The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 04/05/1988 City of Kent City Council Meeting - Agenda s - ems' 1 . CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Council Chambers City of Kent April 5, 1988 •• Office of the City Clerk 7 :00 p.m. cT 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. PUB IC COMMUNICATIONS (la-th of Off ice-- i lice Oftic6rs Employee of the Month 2� Proclamation - National Community Development Week ,,Br. Proclamation - Spring Rally cleanup 2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS Goodwin Professional Center Appeal a-- 1989 Community Development Local Program Policies 3 . CO ENT CALENDAR Minutes �! Bills _e ' Interlocal Agreement with County for Animal Control -D. Police/Fire Training Center Resolution - -E. Surplus Property - Resolution 1424 Investments Rezone - Ordinance Trans-Canada Enterprises - Ordinance: " '�R' Surplus Property - 102nd Ave SE and SE 240th -Bill of Sale - Kent Precision Grinding d Bill of Sale - Centerpointe Bill of Sale - Stonecreek Apartments Bill of Sale - Ahamay Estates 1985 Block Grant Fund Transfer Amendment to WCIA - Resolution I'A 0 Golf Course Financing !. Riverbend Golf Course Well Drilling Project �Q! Rail Study - Resolution 4 . OTH�FR BUSINESS �F�� _ United Truck Lines Rezone RZ-87-4 1989 Community Development Block Grant Funds 5 . BIDS E. Smith Street/E. Walnut Street Storm Drainage / Improvements -B. Fourth Avenue Traffic Signal Modifications Riverbend Golf Course Support Structures 6 . REPORTS CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time, make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly heard. A. Oath of Office for new Police Officers B. Employee of the Month 1 � C. Proclamation - National Community Development Week D. Proclamation - Spring Rally Cleanup r` y ,Uri Y (�. Kent City Council Meeting Date April 5, 1988 U Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: APPEAL - GOODWIN PROFESSIONAL CENTER NO. CE-87-5 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THAT THIS HEARING BE POSTPONED TO THE APRIL 19TH MEETING- 3 . EXHIBITS : 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc . ) denial 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ n/a SOURCE OF FUNDS : OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT: CLOSE HEARING: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves , Councilmember seconds to postpone this hearing to April 19 . 1988 DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 2A w ............ . a� P Kent City Council Meeting y nh Date April 5 1988 Category_ Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: 1989 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOCAL PROGRAM POLICIES 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: It is necessary to readopt Kent ' s CDBG Program Policies each year . The attached draft of Kent ' s 1989 Community Development Local Program Policies is a description of the local strategies for the use of CDBG funds . The 1989 program policies are similar to the 1988 policy document . 1989 estimated funds for the City of Kent are $165, 354 . After adoption by the Council the policies will be forwarded to the King County Planning and Community Development Division and incorporated into the 1988 King County Community Development Block Grant Consortium Policy Plan. 3 . EXHIBITS: draft policies 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Human Services Committee City Council Planning Committee Staff ,.. (Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc . ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ n/a SOURCE OF FUNDS: OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT: CLOSE HEARING: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves , Councilmember seconds to approve the 1989 Community Development Local Program Policies as recommended DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 2B KENT'S 1989 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOCAL PROGRAM POLICIES I. INTRODUCTION Kent' s 1989 Local Program Policies summarize the city's housing and community development needs, with emphasis on Kent's Neighborhood Strategy Area. These policies set forth city priorities for use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Kent receives federal CDBG funds through a county-wide consortium, and these Local Policies are a part of the 1989 King County Consortium Policy Plan. II . BACKGROUND Existing predominately as an agricultural area for many years, the City of Kent, incorporated in 1890, today is rapidly acquiring the urban character of many Puget Sound communities. Originally a market center and rail terminus for the agricultural Green River Valley, in post-war years Kent has become a focus of industrial and retail activity in the southern Puget Sound region. Today the city occupies roughly eighteen square miles, with a population of approximately 31, 000. An estimated 30% are 19 years or younger, and 15% are seniors (55 years and older) . Some 40% of residents are estimated to be of low and moderate income. Much of the city' s lower income population is concentrated in and around the original townsite, which includes the Central Business District. III. NEEDS ASSESSMENT As noted above, a concentration of Kent' s low- and moderate-income population resides in the older portion of the city, which includes four neighborhoods: North Park, South of Willis, Lower East Hill, and the Central Business District. Kent has designated this area as the City ' s Neighborhood Strategy Area. The city allocates the predominant share of CDBG funds for housing and capital improvement projects to this area of concentrated need. Over 3 , 200 persons reside within this 525-acre Strategy Area. The majority of these residents are of low and moderate income; 23% are senior citizens; 27% are youth. City housing values are lowest in this area, and the need for housing and other physical improvements is substantial. A 1987 survey of housing conditions in the Strategy Area indicated major deterioration in 7 . 5% of the housing, and moderate deterioration in another 20% of the housing. An earlier economic study showed the need for substantial physical improvements in the Central Business District if the area is to maintain its current 6% share of regional retail sales. The primary purpose of Kent' s Community Development Block Grant Program is to addYess the needs of the city' s low- and moderate- 1 income residents and to follow the related goals, objectives and policies of the Kent Comprehensive Plan. These include needs for housing and other physical improvements, as well as needs for critical human services, such as adequate health care. Funds may also be used to carry out the federal objective of alleviating slums and blight within the Neighborhood Strategy Area described above. Under this broad framework, specific needs include improved access to essential human services, continued housing repair services, improved pedestrian walkways, parks and other public facilities, and opportunities for revitalization of the downtown area, to promote jobs and economic growth. IV. PROJECT CATEGORIES AND POLICIES Following is a description of categories of projects that will, be emphasized and encouraged for funding consideration through Kent's 1989 Community Development Block Grant program. Housing Projects will be encouraged which lead toward preservation or expansion of housing occupied by low- and moderate-income residents of Kent, with priority given to the Neighborhood Strategy Area. While the city' s current Housing Repair Program should be continued, new methods of meeting housing needs may also be considered. Public (Human) Services Projects should provide essential public services to low- and moderate-income persons . These may include health care, counseling and therapy, and other services that meet demonstrated needs. Streets Walkways Architectural Barriers Within the Neighborhood Strategy Area are a large number of the elderly and children. Both groups have a special need for pedestrian walkways, free of impediments to access. The following types of projects are encouraged: projects that improve pedestrian circulation and safety; projects that link the Strategy Area residential neighborhoods to downtown or to community facilities and services ; projects that help implement or complement the Downtown Improvement Plan. Community Facilities Past CDBG funding has contributed to a number of community facilities used by the city's low- and moderate-income population. Past projects include design of the Senior Center, acquisition of a youth services facility, and construction of the new South King County Community Health Center. Additional CDBG funding requests 2 may be considered to assist in design, acquisition and/or construction of other facilities benefiting Kent' s target population. Parks Parks projects to be encouraged are those which serve residents of the Neighborhood Strategy Area or other target populations, i.e. , the handicapped. Parks projects may include rehabilitation of existing park facilities and establishment of new facilities, for which funds are not elsewhere available, in the Strategy Area. Historic Preservation Kent' s inventory of historic structures locates a number of potentially significant buildings within the Neighborhood Strategy Area. Rehabilitation of publicly- or privately-owned structures .. is an eligible use of CDBG funds, provided that the project meets one of the national objectives. Projects to be favored are those that provide direct benefit to low- and moderate-income persons. Planning and Administration Funds will be used for staff support to plan and manage Kent's ,• CDBG program. This will ensure adequate project implementation, fiscal control, contract compliance and planning to ensure maximum use of funds to benefit low- and moderate-income residents. Additional Factors Other factors for evaluating potential projects are: the project' s feasibility, timeliness, urgency; compliance with Kent' s Comprehensive Plan; ability to meet one or more of the federal objectives; the extent to which very low-income citizens are _. served; or the extent to which blighted conditions are reduced. Kent Planning Department March 8, 1988 3 CONSENT CAL ND AR r 7` 3 . CityCouncil Acti I � Councilmember moves, Councilmember ?� O seconds that Co sent Ca endar Items A through Q be proved. Discussion Action 3A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of _. March 15, 1988 and approval of the minutes of the special meeting of March 29, 1988 3�,�Approval of Bills . Approval of payment of the bills received through April 7, 1988 (y after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 8 : 30 a .m. on April 15, 1988 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 2/25 - 2/29 58373-58379 " 2/29 - 3/14 58864-58886 $ 155 , 914 . 89 3/15 58889-59365 927, 573 .49 $1, 133 , 488 . 36 Approval of checks issued for payroll : Date Check Numbers Amount 3/20/88 101916-102519 $ 594, 638 .07 Council Agenda Item No. 3 A-B Kent, Washington March 15, 1988 _.. Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7: 00 p.m. by Mayor Kelleher. Present: Councilmembers Biteman, Dowell, Houser, Johnson, Mann, White and Woods, City Administrator McFall, City Attorney Driscoll, Planning Director Harris , Public Works Director Wick- strom and Finance Director McCarthy. Also present: Fire Chief Angelo and Personnel Director Webby. Approximately 60 people were at the meeting. PROCLAMATION Better Sleep Month. Mayor Kelleher read a proclam- ation declaring May, 1988 as Better Sleep Month in the City of Kent. CONSENT CALENDAR WHITE MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through L be approved, with the exception of Item 3C which was removed by Councilmember Dowell. Biteman seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3A) Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of March 1 , 1988. HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3H) SANITATION Forte Rentals. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale and warranty agreement for continuous operation and maintenance of approximately 271 feet of sanitary sewer extension constructed in the vicinity of 18211 East Valley Highway for Forte Rentals and release of the cash bond after expiration of the maintenance warranty. •,... SEWER (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3J) Burlington Northern Easement. AUTHORIZATION to accept, and for the Mayor to sign an easement for sanitary sewer crossing of the Burlington Northern tracks at James Street, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. STREET VACATION (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3F) Brutsche Street Vacation Petition. ADOPTION of Resolution 1160, establishing the hearing date of April 19 , 1988 on the application filed by Leo and Norma Brutsche for street vacations for portions of N. 2nd Avenue and N. 3rd Avenue and the alleys in between. March 15, 1988 SURPLUS PROPERTY (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3I ) Surplus Property - Vicinity of 520 Scenic Way. AUTHORIZATION to declare as surplus, an 8-foot strip of property in the vicnity of 520 Scenic Way and to offer same for sale at fair market value, with _. direction to the City Attorney to prepare the reso- lution setting the public hearing date for April 19, 1988, as approved by the Public Works Committee. PUBLIC WORKS Public Works Fuel Tanks. Bid opening was held on FUEL TANKS February 17, 1988 with four bids received. The low bid was from Gaston Brothers in the amount of $79, 453 . After review of the bids and project fund- ing, the Public Works Director recommends the con- tract be awarded Gaston Brothers and that $30, 000 be transferred to this project from the Equipment Rental Reserve Fund. JOHNSON SO MOVED. Woods seconded and the motion carried. PARKS & Riverbend Golf Course Phase II. Six bids were RECREATION received for Riverbend Golf Course Phase II with the low bid submitted by Hall and Lindsay, Inc. of Seattle. The Parks Department, Parks Committee and Architect John Steidel recommend award of the base bid and combination alternates as follows : Base Bid $1,297.650.00 - Add Alternate 1: multicolor wire 0.00 - Add Alternate 2: lake arification 10.147.00 - Add Alternate 3: pump drive 15,448.00 - Add Addendum Alternate 3: relocation 15 green 1,200.00 $1,324,445.00 Deduct - Alternate 166 trees 7,376.00 $1,317,069.00 Tax $ 106,682.59 Contingency at 4% $ 52,682.76 Total Award $1.476,434.35 Note: Architect's estimate for base bid work was $1,410,000. DOWELL MOVED that the bid be awarded as recommended. Houser seconded and the motion carried. - 2 - a ..... . .~ ... .._.. .. ....