 167
from M2, Limited Industrial to MRM, Medium
Density Multifamily Residential.
WHEREAS, an application for a rezone of Kantor
Recreational Vehicle Park was filed on January 21, 1988 for the
property described in the attached Exhibit A and incorporated
herein by this reference;
WHEREAS, the applicant requested that the property be
rezoned from M2, Limited Industrial to MRM, Medium Density
Multifamily Residential; and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing to
consider the rezone of the property on March 16, 1988; and
WHEREAS, following the public hearings and consideration
of reports and testimony submitted into the record on the proposed
rezone and the staff recommendation, the Hearing Examiner for the
City of Kent rendered her findings, conclusions, and
recommendations for conditional approval on March 30, 1988, in
Kantor Recreational Vehicle Park: Findings and Recommendation of
the Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent; and
WHEREAS, on April 19, 1988, a hearing was held before the
City Council at 7 o'clock p.m., in the City Hall of the City of
Kent, upon proper notice given; NOW, THEREFORE,
-• THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 . The findings, conclusions, and conditional
recommendations of the Hearing Examiner as set forth in Kantor
Recreational Vehicle Park: Findings and Recommendation of the
Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent, which is on file with the
Kent City Clerk, are hereby adopted and the findings, conclusions,
and conditional recommendations are concurred with for this site.
Section 2. Zoning for this cite, generally located at
the north side of South 262nd Street and bounded to the east by a
Puget Sound Power s Light Company right-of-way, and on the west by
SR 167, and legally described in attached Exhibit A, incorporated
by this reference, is hereby changed from M2, Limited Industrial,
to MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential.
Section 3. The rezone is subject to the following
conditions as set forth in the findings and recommendations of the
Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent as referenced above:
A. The developer shall execute a signal
participation agreement for the future
construction of a traffic signal system at the
intersection of the northbound on-ramp of SR167
and South 277th Street.
B. Approval of this rezone is tied directly to the
Kantor RV Park site and landscape plan submitted `
as a part of the application. Any significant
changes to the plans will require a new public
hearing.
Section 4. Effective Date . This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage,
approval and publication as provided by law.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY
-2-
rjT0
Kent City Council Meeting
Date May 3 , 1988
C Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE FOR KANTOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK
COMBINING DISTRICT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Ordinance No. 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 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: City Council
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3E
ORDINANCE NO.
_ AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, relating to land use and zoning,
approving a mobile home park combining district
with conditions for approximately fourteen (14)
acres generally located on the north side of
South 262nd Street and bounded to the east by
Puget Sound Power & Light Company right-of-way
and on the west by SR 167. (CD-MHP-88-1)
WHEREAS, an application for a mobil home park combining
district was filed on January 21, 1988, for the property described
in Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner held a hearing on March 16,
1988, on the application for a mobile home park combining district
-- to allow the development of a recreational vehicle park; and
WHEREAS, following the public hearings and consideration
of reports and testimony submitted into the record on the
application for the mobile home park combining district and staff
recommendations, the Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent
rendered her findings, conclusions, and recommendations for
conditional approval on March 30, 1988, in Kantor Recreational
Vehicle Park: Findings and Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner
for the City of Kent; and
WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the City Council on
April 19, 1988, at 7 o'clock p.m. in the City Hall of the City of
Kent, on proper notice given; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 . The findings, conclusions, and conditional
recommendations of the Hearing Examiner as set forth in Kantor
Recreational Vehicle Park: Findings and Recommendation of the
Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent, CD-MHP-88-1, which is on
file with the Kent City Clerk, are hereby adopted and the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations with conditions are
concurred with for this site.
Section 2. The application for the Kantor Recreational
Vehicle Park mobile home park combining district is granted
subject to the following condition:
A. The property shall be developed substantially as
shown on the plan submitted with the
application. Major revisions from the plan
shall be returned to the Hearing Examiner for
further review.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage,
approval and publication as provided by law.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED the day of , 1988.
APPROVED the day of , 1988.
PUBLISHED the day of , 1988.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance
No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent,
Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereo
indicated.
(SEAL)
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
5670-190
-2-
1-
Y
Kent City Council Meeting
Date May 3, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: 1985 SANITARY SEWER REBUILD
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept as complete, the contract of
Shoreline Construction for the 1985 Sanitary Sewer Rebuild
Project and release of retainage after receipt of the necessary
releases from the state.
3 . EXHIBITS: A memorandum from the Director of Public Works and
an excerpt from the Public Works Committee minutes
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3F
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
APRIL 28, 1988
TO: MAYOR KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON WICKSTROM 4/"`-'
RE: 1985 SANITARY SEWER REBUILD
The project was awarded to Shoreline Construction in October, 1986
for the bid amount of $843 , 491.95. Notice to proceed was given in
February of 1987.
~ The project consisted of rebuild of sanitary sewer mains in various
locations throughout the City as detailed on the attached map and
associated storm drainage, water main and street improvements. A
budget established for the project in the amount of $1, 151, 966 of
which $ 999 , 368 has been spent to date. Construction costs were
$856. 476.89.
It is recommended the contract be accepted as complete and the
retainage released after receipt of the necessary releases from the
State.
v
I)
84
LOCATION - 14 lift
(Pg. 24) N �H
„
214 I J0 =_
LOCATION-II
(Pg. 20) s
im IT
LOCATION- 12 1 ) '~
( Pg. 21)
2,
12
LOCATION - 10 " . \
(Pg. 19) r 11 c 12» T CONNECT S
SEWUM
LOCATION - 8 QL
(Pq. 14) t. ! ,
Try
LOCATION - 13 J
(Pg. 22 &23) t
S
IT AT
�1 i� i i •' - -----�.5�191 '12
12'
1
24 19
LOCATION- I-r
(Pg. 27 )
LOCATION - 9
- ro.. Iri_ IA1
�— LOCATION- 17 l
(Pg. 27 )
LOCATION - 9
( Pg. 15— 18)
LOCATION — 21
(Pg. 32 8 33)
ASANDON
is a;
/B
LOCATION - 20
(Pg. 31 )
LOCATION - 16
. ".."' ( Pg. 26 )
6 r i
� Itr I � ,, • r w
r • f
I7\ '' o..�� - LOCATION - 19
i � _
.. wee■E• it
' ( Pg. 30 )
_ t
r
LOCATION - 7
(Pg. 13 )
_. [: 4
Is ` LOCATION - 18
R (Pg. 28 8 29)
23
14r r LOCATION- 6
72 (Pg. 11 8 12 )
24 /9
25 30
LOCATION - I
(Pg. 4—5) LOCATION - 5
( Pg. 9 8 10)
LOCATION - 4
(Pg. 8 )
LOCATION - 3
--(Pa. 7 )
Kent City Council Meeting
Date May 3. 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: DEL WEBB SANITARY SEWER PUMP STATION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As approved by the Public Works Committee,
authorization to transfer $18, 400 from the Unemcumbered Sewer
Funds to the project fund to cover cost overruns in project.
3 . EXHIBITS: Except from the Public Works Committee minutes
_ 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Committee
(Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3G
Public Works Committee
April 26, 1988
Page 2
Willis Street Improvements
Wickstrom commented the City has a UAB grant for the Willis Street
Improvement project which will improve Willis Street from 4th
Avenue to Central making it a four lane facility. We anticipate
advertising the project this summer. The State has budgeted an
overlay of Willis Street in 1989 . We have negotiated with the
State to contribute their overlay funds of approximately $140, 000
to the City so we can include the overlay work in our project. The
State Highway Commission will review the proposal the first part of
May and we will need authorization for the Mayor to sign the
agreement once it is prepared. The Committee approved the request.
LID 316 - 94th Avenue Water Main - Segregation of Assessment
Wickstrom explained that one 5-acre tract included in the LID has
been split into four lots and they are requesting the assessment be
segregated and distributed over the four lots. The Committee
approved authorizing the City Attorney to prepare the resolution.
Del Webb Sanitary Sewer Pump Station Proiect
The project included the rebuild of the pump station on 132nd and
Kent Kangley. The project was awarded with less than a 100
contingency. An engineering consultant billing used up the
contingency and project was overrun by $18 , 400 . Wickstrom
recommended that amount be transferred from the unencumbered sewer
funds to balance the project fund. The Committee concurred.
Burlington Northern Petition for Increase in Speed Limit
Wickstrom stated this was on the agenda to let Council know there
is a hearing on Burlington Northern' s request to increase the speed
limit. Brent stated that Mayor Kelleher will be at the hearing.
Biteman inquired about the number of accidents at the crossings.
It was explained that most result when people go around the
crossing gate arms . Biteman suggested we contact the railroad
asking they place a sign on the crossing gate arm alerting the
driver they can not get off the tracks if they go around. Brent
stated we could certainly inquire about any additional actions the
railroad could take on this matter. Wickstrom added we are working
on programming the signals so that when the arms go down, the
signals on Central Avenue will not hold the traffic back.
Kent City Council Meeting
p}� Date May 3 , 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: DEL WEBB SANITARY SEWER PUMP STATION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from the Director of Public Works
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3H
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
APRIL 28, 1988
TO: MAYOR KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON WICKSTROM
_ RE: DEL WEBB PUMP STATION
The project was awarded to Harlow Construction on July 7, 1987 for
the bid amount of $101, 348 . 31.
The project consisted of improvements to the sanitary sewer pump
station at 132nd and Kent Kangley. Construction costs were
$103 , 398. 02 . A project budget was established in the amount of
$160 , 000 with project costs paid to date of $178, 380. 12 . The
overrun was due to the need to retain a consultant on the project
due to its complicated nature. The Public Works Committee has
approved a transfer of $18, 400 from the unencumbered sewer funds to
balance this project fund.
It is recommended the project be accepted as complete and retainage
released after receipt of the necessary releases from the State.
i
Kent City Council Meeting
Date May 3, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: WILLIS STREET IMPROVEMENTS
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As approved by the Public Works Committee,
authorization for the Mayor to sign an agreement with the State
to incorporate the State ' s planned 1989 overlay of Willis Street
in the City' s Willis Street improvement project.
3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from the Public Works Committee minutes
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3I
Public Works Committee
April 26, 1988
Page 2
Willis Street Improvements
Wickstrom commented the City has a UAB grant for the Willis Street
Improvement project which will improve Willis Street from 4th
Avenue to Central making it a four lane facility. We anticipate
advertising the project this summer. The State has budgeted an
overlay of Willis Street in 1989 . We have negotiated with the
State to contribute their overlay funds of approximately $140, 000
to the City so we can include the overlay work in our project. The
State Highway Commission will review the proposal the first part of
May and we will need authorization for the Mayor to sign the
agreement once it is prepared. The Committee approved the request.
LID 316 94th Avenue Water Main - Segregation of Assessment
Wickstrom explained that one 5-acre tract included in the LID has
been split into four lots and they are requesting the assessment be
segregated and distributed over the four lots. The Committee
approved authorizing the City Attorney to prepare the resolution.
Del Webb Sanitary Sewer Pump Station Project
The project included the rebuild of the pump station on 132nd and
Kent Kangley. The project was awarded with less than a 10%
contingency. An engineering consultant billing used up the
contingency and project was overrun by $18 , 400 . Wickstrom
recommended that amount be transferred from the unencumbered sewer
funds to balance the project fund. The Committee concurred.
Burlington Northern Petition for Increase in Speed Limit
Wickstrom stated this was on the agenda to let Council know there
is a hearing on Burlington Northern' s request to increase the speed
limit. Brent stated that Mayor Kelleher will be at the hearing.
Biteman inquired about the number of accidents at the crossings.
It was explained that most result when people go around the
crossing gate arms . Biteman suggested we contact the railroad
asking they place a sign on the crossing gate arm alerting the
driver they can not get off the tracks if they go around. Brent
stated we could certainly inquire about any additional actions the
railroad could take on this matter. Wickstrom added we are working
on programming the signals so that when the arms go down, the
signals on Central Avenue will not hold the traffic back.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date May 3, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: L. I .D. 316 - 94TH AVENUE WATER MAIN SEGREGATION OF
ASSESSMENT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As approved by the Public Works Committee,
authorization for the City Attorney to prepare a resolution
authorizing the segregation of the assessment of a parcel
involved in the LID.
3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from the Public Works Committee minutes
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
N Council Agenda
Item No. 3J
Public Works Committee
April 26, 1988
Page 2
Willis Street Improvements
Wickstrom commented the City has a UAB grant for the Willis Street
Improvement project which will improve Willis Street from 4th
Avenue to Central making it a four lane facility. We anticipate
advertising the project this summer. The State has budgeted an
overlay of Willis Street in 1989. We have negotiated with the
State to contribute their overlay funds of approximately $140, 000
to the City so we can include the overlay work in our project. The
State Highway Commission will review the proposal the first part of
May and we will need authorization for the Mayor to sign the
agreement once it is prepared. The Committee approved the request.
LID 316 - 94th Avenue Water Main - Segregation of Assessment
Wickstrom explained that one 5-acre tract included in the LID has
been split into four lots and they are requesting the assessment be
segregated and distributed over the four lots. The Committee
approved authorizing the City Attorney to prepare the resolution.
Del Webb Sanitary Sewer Pump Station Protect
The project included the rebuild of the pump station on 132nd and
Kent Kangley. The project was awarded with less than a 10%
contingency. An engineering consultant billing used up the
contingency and project was overrun by $18 , 400 . Wickstrom
recommended that amount be transferred from the unencumbered sewer
funds to balance the project fund. The Committee concurred.
Burlington Northern Petition for Increase in Speed Limit
Wickstrom stated this was on the agenda to let Council know there
is a hearing on Burlington Northern' s request to increase the speed
limit. Brent stated that Mayor Kelleher will be at the hearing.
Biteman inquired about the number of accidents at the crossings.
It was explained that most result when people go around the
crossing gate arms . Biteman suggested we contact the railroad
asking they place a sign on the crossing gate arm alerting the
driver they can not get off the tracks if they go around. Brent
stated we could certainly inquire about any additional actions the
railroad could take on this matter. Wickstrom added we are working
on programming the signals so that when the arms go down, the
signals on Central Avenue will not hold the traffic back.
Kent City Council Meeting
n ,e) Date May 3 , 1988
�[v Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORKS ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As approved by the Public Works Committee,
authorization to change a part-time Accounting position 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.
- 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from the Public Works Committee minutes and
supporting documentation
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ ATTACHED
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3K
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
APRIL 26, 1988
PRESENT: JON JOHNSON GARY GILL
BERNE BITEMAN TIM HEYDON
DON WICKSTROM MIKE LEDBETTER
BRENT MCFALL JEWEL MELTON
_ Request for Sidewalks from 104th Down S.E. . 236th Place and 105th
Place S.E. Between S .E. 236th Place and S.E. 237th Street
A video tape of the area was shown to the Committee demonstrating
the areas that do not have sidewalk. Biteman asked what the cost
of installing sidewalks in these areas would be. It was calculated
the section on 104th would be approximately $2,500 and the portion
on 105th would be approximately $1,500. Wickstrom suggested if the
Committee wanted to pursue the installation of the sidewalk, we
could contact the property owners to determine if they would be
willing to pay for the improvements. Biteman suggested we contact
the property owners of those portions on 104th and perhaps offering
to share the cost. Johnson countered he would contact the property
owners and if they did not have any interest in paying for the
sidewalk then it not be put in since there is a sidewalk on the
other side of the street. Johnson added he would be more willing
to participate in the costs for the portion on 105th. Mrs. Melton
offered the names of the property owners of the 104th portion.
After further discussion, Biteman moved a letter be written to the
commercial property owners for the 104th portion stating we have
received a request for sidewalk, indicate the approximate costs,
ask if they are interested in pursuing the project and follow the
letter up with a phone call. The Committee approved.
Public Works Operations/Administration Division Organizational
Changes
Wickstrom explained that a review of the organizational structure
of the Operations Division has been done indicating that a
currently vacant administrative support position could be reclassed
to a lower level, the budget responsibilities could be transferred
to the Public Works Accountant and the part time accounting clerk
position could be increased to full time. This would provide
better accounting control for the department and still provide the
necessary administrative support for the Operations Manager. Brent
added he has reviewed the proposal and feels it makes better use of
the employees and supports the proposal. The Committee approved
the request. Biteman raised some questions about the minimum
hiring requirements for the City and indicated he would be
discussing it further with Personnel.
• L-#7QrGutICV�
�J.C;
DEPARIMENP OF PUBLIC WORKS
MEMO
TO: BRENT MCFALL DATE: APRIL 13, 1988
FROM: DON WICKSTROM�
SUBTECT: OPERATIONS AD RATION DIVISION ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES
I am forwarding our proposal to you for organizational changes in the
Operations Administration Division. I have also attached Mike's comments
for your review.
If you are in concurrence with this proposal, I would like to present it
at the next Public Works committee meeting on April 26th, 1988.
Please let me know if you have any questions or further comments.
i
..,, CITY OF RENT
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MEMO APR p 7 1988
TO: MIKE WEBBY DATE: APRIL 6, 1988 ENGINEERING DEPT.
FROM: DON WICKSTROM
Suw=: PUBLIC WORm6S STAFFING CHANGES
I am attaching a proposal from Tim Heydon regarding the filling of the
position recently vacated by Carol Gagnat-Duran. Please review this
proposal and position description and let me ]mow if you feel it is
compatible with the results of the classification study.
I have had preliminary discussions with Brent regarding these changes and
he agrees with the overall concept of the proposal.
We are currently short 2 staff members in our Operations Administration
Division, and thus, your prompt attention on this matter would be greatly
appreciated so that we may proceed in filling this position.
Enclosure
776
""�4 �
J �oUG Gct� rTkf�
{�� �iY10GV• �y�fGfU
MEMORANDUM CITY OF nEiJT
DATE: March 29, 1988
APR 0 5 1988
TO• Don Wickstrom WHIRRING DEFT.
Director of Public Works
FROM: Timothy Heydon
Operations Manager
SUBJECT: Filling the Position Left Vaca/t by -
Carol Gagnat Duran' s Resignation
As you know, I have been studying the needs of the Public Works
Operations office in light of Carol ' s departure. It is my
recommendation that an Administrative Assistant I be hired in her
place. The person would perform the following primary functions:
1) Assist in budget preparation and in monitoring
budget compliance.
2) The Administrative Assistant I would get the
computerized Pavement Management Information System
on line by helping with data input.
3 ) The Administrative Assistant I, would get the
automated Plant and Equipment Maintenance System
into operation.
4) The individual would be responsible for the Records
room and placing it in proper filing order.
5) The Equipment Rental/Warehouse computer program
could be brought up to speed when it is purchased
with the help of this individual .
6) The individual would aide the Operations Manager in
putting together various reports, studies and
projects as they arise.