- __. .. . . ... ... March 15, 1988 ~ RECYCLING Recycling. This date has been set for a public hearing to receive public input on the recycling program. It was clarified for the audience that, ~ in addition to the hearing, the Public Works Com- mittee has proposed an additional agenda item, to take action on the City' s recent request for pro- posals for recycling. The committee recommends, based upon the proposals received, that staff be directed to negotiate an agreement with Kent Dis- posal for a curb-side recycling program, not to exceed 18 months in duration and for Kent Disposal to petition the WUTC to include the cost of such program in the tariff structure. Tony McCarthy noted that 2500 responses had been received to the survey mailed out with garbage bills in February. Most favored participating in a recycling program but were not willing to pay extra. McCarthy noted that the City could pay some of the estimated $60-70, 000 per year cost of the recycling program costs from the utilities taxes. The public hearing was opened by Mayor Kelleher. Jerry Graham of Tri-Star Disposal presented pro- posals for curbside 'recycling for neighborhood drop sites and for the City to direct waste to a ~ recycling facility. He noted that the three responses to the City ' s request for proposals should be carefully studied, pointing out that in order to provide a favorable rate to the City, the same company should be picking up both the garbage AND the recyclables. He provided handouts con- taining excerpts from the WUTC hearings relating to Kent Disposal ' s (Rabanco) proposal. Nona Brazier of Northwest Recovery Systems, described the recycl- ing program proposed by Tri-Star, in which the residents separate the recyclables into bins. This program has been used in north Seattle for the past 17 years as well as in other places, and has been successful. The stackable bins were displayed for the audience. Jack Davis, attorney for Tri-Star, urged the city to negotiate only a short term agreement, which could be cancelled with 30 days notice, while wait- ing for a decision from WUTC. He noted that the - circumstances could be changed when the WUTC makes a decision. Gary Ewing of Kent Disposal stated that the use of the toters had been successful both for garbage and for recyclables. He noted that Kent - 3 - March 15, 1988 RECYCLING Disposal was related to three garbage companies in Kent, and to Ideal Paper which uses the paper recyc- lables from Valley Recycling. These Kent businsses contribute to the local economy. Leona Orr noted that only 54% participated in the pilot program which included a $1 reduction in gar- bage bills, and it seemed likely that fewer would participate if the program increased the garbage - bills. The cost of the program was high, consider- ing limited participation. She favored the Tri- Star proposal , which would charge only for house- holds actually participating in the program. She urged the City to join forces with other cities in seeking a resource recovery facility such as Reuters . Doug Hendrickson of Valley Recycling noted that he has customers who have been recycling for 13 years and now these people will be charged under the curbside program. Many will not participate and they also will be charged under the Kent Disposal proposal. Don Knapp stated that he favored recycl- ing, but that it would take him two months to fill a toter and that provision for charging accordingly should be made. Johnson clarified for the Orrs that there is no proposed contract at this point, that only an 18-month agreement is proposed. He further noted that there is no additional charge proposed for recycling at this time, but that this could happen after the WUTC makes a decision. Current costs would be absorbed by the City 's gar- bage tax. Jerry Graham stated that when the City increased the tax on garbage services from 2 . 5% to 6 . 5%, he understood that the funds would be used for the cost of closing the landfill and liability related thereto. He noted that other options to curbside collection would not cost the City anything. At White ' s question, McFall stated that Graham was correct, that at the time of the tax increase, the City was no longer to be in the garbage business and therefore would not have revenue from that source. The additional 4% was earmarked to be set aside to pay for costs of landfill closure and for any potential liability that the City might have. McFall estimated that it would take 40 to 50% of the amount set aside annually for potential expo- sure for landfill closure. Kevin McGillis of 4605 S. 258th Place, stated that he did not favor 4 - March 15, 1988 RECYCLING the stacked bins, and further, that neighborhood recycling stations were often eyesores. He favored a recycling facility such as the Reuter plant for garbage. There were no further comments , and BITE- MAN MOVED to close the public hearing. Woods seconded and the motion carried. JOHNSON MOVED that staff negotiate an agreement with Kent Disposal for a voluntary participatory curbside recycling program not to exceed 18 months in duration and for Kent Disposal to petition WUTC to include the cost of a recycling program in the tariff structure. Biteman seconded. , Johnson stated that he favored the idea of a plant such as the Reuter plant visited by Mann and Biteman but that a decision must be made this month as to com- mitting the City ' s waste stream to the County or developing our own system. A time extension has been requested of the County. A plant like Reuter' s would take about three years to implement and Kent does not want to have an incineration plant. Woods noted that the Public Works Committee had expressed concern over the effect the WUTC decision might have on the negotiations. Biteman noted that he assumed that items mentioned in Committee and in this meeting would be part of the negotiations. He also suggested that the City might share in the recycling profits , above the cost, and that the contract would be renegotiated if the name or owner- ship of the company changed. McFall stated that any negotiations would include all direction given _. by the Council. He clarified that the motion pro- vided that part of the stipulation in the con- tract would be that the hauler would have to file a new tariff with the WUTC, which would include in the rates, the costs of the recycling program, and it would be understood that the City would only be contracting for that service for a short " time, until the costs of such program could be included in the base. White stated that he would support the motion, that we had to have a recycling program and that we must be open and cautious about negotiations. Dowell noted that the Council had stated that it "- would support competition but the negotiations were to be with Kent Disposal only. He stated that he had voted against the increase in the tax - on the garbage, and that now the proceeds of the - 5 - March 15, 1988 RECYCLING increase were not to be held as planned, for the legal costs of the landfill closure. He stated he would not support the motion and he suggested that negotiations with two companies would give the City better leverage. Johnson stated that only one company had met the specifications. The motion then carried, with Dowell voting against and Houser abstaining. WEST HILL Don Barnes , 2907 S. 244th, stated that clean up work was needed on 30th Avenue South and that the City should put a walkway there. He also noted that the Kent side of the intersection of S. 240th and `Highway 99 needs attention. He pointed out that the Des Moines side looks good and that the City should consider putting a walkway for foot traffic from Highline College on the north side of South 240th. Barnes stated that the City had not made sure that the residents were properly treated by the contractor when the sewer system was put in. He also pointed out that the Widing wrecking yard needs to be cleaned up and that there are old junk trailers at the end of his driveway. The matter was referred to the Public Works Committee and Barnes was told he would be notified of the meet- ing date. PRELIMINARY PLAT Mari-Park Preliminary Subdivision No. SU-87-5. This date has been set to consider the Hearing Exami- ner ' s recommendation of conditional approval of the 17-lot duplex multifamily residential prelimi- nary plat. The site is located on the east side of 3rd Avenue North and south of Bowen Street extended. It was especially noted that the approval does not include vacations of any streets or alleys. WOODS MOVED to adopt the findings of the Hearing Examiner and to concur with the Hear- ing Examiner ' s recommendation of approval with con- ditions. Biteman seconded. Harris noted that Item 2 on page 2 of the memo containing the recom- mendations needs to be corrected as follows : 2 . 1st and 2nd Avenues Street Vaeatiens Improvements Motion carried. ANNEXATION (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3G) Hehr Annexation. ACCEPTANCE of the 75% petition for annexation of approximately five acres in the vicinity of 116th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 228th - 6 - March 15, 1988 ANNEXATION and authorization for the City Engineer to file notice of intent with the Boundary Review Board. ANNEXATION ZONING (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3D) East Hill Community Well Annexation Zoning. ADOPTION of Ordinance 2771 establishing the zoning ' for the East Hill Community Well Annexation No. 2 Areas A, B and C. ZONING CODE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3E) AMENDMENT Multifamily Development Standards. ADOPTION of Ordinance 2772, amending the Zoning Code, setting forth multifamily development standards as adopted by the Council at its meeting on March 1 , 1988. ZONING CODE Zoning Code Amendment 20% Multifamily Reduction. AMENDMENT The Planning Commission has recommended that the City' s multifamily residential densities be reduced on a graduated scale. The recommendation also includes maintaining single family residential guidelines in new annexations, reviewing the CBD to consider increasing densities in that area and • reviewing "over zoned" areas in the City to examine whether those areas should be reconsidered. Dan Stroh of the Planning Department reviewed the history of events dealing with this project, start- ing with Council Resolution 1123 , passed in December, 1986 . The matter has been discussed at Council workshops, by the Planning Committee, Commission workshops and hearings. The Planning Commission hearings were concluded on February 29, 1988. The following have been distributed with the packet and have been made a part of the record: letters from Seattle Master Builders , Kent Chamber of Com- merce, Seattle-King County Board of Realtors and petition from concerned citizens . Graphs were shown of the rapid growth of multifamily housing since 1984 . Stroh explained the Commission ' s recom- mendation of graduated scale reduction, under Option B as follows : approximately 29% reduction in MRH zones (highest density) , approximately 72% reduction in MRD zones ( lowest density) . This would result in a reduction of the number of units allowed as follows: 7 - March 15, 1988 ZONING CODE MRH reduced from 40 to 28 units AMENDMENT MRM reduced from 23 to 19 units MRG reduced from 16 to 14 units MRD reduced from 10 to 9 units This option achieves the 20% reduction target and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Stroh pointed out that the November staff report covers the recommendation in full detail. The recommenda- tion is the result of extensive public input and has considered provision for infrastructure relat- ing to transportation, utilities and addresses the balance of housing opportunities . Paul Morford stated that as industry has come to Kent, apartments are needed to house the employees and that fewer units would increase the price of the units, resulting in higher rents. He noted that after careful research and planning, his family purchased property to develop under duplex zoning. The City ' s reduction plan will greatly affect this development. It was determined that if Morford ' s property was already platted, he would. ,still be able to get necessary permits . Woods noted that the CBD Committee will be making sug- gestions to the Planning Commission next month as to the land use plan. Developers have been invited to participate in the meetings . Woods noted that she lived in a condo on East Hill, and was not opposed to multiple family housing. She then MOVED to reduce multifamily densities of the Kent Zoning Code per the Planning Commission ' s recommendation with the exception of MRD, Duplex zoning, which would be sent to the Planning Committee for further consideration, and to instruct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. Biteman seconded. Raul Ramos stated that he thought the statistics were not properly interpreted, that there was a need for apartments. He commented that reducing the number of apartments would not stimulate the building of single family residences. He noted that the provision for the design standard review was a good idea and would control construction of developments which were not aesthetically pleasing. Larry Frazier of Seattle Master Builders expressed his concerns as outlined in his letter of March 4 and noted that this should not be a blanket reduc- tion but should be done by area. He recommended that the entire matter be referred back to the 8 - March 15, 1988 ZONING CODE Planning Committee. Houser and Biteman concurred AMENDMENT that consideration by parcel had merit. Loren Combs, _ Renton Attorney, noted that he represented an owner of multifamily zoned land. He complimented the Planning Commission as well as the Planning depart- ment, and noted that he represented five small cities and offered his assistance to the City in achieving their goals. He stated that this approach of reducing density across the board, was not in - the City ' s best interest. He suggested that this be remanded to the Planning Committee and that the approach should be through changes to each area after study of that area. Combs stated that he had research material which he would make available to the City. Woods withdrew her motion and asked that the matter be referred to the Planning Com- mittee. Biteman concurred, and without further objection, it was so ordered. HUMAN SERVICES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3C) REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOWELL Human Services Roundtable. ADOPTION of Resolution 1159, to authorize the City of Kent to participate with other local municipal jurisdictions in a one year planning project to develop a Regional Human Services Action Plan and to authorize the Mayor to sign an interlocal agreement after approval of the form by the City Attorney. The workplan of the roundtable will be carried out through an interlocal agreement. Dowell stated that the $6, 000 from Kent would be included in a $135, 000 study being done by the County, and that he feels the money should be spent on human services needs . Mann reviewed the goals of the roundtable , as con- tained in the packet. WOODS MOVED to approve Item 3C. Biteman seconded and the motion carried ..