In looking through the City job descriptions, it appears that the
Administrative Assistant I best fits the position. I have
attached a copy for your review. Since Carol was being paid at a
grade 30 and this new position would be at a grade 22 , there
would be a savings in salaries.
.,_. Filling of Vacant Position - continued
Due to the transfer of accounting duties, the addition of the
auditing and accounting system, and budget development
responsibilities to Bonnie, she has need for additional
accounting , assistance in Public Works accounting within the
engineering office. This assistance could be provided by
changing the existing part-time accounting clerk position to a
full-time position. The savings in salaries on Carol ' s position
could be used to supplement the costs associated with the part-
time to full-time change. I have also attached a copy of the
financial implications for this change.
As for the question of needing additional clerical help in our
office, I want to work on improving the efficiency and
computerization of the existing operation in order to more
closely fit the work to the existing number of employees. I will
continue to keep you updated on how this program is going.
TH/map
Attachment:
cc: Bonnie Fell
CGD.wp
CITY OF RENT
CLASS TITLE : ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I
BASIC FUNCTION:
Under the direction of a division head , performs a variety of
responsible administrative support duties ; processes administrative
details not requiring the immediate attention of the assigned
supervisor .
DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS :
The class of Administrative Assistant reports to the head of a
large , complex division . The duties and responsibilities are similar
to that of an Administrative Assistant II , but encompass division—wide
administrative assistance duties . Incumbents assigned to the class
are required to exercise tact , independence , judgment and initiative .
The Administrative Assistant II positions assume a higher level of
responsibility and performs a variety of complex and technical
administrative assistance involving an entire department . This class
requires a substantial amount of tact , independent judgment and
initiative .
REPRESENTATIVE DUTIES :
Serve as Administrative Assistant relieving the supervisor of a
variety of technical and administrative support duties ; serve
frequently as liaison between supervisor and the public ,
management and other City employees .
Collect and compile statistical data and other information for
inclusion into special and periodic reports ; prepare special
reports as necessary ; research and analyze information and
establish appropriate report formats ; prepare Board agenda
items and back—up materials as required .
Assist in the preparation of the division budget ; verify the
accuracy of budget information ; monitor budget expenditures .
Assist in developing procedures to expedite transmittal of
information or facilitate implementation of division services .
Coordinates staff input regarding special and periodic reports ;
prepare and assemble agenda materials ; review and proof
documents , records and forms for accuracy , completeness and
conformance to applicable rules and regulations .
Attend meetings , seminars , conferences and training as
appropriate ; maintain a current understanding of department
functions and programs ; represent division as required .
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTA14T I — Continues'
Confer with the supervisor to receive assignments , instructions
and information ; maintain appointment schedule as assigned .
Conduct independent research and analysis concerning
administrative assignments ; evaluate information and recommend
alternative courses of action .
Assist callers by relaying messages , answering questions ,
responding to requests , resolving problems , explaining City
policies and procedures and referring callers to others as
appropriate .
Directs the operations of the computerized Pavement Management
Information System , including preparation of projections ,
reports , input of all maintenance data (labor , equipment and
materials) relating to all aspects of street maintenance
including oiling , overlay , patching , drainage, sidewalks ,
right—of—way, vegetation control and bridges .
Directs the development and operation of the automated Plant
and Equipment Maintenance System, including operation of the
Query Retrieval System software to provide ad hoc reporting ,
cost analysis , labor utilization , schedule maintenance
activities for all water transmission facilities and provide
similar management information and planning reports .
Establish and maintain complex, inter—related filing systems
such as the plans and records for water , sewer , storm drainage
and streets .
Prepare a variety of correspondence , memoranda , reports and
other material ; record and prepare minutes from a variety of
meetings; arrange and schedule a variety of meetings ,
conferences and travel ; attend meetings as assigned .
Operate a variety of office equipment in particular computer
terminals and related equipment .
Perform related duties as assigned .
KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITIES :
-- KNOWLEDGE OF:
Modern office practices , procedures and equipment .
Record—keeping techniques .
Budgeting procedures including preparation , monitoring ,
transfers and reporting .
Correct English usage , grammar , spelling , punctuation and
vocabulary .
City organization , operations , policies and objectives .
Oral and written communications skills .
Technical aspects of field of specialty.
Interpersonal skills using tact , patience and courtesy .
Telephone techniques and etiquette .
Basic research and analysis and techniques .
.� t
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I — Continued
ABILITY TO:
Perform administrative assistance and relieve the supervisor
of administrative details .
Learn to interpret and apply City laws , rules and policies .
Type at an acceptable rate of speed .
Perform work requiring good analytical skills .
Understand and follow oral and written directions .
Work confidentially with discretion .
Work independently with little direction .
Establish and maintain effective and cooperative working
relationships with others .
Meet schedules and time lines .
Plan and organize work .
Prepare and edit correspondence and reports .
Communicate effectively both orally and in writing .
Assemble diverse data nad prepare reports .
Maintain inter—related files and records .
Learn quickly to apply specific rules , policies and procedures
of specific division to which assigned .
Operate a variety of standard office equipment including
computer terminal or P . C.
Analyze situations accurately and adopt an effective course of
action .
EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:
Any combination equivalent to : graduation from high school
supplemented business training and two years of increasingly
responsible administrative support experience .
WORKING CONDITIONS :
Typical Public Works office environment .
-- r SHOPS CLERICAL RESTRUCTURE SCENARIO 11
Classification Division Overall
Months/Level Name Credit Salaries Benefits Net Effect Net Effect
+ over budget
OPERATION ADMINISTRATION () under budge♦
12 46D Pace ($55,283) ($55,283)
11.5 46C Heydon 541,044 $10,671 551,715
2.5 30C Gagnat
9.5 30D ($36,998) 54,810 $1,250 ($30,938)
6 22A New ADM.1 s10,716
2 229 New ADM 1 $3,764 $3,765 518,245 •
6 12A Temporary(Kelly Services) $8,905 $8,905 ($7,356)
ENGINEERING ADMINISTRATION
1 178 Storment FT $11661 5432
5 17C 58,715 $2,266
6 123 Storment PT ($13,289) $5,123 $1,332 $6,240
Sal.Cless. Adj. ($666) $333 (5333) $5,907
TOTAL EFFECT ON BUDGET 1+ Over Budget, () Under Budget (51,449)
Kelly Person based on a monthly average of 174 working hours for a 6 month period.
...........
..w i
XV
\ ,5 Kent City Council Meeting
Date May 3, 1988
ttt x1 Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: SANCTUARY NO. 3 FINAL PLAT NO. SU-87-2
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize 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 St . between 42nd
Ave. So. and Frager Rd.
3 . EXHIBITS: None
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3L
�Y
C Kent City Council Meeting
Date May 3, 1988
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF PLANS TO PROCEED WITH CITY COUNCIL
CHAMBERS REMODEL
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The City Council has approved funding of
$80,000 in the Capital Improvement Program for the remodel of
City Council Chambers . Architects have been selected and
schematic design has taken place. It is now time to decide
whether or not to proceed with the project based upon the
schematic design, cost estimates and review of the Operations
Committee.
•-• The Committee recommends proceeding with the project, subject to
final design approval .
3 . EXHIBITS: Operations Committee minutes, cost estimate,
schematic design
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee
(Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $80,000
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Capital Improvement Program
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
that the City Council proceed with plans to remodel the City
_. Council Chambers and to direct the City Administrator to work
with the architect to develop final plans .
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4A
OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: April 27, 1988
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: J. Brent McFall
SUBJECT: COUNCIL CHAMBER REMODEL
The subject of remodeling the City Council Chambers has been reviewed by the
Operations Committee with no consensus being reached on final design. The
Operations Committee has instructed me to work with the architect to attempt
to resolve such issues as configuration of public seating and location of
staff seating in a manner that will be satisfactory. It should be noted that
the issue of the seating configuration is one which can be determined almost
up to the point of placing orders for furnishings. Therefore, it is not
essential that this issue be resolved at the current time. However, what is
essential is that we make a decision as to whether or not to proceed with the
project.
We are having significant problems with the sound system in the room and need
to make repairs and replacements. If the Council should decide not to proceed
with the remodel project, it will be necessary for us to proceed with a
significant effort on the sound system similar to that contemplated in the
remodeling project.
It should be noted that the most significant elements in the cost of the
remodeling project are items such as lighting, sound system, corrections to
electrical and HVAC systems, and replacing carpet. These are items that you
will probably want to address in the near future even if the room itself is
not reconfigured.. I would recommend that you consider this in reaching your
decision on whether or not to proceed with the project.
I will be happy to answer any questions you might have regarding cost, scope
of project, design, or any other matter relating to this project.
2626A-01A
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES
March 15, 1988
COUNCIL 14EMBERS PRESENT: Christi Houser
Steve Dowell
Paul Mann
STAFF PRESENT: Brent McFall
Tony McCarthy
Rod Frederiksen
Norm Angelo
May Miller
Charles Lindsey
OTHERS PRESENT: Jackson Carter, Arai Jackson Architects
Dee Moschel , Chamber of Commerce
Lyle Price, Kent News Journal
APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS
All claims for the period ending March 15 , 1988, in the amount of $1 ,133,488.36
were approved for payment.