- with Dowell voting nay. Human Services Fund. The adoption of Ordinance 2773 will add a section to the ordinance which established the City of Kent Human Services Commis- sion. This new section will establish a Human Services Fund giving the Commission the authority to accept gifts , donations , etc. , to be distributed by the City for Human Services. WOODS MOVED to adopt Ordinance 2773 establishing a Human Services Fund. Biteman seconded. Motion carried. - 9 - March 15, 1988 KENT CENTENNIAL Kent Centennial Medallion. The Kent Centennial Committee has recommended that the City Council direct the design and establishment of an exclusive Kent Centennial Commemorative Medallion. A resolution has been prepared to establish an offi- cial commemorative medallion for the 1990 Kent Cen- tennial and establishing the procedure for its development and distribution. JOHNSON MOVED to adopt Resolution 1161 establishing an official commemorative medallion for the 1990 Kent Centennial. Biteman seconded. McFall noted for Biteman that the cost would be paid by a local service club. The motion then carried. PERSONNEL Roles of City Government officials. Mayor Kelleher noted that the Council had decided last week to postpone the public hearing on the roles of city government officials until it could be discussed at a workshop. The Mayor indicated, however, that while input was not requested, any comments would be heard. Bob Brown, 2911 S. 252nd, stated that he feels city government is now the best and most accessible ever, and thanked the Mayor and Council for a job well done. APPOINTMENTS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3L) Appointments. CONFIRMATION of the Mayor ' s appoint- ments: JoAnne Brady to the CBD Task Force Jack Cosby to the Board of Adjustment to replace Phyllis Mauritsen. This terms expires 2/93 . POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3K) Drinking Driver Task Force Donations. ACKNOWLEDG- MENT of the following donations to the Task Force : Kent Police Guild $ 500 Meridian Kiwanis $ 11000 CHEF Endowment Fund $ 1 , 000 AAL Branch #3659 $ 750 Seattle International Raceway $ 200 Dunham' s IGA Market $ 15 FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3B) Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through March 23 , 1988 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 8: 30 a.m. on March 31 , 1988. - 10 - March 15, 1988 FINANCE Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 2/16 57875 - 57876 2/17 •-2/24 58354 -:58372 $213,443.83 2/29 58380 -' 58863 522,153.62 735,597.45 Approval of checks issued for payroll: ",. Date Check Numbers Amount 3/5/88 101303 - 101915 $589,367.19 COUNCIL Council President. White announced that there COMMITTEES would be a workshop on Tuesday, March 29 at 7: 00 p.m. , at which time they would meet with the King County Council Solid Waste Committee and hear a Workshop presentation from the Human Services Commission. White also noted that on March 17 he would be attending the Washington State Good Roads and Transportation meeting in Ellensburg. Public Works Committee. Johnson noted that the next meeting would be at 4: 00 p.m. on March 22 . Parks Committee. Dowell noted that the next meet- ing would be at 4 : 00 p.m. on March 30 . EXECUTIVE SESSION At 10 : 20 p.m. , McFall requested an executive session to discuss strategies for labor relations. -- ADJOURNMENT The meeting reconvened at 10: 30 p.m. and then adjourned. __ Marie Jense7r� CMC City Clerk - 11 - SPECIAL MEETING of the Kent City Council March 29, 1988 Proper public notice has been given by the City Clerk for a special meeting of the Kent City Council for 8: 00 p.m. on March 29th for the purpose of consideration of the interlocal agreement between King County and the City of Kent regarding solid waste. The agenda for the Council workshop session, scheduled for 7: 00 p.m. , included discussion with the King County Solid Waste Com- mittee, and, as a separate item a presentation from Kent ' s Human Services Commission. Inasmuch as the workshop session lasted longer than had been anti- cipated, the start of the special Council meeting was delayed. Mayor Kelleher called the special meeting to order at 8: 55 p.m. , noting the purpose for which this meeting had been called. Present: Councilmembers Biteman, Dowell, Houser, Johnson, White and Woods, City Administrator McFall , City Attorney Driscoll, Plan- ning Director Harris and Public Works Director Wickstrom. Also present: Personnel Director Webby. Councilmember Mann and Finance Director McCarthy were not in attendance. SOLID WASTE Interlocal Agreement Between King County and Kent Regarding Solid Waste Disposal. Mayor Kelleher noted that pursuant to the "Agreement Between King County and the City of Kent Concerning Use of King County Solid Waste Disposal Facilities" , the City may give written notice to the County by March 31 , 1988 either ( 1 ) that it intends to continue use of the County system at which time the County must offer to amend the exist- ing agreement as necessary to make it reasonably equivalent and reasonably consistent with agree- ments made with other users , or ( 2 ) give notice to _. the County that it will terminate this agreement and remove the City from the County system. If no notice is given to the County by March 31 , 1988, the existing agreement remains in full force and effect. It is recommended by the Public Works Com- mittee that the City Council pursue its option to notify the County of its intent to continue use of the County system and negotiate amendments to the existing agreement. Upon White ' s question, Biteman noted that if we had more time we could generate a more positive way of handling solid waste, but that there seemed to be no alternative. It was clarified for Houser that March 29, 1988 SOLID WASTE the County had denied the City' s request for a time extension. Johnson noted that the Public Works Committee had recommended that the City continue use of the County system since we had no alternative. He then MOVED that by March 31 , 1988 the City notify the County of the City's intent to continue use of the County system so that the County must offer to amend the existing agreement between the County and the City concern- ing use of King County solid waste disposal facili- ties as necessary to make the agreement reasonably equivalent, where appropriate, and reasonably con- sistent with agreements made with other users. Woods seconded. The motion carried unanimously. EXECUTIVE At 9: 05 p.m. McFall requested an executive session SESSION to last about fifteen minutes, to discuss collective bargaining. ADJOURNMENT The Council reconvened at 9 : 15 p.m. and then adjourned. Marie Jensen, CMC City Clerk 2 - . .................. �^ Kent City Council Meeting n n\l Date April 5, 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH KING COUNTY FOR ANIMAL CONTROL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to renew the interlocal agreement with King County for animal control from April 1988 to April 1989 . There are no changes in the agreement. 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. 3C ................ Kent City Council Meeting Date April 5, 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: POLICE/FIRE TRAINING CENTER - RESOLUTION 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution amending the Capital Improvement Program and reserving $950,000 of councilmanic debt capacity for 1989 to complete the Police/Fire training center . 3 . 'EXHIBITS: Debt Capacity Analysis - 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee and 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. 3D TO: Brent McFall, Cjt\y Administrator FROM: Tony McCarthy,` Fihance Director - DATE: March 30, 1988 SUBJECT: Councilmanic Debt Capacity Analysis ---------------------------------------------------------------- Attached is the Councilmanic Debt Capacity Analysis showing available balances, both currently and in the future, with the planned issue of $950, 000 for the Police/Fire Training Center and $2 , 957, 000 for the East/West Corridor. The analysis includes the remaining $405, 000 outstanding on the Woods @ Lake Fenwick property. The analysis shows that we will have enough capacity in 1989 to do both issues. This capacity was generated by transferring the principal portion of the debt service payments to the Councilmanic Debt Service fund as of the first of the year. Typically these transfers, along with the amount required to pay interest, are not made until the debt payment date, but these amounts can be used in computing the capacity. In effect the presentation probably is easier to understand and monitor since the remaining capacity will be the same for the entire year, barring any new debt issuance. CITY OF KENT GROWTH IN COUNCILMANIC DEBT CAPACITY Capacity Less Plus Amount Remaining .75% of Councilmanic Planned Available In Councilmanic Assessed Assessed Debt Councilmanic Councilmanic Capacity Valuation(1) Valuation @ 3/1 Debt(2) Debt Fund(3) @ 3/1 1988 2,385,483,302 17,891, 125 17,394,000 853,000 1,350,125 1989 2,624,031,632 192680,237 16,566,000 3,907,000 918,000 125,237 1990 21755,233,214 20,664,249 15,593,000 3,711,650 963,000 2,322,599 1991 3,030,756,535 22,730,674 14,575,000 3,526,068 835,000 5,464,606 1992 3,182,294,362 23,867,208 13,550,000 3,349,765 635,000 7,602,443 1993 3,500,523,798 269253,928 12,715,000 3, 182,277 660,000 11,016,651 (1) Assessed Valuation growing at 10% for years when the County revalues property and 50 when there is no revaluation. (2) Includes $2,957,000 for east-west corridors and $950,000 for Police/Fire Training Center. (3) The City can increase its r_ouncilmanic debt capacity by transferring funds to the Councilmanic Debt Service Fund. Normally transfers are not made to the Councilmanic Debt Fund until they are needed for scheduled debt service payments. The Debt Fund acts as a clearing fund where monies are spent as soon as they are received. By transferring funds prior to their use, the City increases its debt capacity by an amount equal to the principal portion of debt service transfers. Operations Committee Minutes March 15, 1988 Page 2 FUNDING THE POLICE/FIRE TRAINING CENTER Chief Angelo distributed a memorandum to the Committee noting that following the issuance of the Public Safety Bond Issue in December of 1986, that the regional Police/Fire training facility anticipated in that bond issue was no longer a viable solution for neighboring cities. Based upon this, an additional $950,000 was needed to complete the Police/Fire Training Facility. This amount was incorporated in the 1989 component of the Capital Improvement Program and this information is being brought to the Council at this time so that bonding capacity can be reserved for that purpose. Following Chief Angelo's presentation it was noted by Finance Director McCarthy that the $950,000 amount had not been set aside in Councilnanic capacity presentations previously made to the Council . In the initial discussions of their additional funds, it was thought that some kind of unique public/private partnership could be arranged such that the City's Councilmanic capacity would not be affected. When later information showed that this could not be the case the adjustment in the Councilmanic capacity forecast was inadvertantly not adjusted. The Finance Director noted that Councilmanic capacity has been set aside in 1989 for transportation purposes and with the addition of this $950,000 amount for the training center, the Councilmanic capacity for 1989 may be short approximately $200)000. ,* The capacity is based upon anticipated increases in the assessed valuation of 10 percent based on historical information. This amount may be more or less and whatever adjustment up or down would be could reflected in the transportation issue. Also of consideration is the fact that the capacity discussed is a January 1 capacity which increases during the year as debt payments are made on other outstanding issues. Since neither the transportation or public safety bonds need to be sold in the very first part of 1989, additional capacity may be available later in the year for funding both at their full level . Based upon this, the Committee felt it wa's important to still reserve the additional amount to complete the Police/Fire training facility and any adjustment that might need be made in the amount of bonds that could be issued could be reduced from the amount set aside for transportation. The Committee unanimously approved the recommendation for this item to be placed on the April 5th agenda. �h) Slfo4<H'-L�. CA1J 61- oifs/�,� 67 fM0 H-n21,J(, PR Nc)PIk- PR-7MP• 4 Ik*na..NK3 To (a,rc Ofif r'Nk" i0 4f-Ati AS oOP�)/-A N I I;rJ . ................. Kent City Council Meeting s 4' Date April 5, 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: RESOLUTION - PUBLIC HEARING ON SURPLUS PROPERTY 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution No. 0 setting the public hearing date of April 19, 1988 , to consider the declaration of certain property located at 520 Scenic Way as surplus . 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Council Meeting 3/15/88 (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 \ Y RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, declaring City utility property, that being an eight foot strip of property in the vicinity of 520 Scenic Way, located in Kent, to be surplus to the City's needs and not required for cuntinued public utility services; and setting a public hearing pursuant to RCW 35.94.040 for April 19, 1988. WHEREAS, the City Council confirmed the Public Works Committee recommendation to declare the following described eight foot strip of vacant property situated in Kent in King County, Washington, as surplus to the City's needs and not required for providing continued public utility services The south eight feet of Lot 15, Block 13, Washington Central Improvement of Companies Knob Hill Addition to Kent, Volume 5 of Plats, page 97, in King County, Washington; and WHEREAS, RCW 35.94.040 requires a public hearing before the City may cause such property to be sold and conveyed; and WHEREAS, an appraisal in the amount of $2,300.00 has been obtained by the Department of Public Works; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The following described vacant real property situated in King County, Washington The south eight feet of Lot 15, Block 13, Washington Central Improvement of Companies Knob Hill Addition to Kent, Volume 5 of Plats, page 97, in King County, Washington. is no longer required for continued public utility service and is surplus to the City's needs. Section 2. A public hearing is set for April 19, 1988 at 7 p.m. in the Kent City Hall. Section 3. Notices of said hearing shall be placed at three conspicuous locations on or adjacent to the subject property and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Kent. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this _ day of 1988. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of , 1988. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of , 1988. (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK 5610-190 2 - SI 8E 222 Bt 16—t�8 22281 ' 822461 1n u`� BE 224 81 t r 8 227 P1 3E 22E 81 Ir. • B 228 8 8fl 22 K'•.. ty Hail Location Mc, e z 1:p3,'� N 9E 23261 ' o ice Station K,nl 3 i Library Qy IE norlalP rk 823461 u _ > 823661 Cloud at 3 • v Jame 81 241 t— tteirtn at 862441 • , ri Sam 81 VIth8n nnc� c I IS 921U ' w Msekar 61 ' t 9v��a E < a r J ows w 1b C- 1A ur a�eci yv M H OC so Walnut `k 620181 626261 in2 ^� a g o�Q 8t I 1 ' 88 1 14 3 # is UL / DECLARE AS SURPLUS 8—FOOT STRIP VICINITY 520 SCEPTIC WAY / 13MAISALS A FULL SERVICE APPRAISAL COMI i1Muf - .. . . ... ,. . ... '...........:.4J..d.::.,Ab1TiW4MY,.K'tdnf.fLW�IL•��rANNR. K+IIt Kent City Council Meeting Date April 5, 1988 ._, Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE - 1424 INVESTMENTS REZONE (RZ-87-3) 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. ��14 , rezoning the 1424 investment property from MHP, mobile home park, to GC, general commercial . The conditions imposed have been fulfilled. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner and Council (Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc. ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 4 Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3F ORDINANCE NO. i AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to land use and zoning, providing for the rezoning of property located at 2912 S. 240th Street in Kent, Washington, from MHP, Mobile Home Park, to GC, General Commercial. ! I WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing to consider the rezone of property located at 2912 S. 240th Street in Kent, Washington on September 2, 1987 more particularly described as follows: Lots 23 and 24, Block 5, Federal Highway Addition, Volume 30 of Plats, Page 1, King County, Washington; and WHEREAS, the applicant requested that the property be rezoned from MHP, Mobile Home Park, to GC, General Commercial; 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 September 16, 1987 in the 1424 Investments Rezone: Findings and Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent; and WHEREAS, those recommendations had attached certain conditions; and WHEREAS, all the conditions have been met by the applicant; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: i Section 1. The Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of the Hearing Examiner as set forth in the 1424 Rezone, Findings and Recommendations 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 Recommendations are concurred with for this site. Section 2. Zoning for this site located at 2912 S. 240th Street in Kent, Washington, and more fully described below, is hereby changed from MHP, Mobile Home Park, to GC, General Commercial. Lots 23 and 24, Block 5, Federal Highway Addition, Volume 30 of Plats, Page 1, King County, Washington; Section 3. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and confirmed. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: I MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY 2 - s Kent City Council Meeting Date April 5, 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE - REZONE OF TRANS-CANADA ENTERPRISES PROPERTY (RZ-81-2) 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. ;177h rezoning the certain property of the Trans-Canada Enterprises from RA, residential agricultural to MR-M, medium density multi-family residential . The conditions imposed have been fulfilled. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance - 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and City Council (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: - Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds Y DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No . 3G ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to land use and zoning, providing for the rezoning of property located approximately 750 feet south of W. Meeker - Street between the Green River on the west, 64th Avenue S. extended to the east, and S.R. 516 right-of-way on the south in King County, Washington, from RA, Residential Agricultural, _ to MR-M, Medium Density Multi-family Residential. WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing to consider the rezone of the area described in attached Exhibit A, incorporated by this reference, on August 11, 1981 and September 9, 1981; and WHEREAS, the applicant requested that the property be rezoned from RA, Residential Agricultural, to MR-M, Medium Density Multi-family Residential; and WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner recommended conditional approval of the rezone in the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations for the Trans Canadian Enterprises Limited Rezone; and WHEREAS, at its meeting on November 2, 1981, the Kent City Council considered the Hearing Examiner's Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations and added the additional condition that W. Meeker Street improvement be under construction before the issuance of any building permits; and WHEREAS, upon such amendments to the Hearing Examiner's Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations the City Council approved the rezone with seven conditions; and I WHEREAS, the applicant has met the specific conditions of the rezone or entered into agreements legally obligating itself to meet the remaining conditions as a condition attached to the development permit that must be complied with prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that such agreements meet with the Council's intent on the conditions of the rezone approval; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of the Hearing Examiner as set forth in the Trans Canadian Enterprises Limited Rezone, Findings and Recommendations 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 Recommendations are concurred with for this site with the amended condition as required by the City Council at its November 2, 1981 meeting. Section 2. The conditions set forth above have been met or agreements for meeting those conditions have been entered into that comply with the intent of the City Council. Section 3. Zoning for this site, generally located approximately 750 feet south of Meeker Street between the Green River on the west, the S.R. 516 right-of-way on the south, and 64th Avenue S. (extended to the east) , and legally described in attached Exhibit A, incorporated by this reference, is hereby changed from RA, Residential Agricultural, to MR-M, Multi-family Residential Medium Density. Section 4. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and confirmed. - 2 - s Kent City Council Meeting Date April 5 , 1988 Category Consent Calendar. o ` 1. SUBJECT: SURPLUS PROPERTY VICINITY OF 102ND AVENUE S .E. AND S.E. 240TH 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to declare as surplus a parcel of feet, in the vicinity of 102nd Ave. S .E. and S.E. 240th St. and to offer same for sale at fair market value and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the resolution setting ,•_ the public hearing date for May 3 , 1988 . 3 . EXHIBITS: vicinity map, excerpt from the Public Works Committee minutes 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $n/a SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3H i ,MOOPublic Works Committee January 26, 1988 Page 2 Mr. Bigford stated he would be willing to assume the costs of appraisal and advertising involved in order for the property to be put up for bid. McCaughan indicated the cost of an appraisal could be as much as $1500. It was determined that staff should consult with the City Attorney to determine the proper procedure in order to sell the property. Declare as Surplus Property Vicinity of 102nd Avenue S.E. and James This is a similar situation as above. This property is - a 50x50 parcel that is an old pump station that used to be the sole source of pumping water to the east hill system. An adjoining property owner has offered to purchase this property. The Committee authorized staff to proceed once the City Attorney' s determination on procedure has been received. Sale of Surplus Vehicles i A list of 15 vehicles the Equipment Rental Division is suggesting the City declare surplus and sell at State auction was reviewed. The Committee concurred with the request. Request for Closure of 110th Place Alice Milne submitted a petition signed by residents of 110th Place S.E. who want 110th closed. This petition is made a part of these minutes. Ms. Milne related that the residents had been told that 110th would be closed once construction had been completed. However, it has remained opened and is being used quite heavily. Wickstrom related originally the developer was required to close 110th in conjunction with development of 109th Street . He subsequently received an amendment to the binding site plan to allow it to remain open, conditioned, however, if the City determined it to be hazardous we could order it closed. It was determined that 110th is a private street. The Committee directed staff to verify with the fire department if they would have any problem responding to the area if 110th were closed, do volume counts to determine the traffic load, research the conditions of the binding site plan and report back to the Committee. r, C TakenF ........ ....... ...... ........ ........... .......... d a ey rontage "', ('� tstree- an -PM showing -( I subject per me -er dfi-iensil ) I I ovement locations and perimeter dimensions , �� 11 ' R/W and/or access take , ( 5 ) 1 W3, (6 ) location( s ) and type of easemen- areal: and ( '7 camera location and dire each photo. L 30 W1 (D I,0�0 3�O .1D ^ -q.C. P71 240rTH rHaEJ3 1 7�00 tOf .ire Area 2 200 SF After Area-0 DECLARE AS SURPLUS - PROPERTY VICINITY OF 102ND AVE S.E. and a Esmt Area N/A Temp Esmt Area- JAMES STREET :-I 7E M& 9- W" Y a Big Sit yr - o .. 8202S1 SE 200 S1 B it' N N d 4 a' .. x 8 208 SI 207 F N o 821251 8 213 PI < N S N y Fit 3 s218s1 d 622os1 N 821861 �• # � BE 22281 Ilkrl' j 922291 5 224 81 S2 +\\ in SE224SI t 8 227 PI r S24 SE214 W Meeker Sl — 1• N C • 1 L9✓ 3 s a C Hwr �` l omp mer Ca rpua Park � n i 'Y Z, wSi F� 0 _ H m oc d' V COTO 5 A 1. ! n 1 Walnut 1 Maple 81 N ' B3 , 826181 N < g FE 2 SI 11`1Location Map 3 g s26e S1 N o BE 3j l as / i i �• 'Ay; 8 277 BI w i w DECLARE AS SURPLUS - PROPERTY own�PicaPPRn�sA� VICINITY OF 102ND AVE S.E. and JAMES STREET Kent City Council Meeting t Date April 5, 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: KENT PRECISION GRINDING - BILL OF SALE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept for continuous operation and maintenance, the bill of sale and warranty agreement for approximately 614 feet of sanitary sewer extension, constructed in the vicinity of 5836 So. 228th St. for Precision Grinding and release of the cash bond. 3 . EXHIBITS: vicinity map - 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc. ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $n/a SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No . 3I 2 S�U� r..•._.1 N � A Q Wote1 •' d6lZe �I e4"vr -VICINITY . MAP . . . KENT PRECISION GRINDING 1 Kent City Council Meeting _ Date AAril 5 , 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: CENTERPOINTE - BILL OF SALE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: -Pre-cept for c-entifreeus operation and maintenance, tire - Y2___�_._ aTE and wawa tY._._agt.e.eme-t-- for approximately 60 feet of water main extension, 45 feet of sanitary sewer extension, 1220 feet of street improvements and 24 feet of storm drainage improvements constructed in the vicinity of 72nd Ave. So . and So. 180th for Centerpointe and release of the cash bond after expiration of the one year maintenance period. w 3 . EXHIBITS: vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $n/a SOURCE OF FUNDS : 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3J 1167H Si I \ y I `� 9�' W^ I o OTH ST Y \ 1 ' S 149T" BENT \ 1 - r _ Sy 1 \N S REN TON vII i ST L m PARK\\ > a ISOr"57 - L �N-a > slsr sr ...i - _ - 5 -.'�.1... •�lfq •yFq �� O �.L e I �� I ; 6 IS2N0 ST r, m 2 < O S > z .......... v 11 I V 4 V I L. 1 t; GP ,n, 16 o ST c u 15]R❑ � �i s^�r'. .��(-'�:'� I: y <. r s O o HN T. RCN W LOf19aL- eS_ s ~� w 19rH T ---- a I � I` I ST `�_ Race I N ..� v N err . TUK I\NY Pwr IENTON )TH N T N.LRS[.ti <5 f s BL<CX D �= Track ,.it 1 I < M.i. A' T JL t! ?. � AKER ! sY � :1' r1r�• s rtismo sr > P FN B BK vTENvuL �31 ( C T/l Al_I �; I f ,A•` Eif w y PAAX f R 11[[ffrr��L TU��Ll0.f�[1�T I v: slE_Ro y'y> S'd.TH STRANUER dlvD c r GL�J-,. �' sw.T45T I S c I > +` I S71tN� P _ 1 TN 57 5IMTH ST I /-'--c ''p`�r^ I / ,+ I STT O : TPEC1(OR z IriDpr c _ > I �`• s[ S IH ST F I _ I c c a Ip r-Pp. 68 T" ST IIi SIM I-.- m 4 . R j I 251 IN hO TH I \ > I _ m 26 Ps. I' ' frvsE,v 'sw SIST sr I ¢ 1 0 A C I -- I I GREE/+AELr _ z 5 25RD ST PK I u- L. CORPORATE , r - LrIW I > I 45IIND IT . I - DR I _lIK _ �< w I _� S Ii2N0 PL N ' I CORPORATE MINXI ER ..BSI r +O I y 16 ,f LVOr I a w . a .i - iH ST — J I-� 1Nl.ANO-0R- A �� {N M <L IN 1 J f 175n1 5- EAffRGENCY . CC > - '� RS7N Si } y PROJECT HST ; , ST CT 2i MIOUNO I =¢ f •f .POw't,uE _j_- _ - --4 _ {^� I 61 ..__.. Iw _.__ ...,. { P 7 PK X TF N SITE c D 9C 7 jrH I $A%0.'y i0R sw. 4157 T I S 177TH ` SgSTH _ m GENERAL L � HBSP i a 4f U'St IsorH - "gr r Sw a 43170 I 5T D DR 3 s ST m S 1180TH .._ ST S D I I i S 45TH 7� _.a -- ..— Rl-,� a.5 -- —— — ---.�-�— —I— _ rc F 199rH ST -T. ,35 6 - I a o(oOoaF r 36IN i _ v _ 31 c O _T "S 1Ni TY1 5T I .«. 'PARK -.,e ST['� S['W=I R 5 GUGER ; Hf( m --2} - e Si ..:I� x ARrN� r j I ��.. - = S 1N ST 2 S 'SOTH ST 4 I S 197TH. } he 1 a ml 1 ST IL 1 vim y Si (; lh J >I s IsarH sr I m Q i I s t9piH �` o S 19RTq S 190TN ST wzl'sr �u I \ N 181 sr —. Ia9N0 ST ' MN ST a U [S Z Y V 1 1 I ..• w /. 5 s INITH ST'8 > r st s 1SNTH ST jj P u / r l S I95(H ST 5 r �cr, T" ` _T3T_-T_—I W t 4�Oy 2 3 S 200T}1 ST .. . II N GOEIHG AEAO SPACE CENTER CENTRAL ASSOCIATES CENTERPOINTE � I SITE VICINITY MAP r ?, Kent City Council Meeting a� Date April 5, 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: STONECREEK APARTMENTS - BILL OF SALE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept for continuous operation and maintenance, the bill of sale and warranty agreement for approximately 75 feet of water main extension, and 92 feet of sanitary sewer extension constructed in the vicinity of So. 252nd St. and 100th SE and release of the cash bond after expiration of the one year maintenance period . 3 . EXHIBITS: vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $n/a SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3K ti I TE.' SEE �hEE T 2 FOR PF1RK/N6 - O7-51- D 5 c-d Tract Addition to Kent , according to 1 -Volume 12 of Plats , page 27 . in King �SfrAr _ I r u•• 'J �. I � it '� � `t`'. '';rr' 11�. J t � � ISI uct•. i 18 . . 1 14 C,lb AV T 11 • .f YI I � . ' _ f • G ... iY'r_L' ' S f•. ',' rt WIN A, K E N Tf -- r (, I 1lVM 4 N i �JB' '.`.= .� �.{i7tTRT:'• I' w l r+un• ct I q i � �ti f T}•11i4 t•.,, ?; 1 .MD '�� % '.•' ': ' a Z; N7)rlaq >O7 �1 I Jr ,.. Z , 1� Q ,,,f .', .��51 y 1 r� 1, •1 • � ' f^ Sur 41 rr t41 H+„ F-. Sr . . ,1 1 it lit I r 5 11ROv )1 Q r rr��,. I r a' .)1 1 c I q i ) t 7 a 8�� t !r.•.. -T 1 �; I a �' i1 a�Yll,. �i.l� _ nt�f1 r 4'd f�'° _ ►!'1171� 1 is•'t!IIr n �..w. � � �� •IIP I�w I I tl I rlji',• .1 i4r','' y,�i� j f� i'��....e [ ...,I: 23 iG^STLl It i 2 'fir i f/ 61 ry �� _ . r,A'�!u..rr I f It I�.1 (.. t I: I /.f I ;; I.4.rh •r , 11CIAll T Y MAP TE ST014ECREEK APARTMENTS Kent City Council Meeting Date April 5. 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: AHAMAY ESTATES - BILL OF SALE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept for continuous operation and maintenance, the bill of sale and warranty agreement for approximately 574 feet of water main extension, and 525 feet of sanitary sewer extension constructed in the vicinity of SE 252nd St . and 119th Place SE for Ahamay Estates and release of the cash bond after expiration of the one year maintenance period. 3 . EXHIBITS: vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY (Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc . ) •••• 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $n/a SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3L r.. ...:bp�vXn'T�'Vp�M'N`fw.Yy.t d-:w+ .v ... :.�+�...,.,.... ��•..a�:�y��4�Y1�'F'(�!`!! .. • k Lak _ . • I J` II • G • : 4b ■ 8E SE RO o • .� ;: ;� ; t *eased a Ic LF • � t • / t- '� • 11• fl ■ s • • • ! 1\ _ AHAMAY ESTATES 4 e � Kent City Council Meeting Date April 5, 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: 1985 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK, A FUND TRANSFER--TO THE 1987 HOUSING REPAIR PROGRAM 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to approve close out of 1985 Community Development Block Grant Crime Prevention Program and transfer the $2, 353 balance of remaining funds to the 1987 Housing Repair Program. This will bring both Crime Prevention -. and other housing repair activities under a single umbrella . 3 . EXHIBITS: memorandum to Planning Committee, excerpt from Council Planning Committee minutes of March 15 •� 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee, 3/15/88 (Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc . ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $n/a SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3M KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT March 8 , 1988 MEMO TO: City Council Planning Committee FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director SUBJECT: CLOSEOUT OF 1985 BLOCK GRANT CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAM _.. PROJECT NO. C85764 As shown in the attached Budget Summary, the 1985 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Crime Prevention Program has a remaining balance of $2 , 353 . The project originally had been scheduled for completion in July 1986 and has twice been extended. However, some 40% of the funds remain unobligated and unspent. The intent of the project was to provide security improvements for eligible low- and moderate-income households. These include replacement doors, deadbolt locks, window locks and similar security-related items. Through the current date, over 20 eligible households have received assistance through the project. Many of the households needing these types of improvements receive housing assistance through the City's Housing Repair Services Program. . These security-related home improvements are also eligible through the standard Home Repair Program. We will soon be entering the 1988 Block Grant Program Year. The Planning Department would like to close out the Crime Prevention project, and transfer the remaining funds into the 1987 Housing Repair Services Program. This will allow us to bring both crime prevention and other housing repair activities under a single umbrella, and close out an old project. My staff has discussed this approach with King County Consortium staff. This is to request Council approval for closing out the 1985 CDBG Crime Prevention Program and transferring the balance of remaining funds to the 1987 Housing Repair Services Program, (Contractor Services line item) . Any remaining Crime Prevention improvements can then be accomplished through the current Housing Repair Services Program. DS:JPH:ca Attachment BUDGET SUMMARY 1985 Crime Prevention Program Project No. C85764 Original budget $5,780 Funds obligated and/or expended $3 , 426. 