COUNCIL CHAMBER REMODEL
Jackson Carter of Arai Jackson Architects, reviewed with the Council the remodeling
possibilities for the City Council Chambers. Ile noted that the limitations of the
brick wall and the angular shape of the Chamber roof limited the remodeling
possibilities. Based on these limitations, he presented a proposal to the
Committee that would provide for improved lighting, new carpeting, Council dais
with greater room, improved audio system and an improved seating arrangement for
the public plus future possibilities for improved video presentations. It was
noted that these improvements could be made within the $80,000 amount budgeted in
the 1987 Budget.
A number of questions were raised by Councilmember Dowell on possibly reducing the _.
cost of the remodel by not moving the Council dais but still providing additional
Council space. Mr. Carter noted that in his professional opinion there would be nc_
significant savings by using the existing dial with an enlargement and a shift
toward the audience.
Operations Committee Minutes
March 15, 1988
Page 2
Following the response to Councilmemeber Dowell 's questions for which he asked for
additional information to be provided at a later date on individual components of
the cost estimate, the Committee members reviewed alternative public seating
arrangements. Individual Council members favored various proposals, staff facing
the public and staff facing the Council . Based upon hearing the individual
- • concerns, the architect noted that he would provide some additional alternatives on
the seating arrangement.
With this input, the Committee unanimously recommended that the item be brought
forward to a Council meeting of April 5, with the following additional review by
Mr. Dowell on the various components of the cost and with the notation that the
final seating arrangement obtain additional review by not only the Council but
other groups meeting in the Chambers. Additional options for this will be prepared
by the architect.
NDING THE POLICE/FIRE TRAINING CENTER
Chie Angelo distributed a memorandum to the Committee noting tha ollowing the
issuance f the Public Safety Bond Issue in December of 1986, at the regional
Police/Fire aining facility anticipated in that bond is a was no longer a viable
solution for nei 'boring cities. Based upon this, a dditional $950,000 was
needed to complete th Police/Fire Training Faci ity. This amount was incorporated
in the 1989 component�O `tie Capital Improve cent Program and this information is
being brought to the Council Xntation
so that bonding capacity can be reserved
for that purpose.
_.. Following Chief Angelo' s pras noted by Finance Director McCarthy
that the $950,000 amou/nt, had not been set as�d in Councilmanic capacity
presentations previ Gsly made to the Council . In he initial discussions of their
additional fund it was thought that some kind of un ' ue public/private
partnership ould be arranged such that the City's Cound �anic capacity would not
be aff ed. When later information showed that this could rl t be the case the
ad, tment in the Councilmanic capacity forecast was, inadvertant not adjusted.
14
✓ Appendix 1: Comparative Remodel
Kent City Council Chamber Remodel 8/28/87
Pre-Design Estimate
SCHEME 3
REVISED 2/8/88
1. Demolition, dais & bench 400 SF 1.20 $ 480.00
2. Demolition, fixed seating 156 LF 3.00 470.00
Subtotal: Demo $ 950.00
3. Stud wall 810 SF 2.75 $ 2,225.00
4. Counters 5 LF 185.00 925.00
5. Dais, podiumm, clerk, staff 39 LF 160.00 6,240.00
6. Dais, platform, steps 288 SF 2.25 650.00
7. Doors 4 EA 550.00 2,200.00
8. Ceilings 400 SF 1.35 540.00
9. Floor covering 210 SY 21.00 4,410.00
10. Fixed seats 26 EA 250.00 6,500.00
11. Acoustic background @ dais 216 SF . 5.50 1,190.00
12. Rear projector screen 1 EA 1500.00 1,500.00
13. Glazing 222 SF 14.00 3,110.00
14. Repair of surfaces LS 1,500.00
15. Painting 3000 SF .45 1,350.00 !
Subtotal: Finish $32,340.00
16. Changes to HVAC LS $ 1,500.00
17. Electrical & lighting 2400 SF 6.50 15,600.00
Subtotal: Mechanical $17,100.00
Total $50,390.00
Contractor 13% 6,550.00
Contingency 15% 7,560.00
Total $64,500.00
Council chairs 9 600.00 $ 5,400.00
. Conference chairs 18 275.00 $ 4,950.00
Conference tables 2 1600.00 $ 3,200.00
Stacking chairs 88 80.00 $ 7,040.00
Video Allowance $52,525.00
i
Audio Allowance $24,000.00
i
if
I
I
co
rl
I
zQ � Z
Q
y3 d
uj
Z
LU y
J
lop
Q
i
o00r n
.•x y
R E P O R T S
i
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT
B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Vy
i
D. PLANNING COMMITTEE
e
E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
F. PARKS COMMITTEE
G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
APRIL 12 , 1988
PRESENT: Jon Johnson Tim Heydon
Judy Woods Jim Hansen
Don Wickstrom Jack Spencer
Brent McFall Fred Satterstrom
Gary Gill Carol Proud
Sandra Driscoll Carol Thompson - Metro
Ken Morris
Surplus Equipment
Wickstrom reviewed the list of equipment to be declared surplus and
sold at auction. He added that the City of Snohomish is interested
in purchasing the vibratory roller. He requested the equipment be
offered for sale at state auction with the exception that the
vibratory roller be sold to the City of Snohomish at its appraised
value. The Committee concurred with the request.
Lead Mechanic
Wickstrom explained the position of Maintenance Supervisor in
Equipment Rental has been redefined to that of lead mechanic which
better meets the division's needs by putting more mechanics on the
floor. The Committee concurred with the redefinition.
LID 333 Traffic Signal 72nd and S. 180th Street
Wickstrom explained the process that has been taken in developing
the LID boundary. There have been several ' 'meetings with the
property owners. It appears the project is now acceptable to the
majority of the property owners within the project boundary. The
area is zoned industrial but there is one remaining single family
residence within the boundary. Johnson asked if the signal would
be interconnected with the one at 180th and WVH. Wickstrom
responded it would be interconnected with the City' s system. The
Committee approved proceeding with the creation of the LID.
Public Works Committee
April 12 , 1988
Page 2
LID 334 - Derbyshire *7 Sewers
Wickstrom explained some of the septic systems in the area have
failed and at least one resident has been evicted by the Health
Department. The property owners in the area have requested the LID
and almost all are supportive of the project. Wickstrom commented
that in conjunction with this project the City would be
participating with the replacement of an old water main in the area
and an overlay of the street . The Committee approved of
proceeding with the formation of the LID.
LID 297 - Meeker Street Improvements
Wickstrom reminded the Committee that when the LID was finalized it
was done so knowing there was an outstanding claim the amount of
which we did not know at the time. It now appears the claim will
be settled for approximately $75 , 000 . There are some funds
remaining in the project budget but will require an additional
$32, 000 to settle the claim. Wickstrom recommended that amount be
transferred from the unencumbered sewerage fund. The Committee
concurred with the request.
Clark Springs Building Improvements
Wickstrom explained that in reviewing the status of the project, it
was determined that some work. had been approved by the former
Operations Manager which would overrun the budget. It appears the
project fund is $47 , 000 short. Wickstrom recommended that amount
be transferred from the unencumbered water utility fund to cover
this overrun. The Committee concurred.
County Wide Road Funding
Wickstrom commented this is an informational item. Woods commented
that information had been received on this item under separate
cover as well. Wickstrom explained the County is looking at a
County wide bond issue . Involved in that , will be the
establishment of a board of elected officials from various
communities.
Public Works Committee
April 12 , 1988
Page 3
TSM (TMP) Ordinance
Morris distributed a memo to the Committee (copy attached)
detailing background information on the development of this
ordinance. Morris explained work has been taking place on the
development of the ordinance for about eight months. Since the
initial presentation to the Council, the ordinance has gone through
revision by the legal department and staff resulting in this
current format (copy attached) . Morris commented the requirements
of the ordinance should help in relieving traffic congestion.
Morris continued that the basic recommendation would be for the
Council to consider carpooling and transit useage as a method of
relieving the demand on the transportation system. Morris
commented further it is planned to present this version of the
ordinance if acceptable to the Committee to the Chamber of Commerce
and to VATA. Comments from those organizations will be brought
back to the Committee for further direction. Woods commented she
thought the present format was very positive. She suggested a copy
of the memorandum also be given to the other members of the
Council. Jim Hansen suggested also that some additional time could
be spent with those Council members who had expressed initial
strong concerns. McFall noted that in the process of the West
Valley Study this issue was addressed by the Planning Commission.
Hansen suggested also that a time line for review of the ordinance
be developed. Johnson suggested that was a good idea and Woods
added that the time line be sent to the Council members as well as
notification that the Public Works Committee considered it this
date and concurred that the process should continue.
Morris introduced Carol Thompson of Metro who has been very helpful
to the Task Force during the process of developing the ordinance.
Ms . Thompson complimented the effort that has been expended in
developing the ordinance. She commented that other jurisdictions
in the area are addressing this issue as well. She offered her
services for resource and support. Morris added that Metro has
been willing to assist with the monitoring and administrative work
required in the ordinance. Additionally, Metro has contributed
funds for bus pullouts on WVH.
Public Works Committee
April 12, .1988
Page 4
South King County Regional Water Association
Wickstrom commented that in conjunction with the development of the
Critical Water Supply Plan for the South King County area, a ground
water management study is being done and will eventually develop
proposed legislation on protection of the aquifers . Kent' s
comprehensive water plan is being updated for this and will be
presented to the Council soon. There are three subcommittees
working on the ground water management study one of which is the
Public Involvement Committee chaired by John Sawyer formerly of
Federal Way Water and Sewer District. This subcommittee has
developed a technical demonstration which they would like to
present in Kent. Tentative plans are to hold this in conjunction
with National Public Works Week on May 16.