80 Balance unobligated $2, 353 . 20 Amount proposed for transfer to 1987 Housing Repair Services Program $2 , 353 .20 1987 Housing Repair Services Program Project No. C87526 Original budget $94 , 650 Proposed transfer from Crime Prevention Program (C85764) $2, 353.20 Amended budget total $97, 003 .20 Affected line item Construction Contracts Current line item $25,296 Proposed change +$2, 353 . 20 Amended line item $27, 649. 20 KENT CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE March 15, 1988 4 : 00 PM Council Members Present Staff Present Judy Woods, Chair Charlene Anderson Steve Dowell Lin Ball Jon Johnson Jim Harris Dan Stroh Others Present Dee Moschel, Human Services Commission Lyle Price, Kent News Journal 1989 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOCAL PROGRAM POLICIES Lin Ball stated the policies as presented are basically the same as last year's policies. The human services policies were updated to reflect a wider range of services than health care only; the human services policies were reviewed and endorsed by the Human Services Commission. Jim Harris added that the policies as presented de-emphasize parks programs which did -• not fall within H&CD target areas. The committee approved the recommended changes as presented. The program policies will be forwarded to the City Council at their meeting on April 5th. Chairwoman Woods requested that in the City Council packet it is indicated that the policies have been recommended by the Human Services Commission (for the human services portion) and approved by the City Council Planning Committee. HUMAN SERVICES FUND The committee approved the amendment to the human services ordinance to provide a vehicle whereby the City of Kent can receive gifts, donations, etc. for human services. Lin Ball stated the proposed amendment is patterned after the Arts Commission ordinance; gifts, donations, etc. would be presented to the City and forwarded through the City Council to the human services fund. This item will appear as an agenda item for the City Council meeting scheduled this same night. �jCLOSEOUT OF 1985 BLOCK GRANT CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAM PROJECT NO. C85764 Dan Stroh indicated that $2, 353 remains in this program fund. Since housing repair related to crime prevention can be accomplished through the regular housing repair program, staff recommends to transfer the remaining funds in Project #C85764 to the general housing repair project. The committee approved the staff proposal. The next Planning Committee meeting is scheduled for April 5th at 4 : 00 PM in the 2nd Floor Conference Room. 1 d 4' Kent City Council Meeting 988 r e ,LJ Date April 5, Category Consent Calendar 1. sUBJECT: RESOLUTION WASHINGTON AMENDMENTS INSURANCE AUTHORITY INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution 110. which amends certain portions of the interlocal agreement creating the Washington Cities Insurance Authority. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum, Resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: O erations Committee 4/1/88 (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. 3N MEMORANDUM DATE: March 29, 1988 TO: Mayor Kelleher and Councilmembers FROM: Mi o ebby, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: WASHINGTON CITIES INSURANCE AUTHORITY - AMENDMENT OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT The purpose of this memorandum is to discuss amendments to the Interlocal Agreement governing the operation ,of the Washington Cities Insurance Authority. From time to time, it is necessary to amend the Agreement in which case, following Board approval , amendments must then be ratified by each member city. A resolution has been prepared for your review and approval (see attached) . Three of the four changes approved by the Board relate to cancellation of insurance program(s) participation and termination of membership in the Authority. The fourth change is related to the bonding requirements of persons authorized by the Authority to distribute funds. The original interlocal addressed only one program, liability. Cancellation of coverage also terminated membership. Given that we now offer two additional programs, property and workers' compensation, new language is necessary to allow members the flexibility to join or leave these two additional programs without jeopardizing basic Pool membership. New Article 20-A restates the original withdrawal procedural requirements for a city to voluntarily leave the Authority, and adds language which cancels all programs. New Article 20-B restates the Authority's termination process against a member city. The coverage time frame has been reduced from an impractical 180 days to 60 days, the same as the insurance industry uses. An appeal process is available, a favorable procedure the industry does not provide. New Article 21 speaks to the Authority's ability to cancel a city's participation in any of the additional programs as summarized in the paragraphs above. Copies of the new articles; Article 15, Article 20-A, Article 20-B, and Article 21 are attached for your information. I have also attached a copy of Article 15 which relates to the bonding requirements for Authority officers and personnel for your review. The change simply modifies the bonding requirement from a stated amount to an amount as determined by the Board of Directors of the Insurance Authority. I have placed this item on your agenda for the April 5 Council meeting and will be discussing these modifications with the Operations Committee at their meeting on April 1 , 1988. If for any reason the Operations Committee would request further study, the item will be removed from the agenda prior to seeking Council action. If you have any questions regarding this item, please contact me prior to Tuesday evening's meeting. Attachments 2126W-32W RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, approving amendments to the Interlocal Agreement creating the Washington Cities Insurance Authority. WHEREAS, the Washington Cities Insurance Authority has been a functioning and operating organization for the past seven years; and WHEREAS, Article 26 of the Interlocal Agreement creating the Washington Cities Insurance Authority allows for amendment of the Interlocal Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Washington cities Insurance Authority has identified certaiq articles of the Interlocal Agreement creating W.C.I .A. as in need of amendment to promote the future efficient operation of W.C.I.A.; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Kent adopts the below described changes to certain sections of the Interlocal Agreement creating the Washington Cities Insurance Authority. A. COMBINE ARTICLES 20 & 21 - "WITHDRAWAL" & "CANCELLATION" - IN ITS ENTIRETY. REPLACE WITH NEW ARTICLE 20 - (A) "CITY WITHDRAWAL FROM AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP" AS -- FOLLOWS: (1) A Member City may withdraw as a party to this Agreement pursuant to requirements of Article 18. (2) A Member City which signs the Agreement and enters the Joint Protection Program pursuant to Article 18 may not withdraw as a party to this Agreement and as a member of the Authority for a three-year period commencing on the effective date of the Joint Protection Program, as determined by Article 18. (3) After the initial three-year non-cancellable commitment to the program, any Member City may withdraw from membership only at the end of any fiscal year of the Authority, provided it has given the Authority twelve months prior written notice of its intent to withdraw from this Agreement. Such notice shall be hand carried or mailed to the offices of the Authority by certified mail. (4) Withdrawal of membership will result in automatic cancellation of such Member City's participation in the Joint Protection Program, any excess insurance and any other programs offered by the Authority effective the date of withdrawal. Further, the Authority reserves the right to non-renew said withdrawing Member City's coverage in any Authority program during such City's notice period. B. DELETE ARTICLE 20 - "CANCELLATION" AND REPLACE WITH NEW ARTICLE 20B. 20B) '.'AUTHORITY TERMINATION OF CITY MEMBERSHIP". (1) The Authority shall have the right to terminate any City's membership in the Authority at any time. Such Termination of Membership shall be upon a majority vote of the Board of Directors present at a full Board meeting where such motion for termination of membership is presented. A City's termination of membership shall become effective no later than sixty (60) days after the date such motion is passed, but in no event shall membership extend beyond the last day of coverage in the current Authority insurance coverage program in which said City is a participant. (2) For purposes of this section, Membership in the Authority consists of a Member City's right to have a representative on the Board of Directors and to vote on Board matters, and the right to participate or receive coverage in any Joint Protection Program, self-insured retention or excess insurance program, and to utilize any Authority services or programs. (3) The Authority shall notify a City in writing of its intent to vote on a motion for Termination of Membership of the City at least 30 days before the meeting at which the motion is to be' voted upon. The notification shall include reasons for the proposed Termination of Membership. The affected City has the right to be represented at the meeting where the motion for Termination of Membership is to be voted upon and will be provided an opportunity to address the Board members present if they so choose. C. ARTICLE 21 - "CANCELLATION" SHOULD BE DELETED IN ITS ENTIRETY AND REPLACED WITH NEW ARTICLE 21 - "CANCELLATION OF COVERAGE". (a) The Authority shall have the right to cancel any Member City's participation in any insurance coverage program offered by or through the Authority. The terms of such cancellation of coverage will be specified in each of the coverage documents for the Authority's various programs, except that excess coverage in any program shall automatically cancel effective the date of cancellation of its self-insured coverage. Further, - 2 - coverage in all Authority programs shall cease effective the date of a Member city's voluntary withdrawal of membership from the Authority. (b) The Authority may cancel any Member City's participation in any insurance coverage program offered by or through the Authority without termination of the Member City's -. membership in the Authority. However, any City whose Membership in the Authority has been terminated pursuant to Article 20B shall automatically be cancelled from participation in all insurance coverage programs offered by or through the Authority as of the effective date of termination of membership. D. INTERLOCAL CHANGE: ARTICLE 15 "RESPONSIBLE FOR MONIES" SECTION B: (b) A bond in the amount set by the Board, but not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) ( (as outlined by State RCW) ) shall be required of all officers and personnel authorized to disburse funds of the Authority, such bond to be paid for by the Authority. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this _ day of 1988. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this _ day of , 1988. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of , 1988. (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK 5570-180 "" _ 3 _ ................ Kent City Council Meeting Date April 5, 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: GOLF COURSE FINANCING 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to establish a golf course construction fund budget and to transfer $50. 000 budgeted for Mill Creek Trail and $250,000 budgeted for Kent Commons parking into the Riverfront acquisition account to be used for golf course land acquisition. The golf course budget will provide $5, 250, 220 for land, building, improvements and equipment . These improvements will be paid for with revenue bonds and the sale of approximately 5 acres of property contiguous to the golf course site. One parcel of property along Green River will be paid for with the combined Riverfront acquisition, Mill Creek Trail and Commons parking funds . 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Committee Operations Committee, Parks_ Department and Finance Department (Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $300 000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: reallocation of $50 000 Mill Creek Trail monies and $250 000 Kent Commons parking monies 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: _. Council Agenda Item No. 30 d Kent City Council Meeting Date April 5, 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: RIVERBEND GOLF COURSE WELL DRILLING PROJECT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of well drilling project as complete and release of retainage to Hokkaido Drilling and Developing Corporation, upon receipt of state releases . Project breakdown: Base bid $23, 905 .00 Change order #1 $ 8, 504 . 50 Additional construction, $ 4 , 273 . 10 per contract Subtotal $36, 682 . 60 Sales tax $ 2, 971 . 29 Total $39 , 653 . 89 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Consultant, Robinson & Noble (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3P W. •N•r •..••. J r\ ' Kent City Council Meeting Date April 5, 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR RAIL STUDY - RESOLUTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution vh , appropriating - $50,000 for a multi-jurisdictional study of commuter rail transit in King County and authorizing the Mayor to enter into negotiations with other cities and the county for an interlocal agreement to provide for such a study. 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee 4/l/88 meeting, with funds to- be appropriated from the Capital Improvements unencumbered fund balance, contingent upon successful negotiation of an interlocal agreement regarding the partici- pation of all cities and King County. -' 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ 50, 000 SOURCE OF FUNDS : See above 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3Q MEMORANDUM TO: Jim White, Presi nt of the City Council Councilmembers FROM: Dan Kelleher Mayor SUBJECT: Commuter Rail -- Feasibility Study DATE: March 29, 1988 At its meeting on April 5, 1988, I will seek Council approval of a Resolution appropriating $50, 000 as Kent's portion of a multi-jurisdictional study of the feasibility of a Commuter Rail Transit in King County from Seattle to South King County. In addition, the Resolution would authorize the Mayor to enter into negotiations with other Cities and the County for an interlocal agreement to provide such a study. This resolution will first be presented to the Operations Committee at its meeting on Friday, April 1, 1988 . RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, pertaining to the Commuter Rail Demonstration Project Feasibility Study, appropriating $50,000 for a multi-jurisdictional study of Commuter Rail Transit in King County, and authorizing the Mayor to enter into negotiations with other Cities and the County for an interlocal agreement to provide such a study. WHEREAS, Commuter Rail Service is being studied using the existing Burlington Northern rail tracks in the City of Kent; and WHEREAS, such a project would improve traffic conditions in South King County; and WHEREAS, such a Commuter Rail project could function as the first link in an eventual regional rail transportation network; and WHEREAS, the Kent City Council is on record as supporting the Valley floor alignment as the long term multi- corridor transit route; and WHEREAS, the Kent City Council is on record as supporting the implementation of this Commuter Rail system as described above; and WHEREAS, similar rail projects in other jurisdictions have resulted in significant economic rejuvenation surrounding rail stations; NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council hereby endorses the approriating of $50, 000 for a multi-jurisdictional study of the feasibility of a Commuter Rail Transit in King County as described above. Section 2 . The City Council hereby authorizes the Mayor to enter into negotiations with other Cities for an interlocal agreement to provide such a study. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of 1988. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of , 1988. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY �y. 1 Kent City Council Meeting Date April 5, 1988 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: UNITED TRUCK LINES REZONE RZ-87-4 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been established to consider the Hearing Examiner ' s recommendation to deny the request by United Truck Lines to rezone property from CM, commercial manufacturing, to M2 , limited industrial . The property is located at 5801 South 218th St. 3 . EXHIBITS: staff report, minutes, findings and recommendation 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner, 3/2/88 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) denial 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $n/a SOURCE OF FUNDS : 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves , Councilmember seconds to adopt the findings of Hearing Examiner and to concur with the Hearing Examiner ' s recommendation of denial of R1-87-4 DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 4A x FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT FILE NO: UNITED TRUCK LINES #RZ-87-4 APPLICANT: B & W INVESTMENTS REQUEST: A request to rezone property from CM, Commercial Manufacturing, to M2, Limited Industrial. LOCATION: 8801 S. 218th Street APPLICATION FILED: December 1, 1987 DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE: December 22, 1987 DATE OF HEARING: February 17, 1988 RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: March 2 , 1988 RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL STAFF REPRESENTATIVES: Jim Hansen, Planning Department Kathy McClung, Planning Department Carol Proud, Planning Department Gary Gill, Public Works Department PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Larry Campbell David Reetz Tom Williams Phyllis Mauritsen Jim Rust WRITTEN TESTIMONY: None INTRODUCTION After due consideration of the evidence presented by the applicant, all evidence elicited during the public hearing, and as a result of the personal inspection of the subject property by the Hearing Examiner, the following findings of fact and conclusions shall constitute the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner on this application. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant, United Truck Lines, seeks a rezone from CM1, Commercial Manufacturing, to M2 , Limited Industrial. 1 Findings and Recommendation United Truck Lines #RZ-87-4 2 . The subject site is located on the southwest corner of S. 218th Street and 88th Place S. The site is 2.06 acres in size and is currently zoned CM1, Commercial Manufacturing. 3 . The applicant request for rezone for future expansion of a currently existing truck/transfer facility. The proposal includes a 2 ,000 square foot addition to the truck terminal, a 120 square foot office additional, an addition 17,400 square feet of pavement for truck parking, turning, and storage. 4 . The evidence establishes that the subject property is part of a CM1, Commercial Manufacturing, district which begins at S. 218th Street and continues south to S. 222nd. The eastern boundary of the district is the Valley Freeway (SR 167) and the western boundary is a short distance beyond 84th Avenue S. (East Valley Road) . Just to the west of the subject site there is a small MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential, zoning district and a MHP, Mobile Home Park, zoning district. The southern boundary of a large M2, Limited Industrial, zoning district is S. 218th Street . This Limited Industrial zoning district extends northward to S. 192nd Street. 5. The evidence establishes that the applicant has operated his business at the present location for approximately three years. The Planning Department received a request initially from the applicant for approval of a transportation facility at this location in April 1984 . The Planning Director denied the request based on the Planning Department's interpretation that the use as described was a transportation terminal and, as such, was not permitted at all in the existing CM, Commercial Manufacturing, zoning district. The applicant appealed the Planning Department's administrative interpretation to the Board of Adjustment. Initially, the Planning Department's interpretation was upheld. Following the restructuring of the Board' s Bylaws in August 1984, the Board agreed to rehear the appeal. At the time of the rehearing of the appeal, the Board overturned the Planning Department' s interpretation following considerable debate. The primary issue was the size of the operation. The applicant and the applicant's supporters contended that the operation was small and that the resultant activity was minimal. At that time, the applicant indicated that the proposed use more closely resembles a commercial activity rather than a heavy trucking industrial activity. A majority of the Board of Adjustment members present agreed that a small operation would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. 6. The evidence establishes that the applicant was recently able to purchase a residential lot to expand their operation. The house which was existing on the lot has been removed and the site has been graded. 2 Findings and Recommendation United Truck Lines #RZ-87-4 7. The subject property has access to S. 218th Street which is classified as the local collector. This street has a public right-of-way width of 33 feet and is approximately 1,200 linear feet in length, running between the East Valley Road and the East Valley Freeway. However, pavement width is extremely narrow and varies between just 10 and 20 feet. The evidence establishes that it is not possible for two trucks to pass on the street, nor is it possible for a truck and a car to pass on the street if they are moving in opposite directions. 8. The evidence further establishes that there are open ditches and no sidewalks on S. 218th Street adjacent to the applicant's use. _.. In addition, there are s-curves in the vicinity which make it dangerous for other car and pedestrian traffic if any trucks are approaching. The applicant indicates that he has made a considerable investment in radio equipment so that a driver can radio ahead if he is traversing S. 218th Street to be sure that the area is clear prior to entering the applicant's yard. It cannot be guaranteed that the applicant would continue to utilize this radio system, nor can it be guaranteed that car traffic approaching the vicinity would be adequately protected. At the time of the public hearing hereon, and at the time the undersigned viewed the site subsequent to the hearing, trucks were observed to use the entire width of S. 218th Street in order to travel thereon. This street provides inadequate and unsafe ingress and egress to the site. The applicant's representative indicated that the applicant operates 15 tractors and 29 trailers. A tractor may pull either one or two trailers. The applicant has 20 employees including six to seven sales representatives, secretaries and drivers. In addition, there are dockhands and supervisors. The trucking terminal operation commences as early as 3 : 00 a.m. when dockhands load materials onto the trailers. operations continue until 7: 00 to 8 : 00 p.m. 9. The longest truck and trailer combination would be 68 feet in length. The applicant indicates that the expansion of the use was not anticipated and is due primarily as a result of the bankruptcy of numerous other trucking firms in the vicinity within the last few years following the deregulation of the trucking industry. At the time of the public hearing, neighbors who live and/or work in the vicinity expressed both objection and support for the applicant's requested rezone. Phyllis Mauritsen testified that the use has expanded greatly since it was initially approved 1984 . She submitted photographs showing the inability of trucks to access an egress on S. 218th Street and testified to a number of near misses involving truck traffic and/or truck and vehicular traffic on S. 218th Street. Mr. Jim Rust who lives just west of the facility testified that he has no objection to the proposed expansion of the trucking terminal facility. 3 Findings and Recommendation United Truck Lines #RZ-87-4 10. At the time of the hearing, the applicant expressed a willingness to improve and widen S. 218th Street adjacent to his facility. However, the problem with S. 218th Street is not limited to the area immediately adjacent to the applicant's facility but continues the entire length of S. 218th Street. 11. The staff report, with its recommendation that the requested rezone be denied is incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Kent Zoning Code sets forth a series of criteria which must be established by the evidence prior to the time that a rezone application may be granted. 2 . In addition, Washington State case law requires that the proponent of a rezone establish changed circumstances since the establishment of the initial zoning and indicates that there is no presumption in favor of a rezone, thus establishing that the proponent of the rezone application has the burden of proof. 3 . The first of the criteria in the Kent Zoning Code is that the proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan and the Valley Floor Plan address the location of industrial development and discuss the impact of such development on surrounding residential and business uses. The evidence supports the Planning Department's findings that approval of this rezone would encourage encroachment of M2, Limited Industrial, uses into an area with some remaining residential uses and less intense commercial/manufacturing uses. The proposed rezone request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Valley Floor Plan. 4 . Further, the Kent Zoning Code requires the rezone proponent to establish that the proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site is compatible with development in the vicinity. The long established land use pattern is of a lighter, less intensive character. The evidence establishes a long-standing boundary at S . 218th Street between two districts with M2, Limited Industrial, to the north and CM1, Commercial Manufacturing, to the south. The proposed rezone 'would not be compatible with development in the vicinity. 5. Further, the proponent of a rezone must establish that the rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated. This criteria is not established by the evidence. As indicated, S. 218th Street is substandard. It cannot adequately support the truck traffic which exists from the applicant's 4 ,.,., Findings and Recommendation United Truck Lines #RZ-87-4 current use nor could it adequately support additional traffic which would be generated by expansion of the existing use. The -• street is far to narrow for the traffic which it currently handles and in the opinion of the undersigned to grant the rezone may result civil liability both for the applicant and the City of _ Kent in the event of an accident involving a truck on this street. The transportation system is woefully inadequate to support the increased vehicular traffic anticipated from the expansion of the existing use. 6. The Zoning Code also requires the proponent of the rezone to establish that circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district. The applicant has presented no evidence whatsoever with respect to changed circumstances with the exception of the evidence concerning his unanticipated expansion as a result of the bankruptcy of other trucking firms. However, this criteria in the Kent Zoning Code, and the requirement of Washington State law require the rezone proponent to establish that circumstances have changed substantially with respect to the site, not with respect to the applicant' s business. When. the applicant's representative appeared before the Kent Board of Adjustment on August 7 , 1984 , the applicant's representative, Mr. James A. Street, indicated that United was a small operation and could not operate out of the location which is the subject of this rezone request if they were to expand (SEE Exhibit 2, Minutes of the Kent Board of Adjustment meeting of August 7, 1984) . The time for the applicant to expand has apparently arrived, as has the incompatibility of this expansion with the existing site. 7 . Finally, the proponent of the rezone request must establish that the rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. This criteria is not established by the evidence because the proposed rezone is inconsistent with the standards and criteria for a rezone as set forth in the Kent Zoning Code. RECOMMENDATION For each of the above reasons, the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner on the requested rezone is DENIAL. Dated this 2nd day of March, 1988 . D E L. VANDERBEEK Hearing Examiner 5 Findings and Recommendation United Truck Lines #RZ-87-4 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. 6 >r CITY OF KCNT planning P r, Iw . 3 O < 1 S 205TH w A y •206TH ST PL W 12 12 yl 7 J � a x < $ 206TH � w h _.. Z ti PL I t C 208TH ST 1 6 S 208TH ST / �tH $ S 207TH PL y 208TH In6usld4l Rosa l_"- .., I'aw,•r d 4 s 'W,SIA'On 1 a I I 1 s 2 } v 0 1 d rr I 1 4� 1 S 212iH ST 4 • S!PL •�.4 @ �J?rIf 4 J O'BRIEN d ' s'ry S r tS ^Z P H 2 2 3 W Ix � I Y2� w 216TH w ST w 50.%16 TH 5T. �NNt \ y r > I KEN ` INTC G x 1 a ST n 228T ST L $ 228TH � I ST w x N � w W N Q \ < I67 e < J > ._, z x TEMP. < x 1 ` 1 1 APPLICATION Name UNITED TRUCK LINES LEGEND: - Number #Rz-87-4 Date Fehruary 17. 1988 '1& application site Request Ro7nna Onnl i rain VICINITY MAP SCALE = 1--:l000l 4 CITY OF RENT planning II ;� II if I t II • ii � II I XJt XJ/ `\ Ar 11� T Xt9 I I ' � ]4� l' • M2 dii X29 .� i i a�t i hmrrmrrTrrrrrmm \\\\\\\\\\\\\ LJ w f aaaaiaaiaaaaaaral Hasa \\\\\\\\\\\\\ t . Q \\\\\\\\\\\\\ tc xt '.MRM HaafHfea 0 v nxn...... nr XJJ . SITS . : II II 11 i II CM Il it i� p��-----= j DI&I allaaaart **nm,32— T� •--i � MHP rroner-------\Ii0 ------- I I CourtxjZ II I I II XJJ I I 1 / saxas- -----= ruaa�a�HHa�us)rrmrrnmrif�nuTuirTiuuuiruniw�r� ❑ �I nNurainq Home �• ✓ /1. APPLICATION Name UNITED TRUCK LINES LEGEND : Number. .4RZ-R7-4 Date Fahruary 17,1988 ,� application site Request Rezone Annlicatinn toning boundary rraaarra ZONING/TOPO SCALE = 1":200 CITY OF BENT planning a. 7 -F111. Fam i-H 11 -�.-:77------- �LY �ns_.af --.41 4�, T r I iup�5my CJ I fW7 O6- 61 APPLICATION Name UNITED TRUCK LINES LEGEND : Number #RZ-87-4 — Date February 17. 1988 application site Request ReZona Appliratinn SITE PLAN SCALE Reduced Scale KENT PLANNING AGENCY STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF FEBRUARY 17, 1988 FILE NO: UNITED TRUCK LINES #RZ-87-4 APPLICANT: B&W INVESTMENTS REQUEST: To rezone property form a CM1, Commercial Manufacturing, zoning district to an M2 , Limited Industrial, zoning district. STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Carol Proud STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Description of the Proposal The applicant proposes to rezone a 2 . 06 acre site for the future expansion of an existing truck transfer facility. The expansion includes a 2 , 000 square foot addition to the truck terminal, a 120 square foot office addition and approximately -• 17, 400 square feet of additional pavement. B. Location The proposed rezone site is located on the southwest corner of S. 218th Street and 88th Place S. C. Size of Property The site is 2 . 