Other Items
Woods requested some information on the Victoria Ridge project so
that she could respond to concerns of residents of Carriage Row.
There was a brief discussion regarding the activity with the
development and McFall indicated he would develop the information
for her.
k .
12-Apr-BB
MEMO
T0: Public Works Committee
FROM: Trarsportation Systems Management Task Force
RE: Transportation Management Program Ordinance
The Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Task Force
has developed a Transportation Management Program in
accordance with recommendations of the West Valley
Industrial Study. Due to the fact that the City Council
has placed a high priority on targeting transportation
problems within the City of Kent, we believe that this
issue is very important in helping to resolve the
problem of traffic congestion.
The following is a list of reasons why the Task Force
feels it is important to adopt a TMP program within the
City of Kent.
1 . The West Valley Industrial Study concluded that due
to increasing densities of. developments in the
industrial area, the City of Kent will experience
an increase in the amount of traffic generated from
these developments.
2. Approximately 900000 additional daily vehicle trips
will be added on the City of Kent Transportation
System based on the increased densities in the West
Valley area.
3. The additional trip generation due to increased
densities in the industrial area would result in
the need for two additional east/west corridors.
4. Due to funding limitations, it would be virtually
impossible to build two additional east/west
corridors in additional to the three east/west
corridors already planned.
5. Continued growth in the industrial areas will
adversely impact pea{: hour transportation capacity
of arterial streets and public highways as outlined
in the City of Kent Master Transportation Plan and
the West Valley Industrial Plan.
b. However, by encouraging ridesharing and transit
usage, the City of Kent will experience less
automobile demand thereby resulting in fewer
automobile emissions, reduction in automobile
accidents, reduction in automobile fuel consumption
and improvement ' of the overall safety for the
motoring public-'-'.;;:
12-Apr-BB
7. City staff would therefore recommend that the City
Council consider the usage of carpooling and
transit usage as a method of relieving the demand
on the transportation system now and in the future.
We would also ask for comments from the City
Council on the latest version of the Transportation
Management Plan Ordinance.
We would also recommend that this version of the
TMP Ordinance be presented to the Chamber of
Commerce and VATA if the current version is
acceptable to the City Council .
Once public input is received from the Chamber and
VATA, the TMP Ordinance will be brought back to the
Public Works Committee for further direction.
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
November 23 , 1987
MEMO TO: FRED SATTERSTROM
FROM: CAROL. PROUD`-Y
RE: TMP ORDINANCE PROJECT REVIEW
The attached chart includes all developments within the M1, Industrial
Park, M2, Limited Industrial, and M3 , General Industrial, zoning
districts that were reviewed 'in light of SEPA provisions in 1987 . The
following figures summarize the number and the extent projects would
be required to comply with the proposed TMP Ordinance.
1. Total number of 'projects reviewed = 27
2 , Number of projects required to
submit annual TMP report = 21
3. , Number of projects required to
post and distribute information
only = 8
4 . Number of projects required to
provide transportation coordinator
and financial incentives
5. Number of mixed-use projects = 10
6. Number of projects exempt from TMP = 5
The Ordinance requires transportation coordinator services based on
one FTE coordinator per 1, 000 employees. If a project were determined
to have 50 employees (the minimum requiring such services) then five
percent of a FTE coordinator would be required or two hours per week
of coordinator services.
The program targets an eventual reduction of employee peak hour trips
by 20 percent. Therefore the maximum amount an employer will be
required to provide financial incentives is $15 x 20 percent of the
total number of employees per month. In the 50 employees scenario the
maximum amount of financial incentives required annually would be
$1, 800.
tmpord.cp
cc: Hansen
1
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
APPLIED TO 1987 SEPA PROJECTS ,
No Post Distribute Transportation Preferential Financial
Protect Name V= StaSF R@suirements Information Information Co-Ordinator -Parkins Incentive
CPS Continental N/WH 140,330 X X X X X
KMD Incorporate M/WH 22,500 X X
Bisold Floor
Covering M.U. 21,894 X X X X X
Burger King RET 3,300 X
Anderson
Commercial
Center M.U. 48,000 X X X X X
Neumeier
Industrial
Park M/WH 23,500 X X
Boeing 7-59
Building M/WH 26,400 X X
Little Deli
Mart M.U. 11,800 X X
Hill Industrial
Park M.U. 62,670 X X X X X
Green River
Square , RET 270,000 X X X X
Fevre M/WH 14,490 X
Herbert/Bisold` M.V. 11,274 X X
Northward
Business Park M/WH 100,000 X X X X X
East Valley
Plaza H.V. 32,500 X X X X X
Light House
Mini-Storage _ 66,295 X.
Perk 234.. M.U. 250,000 X X X X X
KGM Addition M/WH 10,460 X
Van Doren's
Canter M.U. 250,000 X X X X X
.228th Mini-
Storage 34,900 X .
Exotic Metals 'M/WH 22,319 X X
Sound Warehouse H.U. 49,125 X X X X X
Turner i Pease
Company M/WH 22,500 X X -
Mill Creek
Dist. Center M/WH 216,000 X X X X X
Goodwin
Professional
Center M.U. 21,140 X X X X X
228th Building M/WH40,000 X X
Schafer
Development M/WH 125,985 X X X X X -
Dunn Building M.U. 11,970 X
P.O. - Professional/office
M/WH - Manufacturing/Warehouse
RET - Retail
M.U. - Mixed Use
carolfol -
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, .
Washington, establishing a Transportation
Management Program; and adding a new Chapter
12.15 to the Kent City Code.
WHEREAS, the City maintains a Transportation Management
_. System consisting of arterials, streets , highways, and boulevards,
public improvements, plans, and authorities to provide for and
regulate its System; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has placed a high priority on
transportation and targeted problems associated with
transportation in Resolution Nos. 1130, 1047, and 1158 calling for
recovery of public improvement costs and transportation capacity
losses associated with development inside and outside the City of
Kent; and
WHEREAS, on February 17, 1987, the Kent City Council
adopted Resolution No. 1128 amending the Comprehensive. Plan and
adopting the West Valley Industrial Plan which establishes a nexus
between industrial development in M1 , M2, and M3 Zoning Districts
and needed Transportation System improvements and programs ; and
WHEREAS, by such plans the City determines that continued
growth in M1 , M2, and M3 Zoning Districts adversely impacts peak
hour transportation capacity of affected arterials, streets,
„• public highways, and boulevards ; and
WHEREAS, the West Valley Industrial Plan identifies the
industrial employment centers as the generators of peak hour trips
and capacity loss to the City ' s Transportation Management System,
and provides for objectives to reduce traffic congestion in the
West Valley Industrial Area, including programs for ride sharing
and public transit use; and
WHEREAS, the Council recognized and adopted as a part of
its Transportation Management System, certain standards and
provisions of King County and Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Plans and requirements which do not otherwise expressly conflict
with the City' s transportation plans , policies, and authorities;
and
I
WHEREAS, through these plans the Council has established
a policy that the private sector should be encouraged and/or
required to develop employee related transportation programs, such
as ride sharing, transit use, and flex-time to reduce and avoid
Transportation Management System impacts in part serving to
mitigate the need for future public improvements and capacity
service levels; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance shall apply to new development
and improvements to existing structures for which the City grants
permits or land-use clearances are sought or for development which
is not otherwise subject to the Washington State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements; and
WHEREAS, the City of Kent, pursuant to KCC Chapter
12.12A, provides for policies and plans as supplemental
substantive environmental authorities pursuant to SEPA to provide
for the public health, safety, and welfare; and
WHEREAS, it is also the desire of the Kent City Council
to incorporate the provisions of this Ordinance as an enforceable
environmental policy for purposes of Chapter 43.21C RCW and
KCC 12.12A; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 . A new Section 12.15 is added to the Kent City
Code as follows:
12.15. TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
12.15.010. Impacts to Transportation Management
System The Council finds that continued economic growth and
development and new employment opportunities in the City of Kent,
including development on the valley floor in designated M1 , M2 and
M3 Zoning Districts adversely affects the City Transportation -
Management System including peak hour transportation capacity of
the City's system. Such impacts occur in use of arterials,
streets, public highways and boulevards as detailed in Kent's
West Valley Industrial Plan, the City of Kent's Comprehensive
Plan, Master Transportation Plan and other City adopted
transportation policies and plans . The Council finds that through
such plans and policies that Zoning Districts other than Ml , M2,
- 2 -
,;3
i
and M3 do not produce the same level of adverse system impacts
caused by development and growth in the City as do Ml , M2, and M3
zones. Other Zoning Districts and the impact of new development
in such Districts upon peak hour system capacity are under study
and may be covered by amendments to this Ordinance at a later
time. The Council further finds that new industrial developments,
including existing structures seeking improvements , requiring City
permits or land-use clearances will attract new employees within
Ml , M2 and M3 zoning districts unlike other zoning districts.
These employees will generate significant single occupancy vehicle
trips thereby contributing to traffic congestion, air pollution
and energy consumption among other things. Mitigation measures
and provisions of this Ordinance will alleviate in part the loss
of peak hour system capacity and acceptable levels of service to
the City's Transportation Management System. Public transit, ride
sharing, commuter pool , and "flex time" employer programs as
developed by the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) and
other cities are relatively simple, inexpensive, and effective
means for reducing peak hour single occupancy vehicle trips which
have been identified as the principal cause of traffic congestion,
loss of peak hour transportation capacity, and need for presently
- planned and future transportation infrastructure improvements.
Developers, either as landowners and/or employers, have a
responsibility to reduce the number of employee SOV peak hour
trips, extend the life of the City's Transportation Management
System, and help restore lost capacity to the City's
Transportation Management System caused by their development. The
requirements of this Chapter are supplemental to and not in lieu
of public improvement requirements provided under Kent City Code
Chapter 4.14 and Kent City Code Titles 12, 13, 14, and 15.
12.15.020 Purpose and Goals.
1 . The purpose of this Ordinance is to:
a, reduce peak hour traffic congestion and lost
transportation system capacity caused by anticipated and actual
growth and development through the reduction of the number of
., single occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips associated with new
development in Ml , M2, and M3 zoning districts, including
improvements to existing structures requiring City permits;
b, mitigate adverse traffic impacts associated
with increased SOV trips and traffic congestion by requiring all
3 _
new industrial development and existing development to the extent
improvements or expansion is sought to be responsible for
providing facilities and incentives to their employees or tenants
to encourage greater participation in ride sharing, transit
(public and private transportation providers) , "flex time" , and
other employee-related programs Large developments will be
expected to accomplish a higher percentage SOV reduction than
small developments; and
c. protect the public 's health, safety,
welfare and the environment and to lower public sector and social
costs associated with traffic congestion by providing for the
establishment and maintenance of sound planning and
decision-making practices for carrying out a range of
Transportation System Management actions and incentives.
d. mitigate impacts upon specific City
Transportation Management System protects and elements that are
the direct result of proposed development which the City has
identified in its Comprehensive Plan Master Transportation Plan,
and West Valley Industrial Plan relating to transportation impacts
as a consequence of industrial development in MI , M2, and M3
Zoning Districts whether or not such consequences or direct
impacts are identified in an environmental document prepared under
the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21C.
2. The provisions of this Ordinance applies
directly to new and existing development as is permitted by law;
and, further it is incorporated into environmental policies for
purposes of RCW 43.21C.060 and RCW 43.21C.120;_ and KCC
12.12A.510.D.3. , as enforceable environmental policies, plans, and
regulations in the mitigation of adverse environmental impacts to
the built and the natural environment. Enforcement of such
policies plans and regulations shall include_ mitigation of such
impacts through conditioning and denial of permit applications in
the City's land-use and decision-making process. It is the
further intent of the Council that the requirements of this
Chapter shall be imposed upon real property subject to this
property and shall bind any and all successors in interest,
assigns, transferees, and heirs as a duly recorded and interest in
real property that shall run with the land as enforceable
covenants.
- 4 -
i
f
. f
j
3. This ordinance incorporates by reference the
City's Comprehensive Plan, Master Transportation Plan, West Valley
Industrial Area Plan and other related transportation policies,
codes, plans, and resolutions contained in KCC 12.12A. This
Ordinance shall not be interpreted or construed as creating or
authorizing the provisions of this Ordinance to constitute the
sole or exclusive means for mitigating adverse traffic and
transportation impacts within or affecting the City of Kent or be
treated as sole or exclusive mitigative measures in lieu of those
required under KCC Chapter 4.14 or other code provisions related
to public improvements. The goals of this Program is to
ultimately increase ride sharing and public transit share of
employee work trips in the City's industrial area to ten
(10) percent within one year, fifteen (15) percent within two
years, and of twenty (20) percent within three years.
12.15.030. Definitions.
"Applicant" for purposes of this Ordinance means a person
submitting an application for a permit or other City approval
-_.• ` ,' which requires preparation of a Transportation Management Program
under this Chapter. This term includes persons and individuals,
firms, associations, organizations, partnerships, trusts,
companies, and corporations, including developers, employers,
owners, lessors, and lessees of real property affected by the
requirements of this Chapter seeking City permits or clearances
for development in the City.
"Developer" means an applicant proposing to develop land
within applicable M1 , M2, and M3 zoning districts upon which new
structural development is proposed, including improvements of
existing structures and which require a City permit or other
approval , and includes the responsible owner, employer, lessor, or
lessee of real property subject to this Ordinance and any
subsequent successors, assigns, heirs or transferees.
,. "Development" means the proposed development siting,
construction, or occupancy of real property, including
improvements to existing property by application to the City
involving lands located within Ml , M2 and M3 zoning districts in
the City of Kent likely to generate related peak hour trips by
single occupancy vehicles (SOVs) within the City's Transportation
- Management System.
5
"Director" means the Director of the Kent Planning
Department or his or her designate.
"Employees" means all new on-site workers in buildings
subject to requirements of this Chapter, including but not limited
to management employees officers and executives_, full and
part-time independent contractors and agents if present on-site.
"Employer" means the responsible owner and developer of
property, and includes lessors and lessees of property who
exercise management control of employees on the site.
"METRO" means the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle.
"Transportation Management Plan" means a series of
programmatic developer actions, including but not limited to
appointment of an Employee Transportation Coordinator, transit
pass subsidy, preferential parking for high occupancy vehicles
(HOVs) and operation of a company sponsored vanpool fleet and
other services provided by public and private transportation
providers designed to preserve access to a development or
improvement while reducing the number of single occupancy vehicles
(SOVs) to the development.
"Transportation Management Program" means is a low-cost
project that can be implemented by developers within a short
period of time Such programs are designed to increase the
efficiency of existing transportation facilities and to minimize
the impact of development upon the City's peak hour transportation
capacity as set out in the regulations implementing this ordinance.
"Transportation Management System means the City of
Kent's arterials streets boulevards highways and right-of-ways
as may be designated in City Ordinances and in City plans under
KCC 12 12A including but not limited to transportation policies,
plans laws, agreements operating equipment and lighting.
12.15.040. Applicability.
1 . Coverage. The Council finds that development of
new and existing structures as defined below within M1 , M2, and M3
Zoning Districts at levels established in Table A of this
Ordinance will have a direct and indirect adverse affect and
result in identifiable impacts to specific Transportation
Management System projects and elements as a consequence of such
development, whether or not such consequences or direct or
indirect impacts are identified in subsequent environmental
documents prepared in concert with an application for a City_
i
- 6 -
� �jxt} ,fU� y ,•:
;1
permit or land-use clearance, as identified in the City's
Comprehensive Plan Master Transportation Plan, and West Valley
Industrial Plan. The Council further finds that it is the intent
of this Ordinance that developments subject to the State
Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21C, are responsible for
mitigating specific and adverse environmental impacts identified
in an environmental document submitted or prepared for the
proposed development.
2. New Structures . Developers of real property
within Ml , M2, and M3 Zoning Districts designated by the Kent
Zoning Code and Table A in which new structural development or
improvements are submitted for City permits or approvals shall ,
prior to any initial occupancy of any building, establish a
Transportation Management Program relating to mitigating
transportation impacts in accordance with the provisions of this
Ordinance.
3. Existing Structures . Existing structures are
not subject to the requirements of this Chapter; Provided,
however, that an improvement identified in Table A requiring a
City permit or land-use decision is subject to the provisions of
this Ordinance upon a determination by the Director that such
improvement is likely to result in increased employment which is
capable of generating additional peak hour SOY trips to the City' s
Transportation Management System. Provided further, that if new
structural development is proposed on a site on which there are
existing structures, the Director may require that the entire
development and site be made subject to the requirements of this
Chapter unless an alternative program is approved by the Director
under this Chapter.
12.15.050. Submittal Requirements.
A. The Director of Planning shall specify the
submittal requirements, including type, detail , format,
methodology, and number of copies, for an application subject to
this Chapter to be deemed timely and complete and accepted for
filing.
B. The Director of Planning may waive in whole and
in part specific submittal requirements determined to be
unnecessary for review of an application and shall establish
criteria for such waiver.
7 -
}
f
(}y
� I{
12.15.060. Transportation Management Program
Requirements.
A. .Applicable Requirements. The developer of any
proposed development or improvement subject to the requirements of
this Chapter identified in Table A shall submit a proposed
Transportation Management Program to the Director. ln accordance
with regulations promulgated by the Director.
B. The Director, in consultation with City
Departments and METRO, is authorized to develop implementation
regulations consistent with Table A and this Ordinance setting
forth developer Program and Plan requirements. Upon development;
regulation shall be submitted to the Council for review. Said
regulation shall then be filed with the City Clerk. The
regulation may be amended as deemed necessary by the Director.
Such amendment shall be presented to the Council for review and
filed with the City Clerk. The implementation regulations, at a
minimum set forth requirements and procedures for the program;
including information posting and distribution requirements;
provision of a transportation coordinator, preferential parking
and financial incentives, such as employee incentive programs; and
procedures for informing developers of these requirements.
12.15.090 Enforcement
A. Failure to Submit or Implement Transportation
Management Plans. Any developer who fails to comply with the
provisions of this Ordinance and implementing regulations shall
after thirty (30) days notice from the Director to remedy the
failure be guilty of a criminal infraction. The fine shall be an
amount not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100) for the first
infraction, an amount not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200) for
a second infraction and an amount not exceeding five hundred
dollars ($500) for third and subsequent infractions in any
calendar year. Each and every. day of non-compliance with this
Chapter shall constitute a separate violation of this Chapter.
B. In addition to the remedies provided for in this
section, the City is permitted to pursue other legal remedies,
including but not limited to enforcement of property covenants
running with said property, and revocation proceedings for permits
and approvals issued by the City for such developments or
improvements.