06 acres. D. zoning The subject property is part of a CM1 , Commercial Manufacturing, district that begins at S. 218th and continues south to S. 222nd. The eastern boundary is SR 167 (Valley Freeway) and the western boundary extends a short distance beyond 84th Avenue S. (East Valley Road) . A small MRM, Medium Density Residential, zoning district and a MHP, Mobile Home Park, zoning district are located within the larger CMI district. Both of these residential areas are located just west of the subject site. South 218th Street is the southern boundary of a large M2, Limited Industrial, zoning district that extends northward to S. 192nd Street. 1 Staff Report United Trucking Lines #RZ-87-4 The City of Kent Zoning Code states that the purpose of the CM1, Commercial Manufacturing, zoning district is to provide locations for those types of developments which combine some characteristics of both retail establishments and industrial operations , heavy commercial and wholesale uses (Section 15.04. 120) . Further, it is the purpose of the M2, Limited Industrial, zoning district to provide areas suitable for a broad range of industrial activities whose characteristics are of a light industrial nature (Section 15. 04. 180) . A truck transfer facility (which includes on- site trailer storage) is permitted with a conditional use permit in an M2, Zoning District. E. Comprehensive Plan The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 1969. The goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan represent an expression of community intentions and aspirations concerning the future of Kent and the area within the Sphere of Interest. The Comprehensive Plan is used by the Mayor, City Council, City Administrator, Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner and City departments to guide growth , development, and spending decisions . Residents, land developers, business representatives and others may refer to the plan as a statement of the •City's intentions concerning future development. The City of Kent has also adopted a number of subarea plans that address specific concerns of certain areas of the City. Like the City-wide Plan, the subarea plans serve as policy guides for future land use in the City of Kent. The Kent City-Wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as Industrial. The following is a review of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan as they pertain to the rezone proposal. CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ECONOMIC ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: PROMOTE CONTROLLED ECONOMIC GROWTH WITH ORDERLY PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT, RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND - PRESERVATION. GOAL 1 : Promote diverse industrial development in industrially developed areas. Policy 1: Locate industrial land uses contiguous to the West and East Valley Highways to minimize sprawl. 2 4 Staff Report United Trucking Lines WRZ-87-4 Policy 3: Promote the location of light industry along major arterials , especially West Valley Highway and S. 180th Street. Policy 4 : Promote the location of heavy industry between the two major rail lines on the valley floor. Policy 5: Review the zoning of all unused - industrially classified land to determine the desirability of the industrial zoning classifications. Planning Department Comment As a guide to industrial development, the Comprehensive Plan states that as a goal diversity and development should be encouraged and yet the physical pattern of development should occur in an orderly manner. The policies state that different kinds of industrial uses which are not compatible with each other should be separated. Generally, the Plan suggests locating more intensive, "heavier" , industrial uses on the valley floor between the existing railroad tracks and moderate industrial uses adjacent to East Valley Road and West Valley Highway. The least intensive uses are left to those areas closer to the Green River and the East Valley Freeway (SR 167) . The different degree of permitted uses in the industrial zoning districts and their subsequent location reflect these goals and policies. The purpose of the rezone proposal is to eventually allow the expansion of a use that is considered a "heavier" industrial use only allowed outright in an M3, General Industrial, zoning district and with conditional use approval in a M2 , Limited Industrial, zoning district. South 218th Street has been established as a physical boundary between the more intensive uses allowed in an M2, Limited industrial, zone north of S. 218th Street and the lighter, mixed uses allowed in the CM, Commercial Manufacturing, zone. Approving the proposed rezone would encourage the encroachment of M2, Limited Industrial, uses into an area of residential and lighter uses. HOUSING ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL POPULATION IN KENT, ASSURING A DECENT HOME AND SUITABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT FOR FAMILIES DESIRING TO LIVE IN KENT. GOAL 4 : Assure environmental quality in residential areas. 3 Staff Report United Trucking Lines #RZ-87-4 Policy 4 : Where necessary, establish buffers (e.g. , open space, fencing, extensive landscaping, etc. ) between existing residential areas and adjacent non-residential areas and/or uses. Planning Department Residential development is still located in the area . surrounding the proposed rezone site. The amount of increased truck traffic and additional noise associated with a more intensive use would have a detrimental impact to those still living in the area. The increase in noise would be a result of more trucks going to and from the site and more loading activity. South 218th Street at this location is extremely narrow with open ditches and no sidewalks. Additional truck traffic would be hazardous and incompatible with residential activities. VALLEY FLOOR PLAN The rezone proposal is also subject to the goals and policies of the Valley Floor Plan which is a more detailed subarea plan of the City-Wide Comprehensive Plan. The Valley Floor Plan Map designates the site as IP, Industrial Park. The industrial goals and policies in this Plan are similar to those previously discussed. The Planning Department is currently evaluating industrial development trends in the area and conducting a more detailed study of the East Valley area which will ultimately update the Valley Floor Plan. The following goals and policy are also relevant to the proposal. CIRCULATION ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISH A BALANCED, SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR ALL MODES OF TRAVEL. GOAL 2 : Insure safe and efficient terminal facilities for both truck and other vehicular traffic. Objective 1: Provide safe egress and ingress and adequate on-site traffic maneuverability. Policy 1: Provide adequate truck loading and unloading zones. Planning Department Comment A site plan showing the proposed terminal expansion and additional parking area has been submitted with the rezone application . Adequate area for on-site traffic 4 Staff Report United Trucking Lines #RZ-87-4 maneuverability is provided. However, safe access is not provided to the site via S. 218th Street which, at this location, is a narrow and virtually single lane roadway. The increase in truck traffic could pose a serious hazard to pedestrians and other vehicles in the area. I. HISTORY A. Site History The applicant has been in operation at its present location for approximately three years. In April 1984, the Planning Department received a letter from the president of United Trucking requested the approval of a transportation terminal facility at this location. Based on the description and the extent of the intended use, the request was denied. The Planning Department's interpretation was that the described use was a transportation terminal and, as such, was principally permitted in an M3 , General Industrial, zone. Also it was permitted in an M2, Limited industrial, zone as a conditional use and was not allowed at all in the existing CM, Commercial Manufacturing, zoning district. United Trucking appealed the Planning Department ' s administrative interpretation to the Board of Adjustment in June 1984 . The Planning Department's interpretation was upheld in June 1984 . However, the Board agreed to hear the appeal again in August 1984 after the Board's bylaws had been rewritten to more clearly define action if only three Board members are present at a meeting. At the requested 1984 meeting, the Board overturned the Planning Department's interpretation after considerable debate. At issue was the size of the operation. The applicant and supporters contended that the operation was small and the amount of activity was minimal. It more closely resembled a commercial activity rather than a heavy trucking industrial activity. A majority of the Board of Adjustment members agreed that a smaller operation would not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood and overturned the Planning Department's interpretation. Recently, the applicant was able to purchase an adjacent residential lot to expand their operation. The house was removed and the site has been graded. B. Area History The subject property was annexed into the City of Kent in 1958 and was initially zoned C3, General Commercial, in 1960. 5 Staff Report United Trucking Lines #RZ-87-4 The property was then zoned CM, Commercial Manufacturing, with the adoption of the present Zoning Code in 1973 . The DeMattea short subdivision was approved and recorded in 1975. The Whitt short subdivision creating four lots, located directly east of the site adjacent to 88th Place S. was approved and recorded in 1976. On February 28, 1978, the Planning Commission denied a similar M2 , Limited Industrial, zone change request of ten acres that included the subject property in an area south of S. 218th Street. The denial was based on an inadequate circulation system to accommodate increased potential heavy truck traffic and that an M2 , Limited Industrial, zone would be detrimental to the mixed uses that were located in the area. III. LAND USE Land use in the surrounding area is varied. Located directly north of the subject site in the M2, Limited Industrial, zone, across S. 218th Street is a trucking company and a wholesale nursery. The adjacent property to the west is developed with a single family residence, an upholstery company is located on the abutting lot south of the site. A construction company is located to the east across 88th Place S. Additional land uses in the immediate CM1, Commercial Manufacturing, zoning district include a custom woodworking shop, a sign company, a tax/accounting firm, two truck repair shops and a recycling station. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS A. Environmental Assessment A Final Declaration of Nonsignificance with the following conditions was issued on December 22 , 1988. 1. The developer of the United Truck Lines shall do a traffic study to identify all traffic impacts upon the City of Kent road network and traffic signal system. The study shall identify all intersections at level of service "E" or "F" or which will be at level of service "E" or "F" due to increased traffic volumes from the development. These intersections are at a threshold level for traffic mitigation. The study shall then identify what improvements are necessary to mitigate the development impacts thereon. Upon agreement by the City with the findings of the study and mitigations measures outlined in the study, 6 F Staff Report United Trucking Lines #RZ-87-4 implementation and/or construction of said mitigation measures shall be the conditional requirement of the issuance of the respective development permits. In lieu of conducting the above traffic study, constructing and/or implementing the respective mitigation measures hereby, the developer may agree to the following conditions to mitigate the traffic impacts due to the United Truck Lines development. A. The developer shall execute an environmental mitigation agreement in the form of a no-protest LID agreement to participate in the formation of an LID to construct the S 224th/228th Street Corridor Project. The minimum benefit to the above development is estimated at $2, 152 based upon 2 p.m. peak hour trips entering and leaving the site and the capacity of the S 224th/228th Street Corridor. The execution of this agreement will serve to mitigate traffic impacts to the above mentioned intersections and road system by committing funding for the S 224th/228th Street Corridor which will provide additional capacity for traffic volumes within the area of the above mentioned development. 2 . Deed the north 13 .5 feet of the subject property to the City for public right of way uses. 3 . Execute a no-protest LID covenant for the future widening and improvement of S 218th Street to industrial access road standards. 4. For newly paved areas, provide biofiltration of storm water runoff prior to discharge into the City's storm system. 5. If it is determined that the vegetative buffer is located on the United Trucking site, this vegetative buffer shall be retained. 6. A six (6) foot high, sight-obscuring fence shall be constructed along the entire length of the westerly property line where it abuts the residential lot. 7 Staff Report United Trucking Lines #RZ-87-4 B. Significant Physical Features Topography and Vegetation The topography of the site is level ground. Lots 1 and 2 are presently developed with a 3, 360 square foot terminal building. The remaining ground is paved with approximately ten feet of landscaping located at the northern edge of Lot 1. The remaining property is undeveloped ground that was recently graded and filled. A few deciduous trees are located at the southern edge of the parcel. All trees with a diameter of six-inches or greater are subject to the provision of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. C. Significant Social Features 1. Street System The subject property has access to S. 218th Street which is classified as a local collector and has a public right-of-way width of 33 feet. The street is approximately 1,200 linear feet in length between East Valley Road and the East Valley Freeway. Pavement width varies between 10 to 20 feet . Eighty- Eighth Place South is a private access road that is paved and approximately 20 feet wide. 2 . Water System An existing 12-inch water main located in S. 218th Street is available to serve the subject property. 3 . Sanitary Sewer System An existing 24-inch sanitary sewer located along S. 218th Street is available to serve the subject property. 4 . Storm Water System Storm drainage improvements will be determined with building permit approval. 5. LID's The property is included in ULID #1 which is for sewer improvements. 8 Staff Report United Trucking Lines #RZ-87-4 V. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES The following departments and agencies were advised of this application: City Administrator City Attorney Director of Public Work Chief of Police Parks & Recreation Director Fire Chief Building Official City Clerk In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies within 200 feet of the site were notified of the application and of the February 17 , 1988, public hearing. Staff comments have been incorporated in the staff report where applicable. VI. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW The following standards and criteria shall be used by the Hearing Examiner and City Council to evaluate a request for rezone. Such an amendment shall only be granted if the City Council determines that the request is consistent with these 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. The staff has responded to these statements and made the following findings. 