8 _
j,
I �
12 .15.120. Recording . Prior to the issuance of a
building permit or of any development approvals by the City,
developers of property subject to this Section shall record an
agreement between the City and the property owner with King County
- Division of Records and Elections and with the Kent City Clerk
that requires compliance with this Chapter by the developer. Such
agreement shall constitute a binding covenant to run with the land
and shall pass to future developers, including successors in
interest assigns transferees, purchasers , and heirs .
12 .15 . 130. Appeals. Any decision made pursuant to this
Chapter which is part of an approval identified in Title 12, 13,
14 and 15 of the Kent City Code may be appealed in accordance
with the same procedures for appeal available on the underlying
approval . If. a decision made pursuant to this Chapter is not a
part of an approval subject to a Kent City Code appeal , then such
decisions shall be appealable pursuant to the provisions of this
Chapter and implementing regulations .
12.15.140 , Transportation Management Program
Requirements. For purposes of this Chapter, Table A prescribes
the levels of developments and improvements subject to the
above-described requirements for Transportation Program compliance.
Table A.
Ml , an h13
TRANSPORTATION 11 RAM REQUIREMENTS
(gsf = gross square feet
Program Professional Light
equirement ervices : Industry: Retail/Mixed
0 fT ice Nigh I t n g7 RetaiT7Mixed Uses
ecTi—n_oT ogy ssem 5 ly opping Centers CT-F—
110 Less than Less than Less than
'Requirements SNU-gam- U gsf 3-0,nz gsf (3)
Post 5000 20,000 30,000
n ormation gsf-and gsf and gs and (3)
over over over )
Distribute 5000 20,000
n orma ion gsT-and gst and (2) (3)
over over
Provide 12,000 50,000
ranspor- gs7 and gs and N/A (3)
tonation over over
oor 1nator
- 9 -
Provide 12,000 50,000 70,000 (3)
re eren- gs and gs and gs-'—and
is ar ing over over over )
Provide 12,000 50,000
financial �s and 9sTand N/A 3)
ncen five over over
Section 2. Section 12.12A.510D.3. is amended as follows:
3. The City adopts by reference the policies in the
following City codes, ordinances, and resolutions(( : ) ) now and as
hereafter amended:
a. Kent Citywide Comprehensive Plan (Resolution
817) , and its specific components, including, but not limited to
the East Hill Plan (Resolution 972) . the West Hill Plan
(Resolution 1016) , the Kent Central Business District Plan
(Resolution 764) and the Valley Floor Comprehensive Plan
(Resolution 873 and 924) , as amended.
b. Shoreline Master Program (Resolution 907).
c. City of Kent Surface Water and Drainage Code
(KCC 12.14) .
d. Electrical or Communications Facilities -
Underground Requirements (KCC 7 .10 ) .
e. Transportation Master Plan (Resolution 1014) .
f. Wastewater Facilities Master Plan (KCC 7.12) .
g. Comprehensive Water Plan (Ordinances 2369
and 2329) .
h. Construction Standards for Public Works (KCC
4.04) .
i . Street Use Permit Requirements (KCC 4.07 ).
j . Flood Hazard Protection (KCC 14.22) .
k. Kent Subdivision Code (KCC 12.04 ).
1 . Kent Mobile Home Park Code (KCC 12.08 ) .
M. Valley Studies (as adopted in Resolutions
920, 921 , 922 , 923, ( (and) ) 924( ( ) . ) ) , and 1128.
n. Noise Control (KCC 9.20).
o. State Building Code, together with the local
implementing ordinances (KCC Title 14 ) .
p. State Fire Code, together with the local
implementing ordinances (KCC Title 13 ) .
q. Kent Zoning Code (KCC Title 15 ).
r. Recreational Vehicle Park Code (KCC 12.06 ).
- 10 -
s. Water Shortage Emergency Regulations (KCC
9.24) .
t. Kent Comprehensive Park & Recreation System
Plan (KCC 4.10 & KCC 4.12 ) .
u. Kent Public Improvements Ordinance (KCC 4.14
& KCC 4.18) .
V. Storm Drainage Utility (KCC 7.20).
W. Storm Drainage Policies (Resolutions 920 and
937 ).
x. Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan
(Resolution ( (1020)( . ) ) 1135.
y. Comprehensive Sewerage Plan (Resolution 915 ).
Z. Fire Master Plan (Ordinance 2511 ) (0.2494,
0.2511 , 33; 0.2547, §4 ) .
Section 4. Effective Date . This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force ninety (90) days from and after its
passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PASSED the day of , 1988.
APPROVED the day of 1988.
PUBLISHED the day of 1988.
- 11 -
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance
No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent,
Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon
indicated.
(SEAL)
5490-180
12
MARIE JENSEN
CITY CLERK
KENT CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE
_... April 19, 1988 3 : 30 PM
Council Members Present Others Present
Judy Woods, Chair Anne Biteman
Steve Dowell Larry K. Frazier
Lowell A. Hall
City Administrator David Hyde
Michael Ledbetter
J. Brent McFall Dee Moschel
_. Leona Orr
Staff Present Colin Quinn
Susan Rae Sampson
Charlene Anderson T. M. Sharp
Jim Harris Michael Spence
Fred Satterstrom Carol Stoner
Dan Stroh Pam Studeman
Laurie Sundstedt
Mary H. Williams
20% MULTIFAMILY DENSITY REDUCTION
Chairwoman Woods stated the purpose of the meeting, added that the
Planning Committee would take no action at this time, and asked for
public comment.
Lauri Sundstedt, 24805 - 114th Avenue SE, Kent supported the 20%
reduction in multifamily density. If apartment complexes all over the
City have signs indicating "Now Renting, " it means there are currently
too many apartments in Kent.
Tom Sharp, 11126 SE 256th, Kent suggested there is an elitist attitude
prevailing about apartment dwellers; the single family homeowner says
"I have mine and we are going to keep you out. " Mr. Sharp is a small
developer and stated people in his apartments could afford a single
family home but for various reasons have chosen to reside in a
multifamily dwelling unit. Mr. Sharp stated that if the City's
intention is to reduce densities, then single family districts also
should be subject to the reduction, for example by increasing lot size
requirements. The 20% reduction in units per acre will increase
apartment prices and essentially lower value; it represents an economic
burden. Mr. Sharp believes developers must be the ones to protect the
interests of apartment dwellers since most of them cannot or do not
vote. Mr. Sharp does not understand where the attitude comes from that
apartments are bad. People will choose to live either in single family
or in multifamily residences. It appears to him that the City is
getting its way by shutting the door.
Leona Orr, 24909 - 114th Avenue SE, Kent stated the request for a 20%
reduction in multifamily density came about from a Town Hall meeting
City Council Planning Committee
Minutes of Meeting of April 19 . 1988
about a year-and-a-half ago. There was congestion in Kent that the
streets couldn't handle, the schools couldn't handle, and the Fire and
Police Department need additional staff to handle. With an imbalance
of 60% multifamily in the City, reduction must begin somewhere. Ms.
Orr added that at one of the Planning Commission hearings on this
issue, it was stated that there was a survey done which indicated that
there were not enough jobs in Kent available to fill housing, meaning
many people living in Kent do not work here. Developers are not now
building to maximum density so the 20% reduction shouldn't make a
difference. Ms. Orr supports the 20% reduction in multifamily density
at least until the City can catch up with services required.
Mike Spence, Governmental Affairs Director, Seattle King County Board
of Realtors, 2810 Eastlake Avenue East, Seattle 98102 stated that
wherever he goes he sees people downzoning, i.e. , Bear Creek, Soos
Creek, Enumclaw. With King County predicting 500, 000 more people by
the year 2000, Kent should be planning to accommodate the influx within
their own city limits rather than pushing people to outlying areas and
have them travel through the area anyway. With 500, 000 additional
people in the area, supply and demand will get out of whack. He
suggests creatively solving the traffic problems. Housing
affordability will be an issue with the 20% reduction. He added that
the "Now Renting" signs are seasonal and the Cain & Scott vacancy
reports show vacancy rates are under 3%. In the near future, aesthetic
problems might arise, but in the long term multifamily building is
reasonable. He requested that rather than an across-the-board 20%
reduction in multifamily density, there might be reason to require the
reduction in some areas only.
Lowell Hall, 22823 - 134th Avenue SE, Kent 98042 is a real estate
broker that has lived in the area since 1968 . He has watched influx
and outflow and Kent is presently once again experiencing an influx.
He is concerned about his grandchildren being able to afford housing
and questions whether the City is looking far enough ahead in
considering the 20% reduction. The 20% reduction takes 20% of the
value of a property out of the owner' s pocket because the developer
will deduct that amount when purchasing the property; the $70, 000 for
the developer's mitigation fees was deducted from Mr. Hall when he
recently sold his property. There are financial considerations here
and owners and builders are risking more and more whenever they pay
more and get less. Housing payments today are terribly high and a 20%
reduction in multifamily density will force apartment costs to be high
also. If costs become too high, developers will stop building housing.
Traffic congestion is a problem on East Hill but we are facing these
problems. Developers are paying fees to mitigate the traffic problems.
He knows Americans can buckle down, meet a problem and solve it. There
has been a logical zoning setup in the City which works. He applauds
the multifamily design changes that recently passed and believes they
will help looks and visibility in multifamily areas.
2
City Council Planning Committee
Minutes of Meeting of April 19 . 1988
Mary H. Williams, 25331 - 68th Avenue South, Kent 98032 supports the
20% reduction. She considers Kent a valley; there is very little here,
not much for children to do. Quality of life is what she thinks about.
People can't get to libraries. She advocates more small homes with a
bit of ground for growing vegetables. She doesn't want to cover the
soil with concrete and blacktop. Multifamily areas will be slum areas
in years because apartment dwellers move out. She is aware how costly
things are and how tough it is but she wants more single family.
David Hyde, 10625 SE 281 Street, Kent 98031 stated the Puget Sound
area is the ninth most active area in the country for residential real
estate; commercial is even higher. With a half million people
projected to move into the area by the year 2000, housing will be a
problem. Multifamily density reduction would not be an advantageous
solution. Mr. Hyde wants more work done to alleviate traffic
congestion by building additional roads; east/west corridors are now
being researched. A price increase will occur as a result of the 20%
reduction. Reduction in specific areas only might be a better solution
than an across-the-board reduction.
Colin Quinn, 3025 - 112th Avenue NE, Bellevue represents Centron, the
largest multifamily builder in the Pacific Northwest. The Lakes is one
of the company' s chief developments. Mr. Quinn paraphrased a March 31,
1988 letter he had written to the Mayor and City Council. The Lakes is
exempt from the 20% reduction because .a Master Plan for the project has
been approved by the City. Mr. Quinn stated the 20% reduction is a
political solution to be problem rather than a planning solution. What
started the process was a series of town meetings where people in
neighborhoods felt their lifestyle was being affected by multifamily
units. These people do have concerns and the City has an obligation to
fulfill the neighborhood dreams, but an across-the-board reduction will
not solve the issue of impact to neighborhoods. The ratio of single
family to multifamily is a hot issue and one doesn't often hear the
argument that this is a positive indication that the community is
thriving and changing with the times. The City has done a good job of
allowing . a large number of multifamily units to meet the demand. To
meet the requirements for housing, one needs to be sensitive to demand,
changing socioeconomic patterns occurring throughout America. Single
parents, empty nesters, senior citizens are choosing multifamily
dwellings. Patterns and lifestyles are changing. People are moving
approximately once every seven years so home equity is not an issue;
single family home purchases might not be advantageous given this
mobility. Mr. Quinn philosophically opposes governmental interference
in market forces affecting people' s choices and lifestyles. A 20%
reduction in multifamily density will not provide a balance of
opportunities , will foreclose a viable housing opportunity,
discriminate against a class in the City desiring to live in
multifamily dwelling units, and interfere with socioeconomic patterns.
3
City Council Planning Committee
Minutes of Meeting of April 19 . 1988
A 20% reduction will not be in the best interests of the public welfare
and safety. It has been his experience, and statistics show, that
multifamily developments are a more effective use of the land, water,
sewer, and represent a better return for dollars spent on
infrastructure. Trips generated and students generated, as well as
service needs are less with multifamily than with single family. At a
recent PSCOG symposium, it was stated that the solution to traffic
problems is putting people where jobs are, not building more streets,
etc. The employment base in the City is in warehousing and
manufacturing. For each executive there are six support people renting
apartments. By foreclosing the opportunity of multifamily near an
expanded job base, people will have further to travel to work and this
will cause additional trip generation, clogged arterials. METRO will
provide service when densities have increased; this METRO service is a
key to solving traffic problems. Vacancy signs at apartment buildings
do not mean apartment buildings are empty; there is a 98% occupancy
rate in the area. Demand is here. Banks wouldn't be lending money for
building unless they were convinced there was demand and it was a good
investment. Developers need to speak for those multifamily people who
haven't yet arrived; they need affordable housing or they will be
forced to live elsewhere. His letter states the 20% reduction in
multifamily density is a generic solution to a complex problem; Kent
deserves better than a generic solution. Information generated in the
"Red Book" is working its way through the system. The 20% reduction is
so broad it misses the point of protecting single family neighborhoods.
The reduction should be only in areas which are affected by the
problem. If there are too many people in the area, then the City
should look at reducing both single family and multifamily. In
response to the comment regarding builders not building to maximum
density anyway so who cares, property owners care. The 20% reduction
reduces property values. Developers care because with less land to
work with, it becomes difficult to build projects the way they should
be built. The Lakes can create amenities because there's lots of space
with which to work. In response to Chairwoman Woods, Mr. Quinn
suggested that a good EIS would be a source of information regarding
number of students generated from a multifamily development. He stated
multifamily student generation is approximately .3 students per unit;
single family "is double that. Mr. Quinn stated families don't live in
apartments. Apartments have single parents, empty nesters, senior
citizens, Yuppies with no children, etc.
Anne Biteman, 24324 Military Road, Kent 98032 has been a property
owner since 1960 and has deep concerns about apartments. She is a
school nurse and sees low cost housing with 4 , 5, and 6 children in an
apartment. She agrees that in expensive apartments one might not find
many children. She stated the Planning Commission mandate from the
City Council was to reduce multifamily; many developers did not vent
their concerns at the Planning Commission public hearings. The
Planning Commission worked six months on the reduction issue and their
4
City Council Planning Committee
Minutes of Meeting of April 19, 1988
work is for nothing if all builders have to do is go to the City
Council. Not many citizens attended the hearings either. The .majority
of speakers at the hearings were builders from outside the City and
their good points were taken into consideration when drafting the
Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Biteman
stated that personally it bothers her that builders who live outside
the City voice their objections to a 20% reduction of multifamily
density within the City of Kent.
Pam Studeman, 521 S 2nd, Kent 98032 stated her concern is not a
reduction of multifamily density but a reworking of the zoning laws,
perhaps placing emphasis on preserving downtown neighborhoods. An
across-the-board reduction is rather arbitrary. Ms. Studeman is
sympathetic to developers who want to get more profit out of the land
but there has to be some quality control and respect for people who
want to keep single family neighborhoods. The downtown neighborhoods
of old and nice homes are slowly being eaten up. These houses have a
history and charm that should be preserved. Ms. Studeman is referring
to the South of Willis area. The area has industry on each side of it
and railroad tracks. She added that there is a place for apartments
but admitted that since she has purchased her home, she is more
concerned about quality of life and of her surroundings than she was
when she lived in an apartment. Further, those building apartments in
the downtown neighborhoods should be required to take responsibility
for the area, e.g. , storm drainage, sidewalks, road improvements. The
City should consider changing some of the downtown neighborhoods into
single family zoning so that the City can catch up with the decay and
wear and tear that has occurred.
Larry Frazier, Seattle Master Builders Association, 2155 - 112th Avenue
NE, Bellevue, WA stated he has written all kinds of correspondence to
the Planning Commission, City Council and Planning Committee. He
reminded those present that condominiums and townhouses are also part
of the density issue, and those structures represent homeowners not
renters. Mr. Frazier stated the Planning Commission had a political
solution to the City Council 's request for a 20% reduction. Staff
provided information that was requested. The multifamily development
standards and the 20% reduction issues should have been one issue and
instead were split into two parts for consideration. Reduction already
started with the multifamily development standards. Although Mr.
Frazier gave the Planning Commission material that showed the 20%
reduction would cause problems, he did not see that material
incorporated into the ordinance recommended to the City Council. Mr.
Frazier added that perhaps the Planning Commission should have been
given more direction from the City Council. Mr. Frazier stated that
multifamily density does not contribute to the many problems Kent has.
For years, the City has by its comprehensive plan mandated where
multifamily, commercial, transportation network, etc. will be and the
policy provides a focus on multifamily development. The zoning
5
City Council Planning Committee
Minutes of Meeting of April 19 , 1988
ordinance implements that. People have purchased property based on
that direction. The traffic is caused by everyone, including those
passing through the City, not just by multifamily development. The
entire comprehensive plan needs to be updated to look at all areas not
just multifamily density and to consider industrial and commercial
development, creation of jobs, spinoffs and traffic. A review of the
comprehensive plan might show that multifamily density needs to be
reduced in some areas; it might also show a need to reduce in
commercial and industrial. Multifamily creates less traffic generation
than single family. The City needs to prove that multifamily
development is the cause of traffic problems; the taking issue is
involved especially since the City for years has promoted multifamily
development. Further, developers have the right to make a living in
this area whether they live in Kent or not. People's attitudes toward
single family home ownership is changing. More people are going to be
housed in multifamily based among other things on pure economics. Mr.
Frazier has the job of keeping housing costs low and he discussed
increasing costs. He stated it was poor planning to do an across-the-
board reduction; the City needs to specify areas. The City needs to
analyze the problems and come up with a better solution. There was
some discussion and clarification on the statement made about builders
who live inside or outside of the City of Kent.
Carol Stoner, 19708 - 121st Avenue SE, Renton, represented the Planning
Commission. She stated there was citizen concern about multifamily
development; that concern was expressed at the Town Hall meeting in.
which the citizens asked the City Council to come up with a political
solution to impacts of growth; who pays for impacts of growth. The
City Council ' s job is to manage growth. The speakers at the hearings
did not say don't grow but the City needs to make a decision that
allows management of that growth so that it can accommodate impacts in
a reasonable fashion. Perhaps rather than comparing trips and students
per unit, one needs to compare trips and students per acre. Impacts of
zoning land can be measured by impacts per acre. There were not many
citizens at the hearings on this issue because the citizens spoke at
the Town Hall meeting. They saw the City Council respond and saw the
process move forward and the citizens felt the issue was being handled.
One of the reasons the Planning Commission recommended a 20% reduction
is because it is equitable; everyone has to bite the bullet as property
owners and whatever. The 20% reduction in multifamily density is one
way to manage growth.
Chairwoman Woods ended public discussion for this meeting. She
provided an example of a recent Council action which lessened density
in single family zones even further than what was recommended.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 4 :50 PM.
6