1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 9 Staff Report United Trucking Lines #RZ-87-4 Planning Department Finding The Comprehensive Plan and Valley Floor Plan goals and policies address the location of industrial development and the impact of any proposed use to surrounding residential and business development. Rezone approval would encourage the encroachment of M2, Limited Industrial, uses into an area of residential and less intensive commercial/manufacturing uses. The area is not developed with an adequate street system that provides safe access for additional pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The more intensive use and resulting increase in activity would be detrimental to residents still living in the area. An M2 , Limited Industrial, zoning district at this location is inconsistent with the stated goals and policies of both Plans. 2 . The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with development in the vicinity. Planning Department Finding A land use pattern of mixed development- is established in the existing CM1, Commercial Manufacturing, zoning district. These uses are of a lighter, less intensive character and are consistent with the purpose of the CM1 zone. Rezone approval would allow a use that is incompatible with development south of S. 218th Street. North of S. 218th Street development has occurred that is consistent with the purpose of the M2, Limited Industrial, zoning district thus establishing S. 218th Street as a physical boundary between the two districts. Residential development is still located in the area south of S. 218th Street in the existing MHP, Mobile Home Park, and MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential, zoning district. Rezone approval would set an undesirable precedent by extending the more intensive M2, Limited Industrial, zoning district and therefore adversely effect residents in the area. 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. Planning Department Finding South 218th Street is substandard at this location to support the increased truck and vehicle traffic the proposed use would generate. The City does not plan to widen the street or make any improvements in the near future. The large truck firm north of S. 218th Street has access to the street where the paving is wider and is relatively closer to East Valley Highway. Beyond the "S" curve, the street is more narrow and has less room for pedestrians and additional traffic. Allowing more M2, Limited Industrial, 10 F Staff Report United Trucking Lines #RZ-87-4 zoning at this location would be premature as the transportation system is not adequate to support the increased vehicular traffic. 4 . Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone. Planning Department Finding The present CM, Commercial Manufacturing, zoning district was established in 1973. A larger M2, Limited Industrial, zoning proposal at the same location was denied in 1978 because of an inadequate circulation system and the incompatibility of more intensive uses with existing development. Considerable amounts of vacant M2, Limited Industrial, zoned land is available on the Kent valley floor. Circumstances that warrant a zoning change have not occurred since the establishment of the present zoning boundaries. More intensive industrial uses are located north of S. 218th Street while the area to the south is primarily heavier commercial and light manufacturing uses. 5. The proposed rezone will not adversely effect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. Planning Department Finding Since the proposed rezone is not consistent with the previously discussed standards and criteria for a zone change amendment, changing the present CM1, Commercial Manufacturing, zoning designation to M2 , Limited Industrial, would adversely effect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Kent. VII. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the merits of this request and the Code criteria for granting a zone change amendment, the City staff recommends DENIAL of the proposed rezone based on the following findings: A. A development pattern has been established south of S. 218th Street that is consistent with the purposes of the present CM1, Commercial Manufacturing, zoning district. B. South 218th Street at the location of the rezone site is substandard and unsafe and therefore unable to support additional truck traffic without improvements. C. Residential development is still located within the area. Rezone approval would encourage more intensive development 11 Staff Report United Trucking Lines #RZ-87-4 that would adversely affect the residents due to increased vehicular traffic and noise levels. D. The proposal is in conflict with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. This proposal will not enhance the quality of the neighborhood for the remaining residents living in the area nor is it compatible with surrounding commercial/manufacturing development. E. The expansion of the existing terminal facility will not be permitted outright in the proposed M2 , Limited Industrial, zoning district; a conditional use permit will still be required. F. The Kent Planning Department is in the process of reviewing and evaluating the industrial trends in the East Valley area. The area under consideration is between S. 180th Street and SE 236th Street on the south and is bordered by the Union Pacific railroad lines on the west to land lying east of SR 167 on the east. A goal of the study is to determine if current zoning is adequate to meet future needs. The study will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council in early spring of this year. Changes to the Comprehensive Plan, zoning and development standards may be adopted at that time. KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 8 , 1988 12 `CITY OF KENT planning It P II •�- ,rt II If _ y71 2-0 oil E I'' xJz� II xts u o >�,� M2 n �o n ---a X J, II r 1r Il�r(141mrmmlrmm**r II ...... W.N3iiiM11.H1.IHM.HHfF ,••••••••.... p X N_FHYfM_NflllttfltlttlTftl'1 x•7J SIT xJI i il' . XJL Vli 1 II II II CM f l .,.. Trailer--_----\III --------� I I CourtIfI I ,❑ II XJJ I I XJZ •• U111u�a1#MM/ 11111111111111111111111111111111 1 I I 1 IL 66 Nursing Home �• / / APPLICATION Name UNITED TRUCK LINES LEGEND : Number. •NRZ-87-4 Date February 17,MR � application site :7,7 Request Rezone Ann7icTtinn toning boundary 11111/11 - ZONING/TOPO SCALE = 1":200' CITY OF RENT planning t1T. .JH Kvvrpx�.1 .7- _T Y. V Cxany ,1 r Z. A�rl =-n EL�tS _P11_4v_lr I 271.IS CO.INC KITE N APPLICATION Name UNITED TRUCK LINES LEGEND : Number #RZ-87-a _ Date February 17. 1988 application site Request Rezone Annuration SITE PLAN SCALE Reduced Scale CITY OF KENT planning a. Cb P � x 3 Z IW ? Z W p > i A 3 205TN 206TH 3T I o ►L 1 2 „ S 206TH d • Z e i i 1 a > rp PL F• � s � < a w 203TH ST - 1 () 3 207TH Pl. Industrial Road' 9 20BTH ST ry�<H st __. _ S 208TN 1•uw••r C •Sub S(.,bOn I ' a , 1 } � sx o y N S ^ 212TH ST S• 9OJ{, 93 PL •1 l ?�, 5 O'SRIEN c ^ I a sy ti S 3 nr 713TN LpI 3 21 u Pt. fc 214 ST ti u N si $ 216TH SO.216TH ST NN $T W I • 3 218TH $T S S 3T _ I . INDUSTRIAL AREA > d 1 6 o: S !T I 1 �• 222NO S 222NUV 1 12^7 I „ 0 13 18 W x r NORT > n I KEN x in INTC G x I� o sT 4 S o d 22ST $ !T L_ 3 226TH / ..,. „ x „ ST ; TEre APPLICATION Name UNITED TRUCK LINES LEGEND ; Number aRz-87-4 Date FPhruary 17. 1988 application site Request. Rn7nna Gnnlirn Yinn VICINITY MAP SCALE = l,-:1000- HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES FEBRUARY 17 , 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 17, 1988 at 3 : 00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, Council Chambers. Ms. VanDerbeek requested all those intending to speak at the hearing and those wishing to receive information concerning the hearing, to sign in at the sign up sheet by the door. Staff reports, agendas, and the description of procedure of the hearing were available by the door. Ms. VanDerbeek briefly described the sequence and procedure of the hearing. All those who intended to speak were sworn in. UNITED TRUCK LINES REZONE #RZ-87-4 The first item on the agenda was a public hearing to consider the request by B & W Investments, PO Box 3644, Spokane, WA 99220, to rezone property from CM, Commercial Manufacturing, to M2 , Limited Industrial. The property is approximately 2 . 06 acres in size and is located at 8801 S. 218th Street. (1-88) Carol Proud, Kent Planning Department, presented the staff report. View foils were shown depicting 1) location of the subject site, and 2) zoning of the surrounding area as well as the subject property. Land uses in the area were described. A video was shown. A history of the site was given. In 1984 a request for a variance was denied. Submitted to the record were the Board of Adjustment minutes regarding the variance request. (Exhibit #2) . The Comprehensive Plan Map designated this site as I, Industrial Park. A short synopsis of the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and Valley Floor Plan was imparted. This use is considered to be a heavy industrial use allowed as a principally permitted use in the M3 , General Industrial, zoning district. The staff recommendation is for denial. Ms. VanDerbeek asked how wide was the street? Ms: Proud stated it was 10 to 12 feet wide with a right of way of 33 feet. No information was received regarding accidents on this road. No maintenance of the trucks is done on the site. The applicant is requesting an additional building because the applicant has outgrown the current building. Ms. VanDerbeek asked if the applicant or his representative would like to comment. 1 Hearing Examiner Minutes February 17, 1988 (1-746) Larry Campbell, 1609 S. Central Suite Al, Kent, WA 98031, representing the applicant. He commented this was basically a two- phased request. Phase One is to finish the site as per the site plan submitted which includes paving, landscaping, storm drainage system, fencing, etc. Phase Two is the rezone request to allow the existing building to be expanded from a 3 ,360 square foot facility to 5, 360 square feet. The use would not change. Under Phase I there would be increased parking, landscaping and screening on the northern and western boundaries of the property. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as Industrial. There were a series of meetings last June concerning the inadequate amount of land zoned for M3 uses in this subject area. One of the recommendations from these meetings was the expansion of M3 zones and industrial zones. Mr. Campbell commented there are only two residences in the area; the rest of the area is developed. Therefore, this area shouldn't be considered residential. In the Zoning Code, under M2 . Number 5, it states that warehousing and distribution facilities and the storage of goods or products including rail/truck transfer facilities, it is interpreted as meaning that a truck transfer facility is a principally permitted use in an M2 zone. Ms. VanDerbeek commented that a rail/truck transfer facility is where a train comes in, goods are taken off the train and transferred to trucks to be locally delivered. Mr. Campbell felt that the way it was written it was a rail or truck transfer facility. He commented that United Truck Lines is a truck transfer facility and, under his interpretation, is a principally permitted use in the M2 zone. The street in front of United Truck Lines is substandard. However, United Truck Lines would like to improve the street along its frontage to include installation of drainage culverts and shoulders. It was not felt that this was a viable residential area since there are only two residences in the area. Ms. VanDerbeek asked what were the parking spaces for? Mr. Campbell stated that some of them are for trucks and some of them are for employees. He commented a newly-executed site plan showing the improvements was submitted. (1-1470) David Reetz, Manager for United Truck Lines, 8801 S. 218th, Kent, WA, stated this is a truck transfer facility. Goods are collected from the surrounding cities, brought to the facility, the goods are loaded onto trailers and transferred to other cities in the area, mainly to Spokane. There are 29 trailers, 15 tractors and 3 solo trucks. Ms. VanDerbeek commented that the Board of Adjustment minutes of 1984 reflected there would be about five trucks on the site. However, this is a much larger operation than was previously represented to the City. 2 Hearing Examiner Minutes February 17, 1988 Mr. Reetz commented that when the facility first opened, it was a small facility as represented to the Board of Adjustment in 1984 . However, business has grown tremendously since that time and a larger facility is needed. Mr. Reetz described a truck transfer company. in regard to the narrowness of the street, the company tries to schedule the truck crews around the peak hours of the other businesses in the area. When the drivers leave and enter the terminal they contact each other to clear the street so that only one truck at a time is on the street. From time to time, a new driver has come in and then there has been an impasse on the street. This situation could be remedied if the company could fill in the drainage ditches and put culverts in to make the street wider. The drivers usually work from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. However, thre is work activity on the site usually from 3 a.m. to after 7 p.m. or when the goods are completely transferred from the trailers to the trucks. There are four dock hands who help with the transfer plus four supervisors. There are approximately 24 employees including supervisors. No on-site maintenance is done on the site. The parking spaces on the west side are for trailers and on the north side are for employees. The company is requesting the building expansion to accommodate future growth. This expansion is to provide more flexibility in maneuvering the existing equipment. (1-2125) Tom Williams, 5406 S. Merrill, Spokane, WA 99223 , President of United Truck Lines, read the description of the terminal from page 3 , tenth paragraph of the Board of Adjustment minutes of August 7 , 1984 . He commented that at the time this request was made, the operation was small. Since that time, the company has enjoyed an increase in business. Thus, the company is asking for an expansion. At the time the original permit was requested, it was represented that this was the proper area for this operation. There is no storage in the building. All freight is received and shipped out on the same day. At the time they moved in, they were told the street would be improved and the company is willing to pay their share of improving the street. The trucks begin to arrive between 3 a.m. to 7 a.m. The Company has three facilities, one here in Kent, one in Portland and the main facility in Portland. Ms. VanDerbeek asked for public testimony. (2-251) Phyllis Mauritsen, 8812 S. 218th Street, Kent, WA 98031, commented she is the Chairman of the Board of Adjustment in addition to being a neighbor of United Truck Lines. She commented that when the company came to the Board it represented itself as a small company that would not be able to expand in this area. Ms. Mauritsen stated the company started using double trailers in 1986. At the time of the original request, no mention was made of using double trailers. Thereafter, it was noticed that trucks arrived around 5 a.m. and left around 11 p.m. Ms. Mauritsen described some of the activity she has observed. Further, the street is narrow and needs improvement to handle this type of truck traffic. Some pictures were submitted to the 3 Hearing Examiner Minutes February 17, 1988 record (Exhibit #3) . (2-521) Jim Rust, 8619 S. 218th, Kent, WA 98031, is a resident in the _. neighborhood, living just west of the subject site. He commented the applicant has been a good neighbor. He commented if the permit is issued, the ditches should be filled in and a culvert put in to make 'the road nicer. He has no objection to this request. Ms: VanDerbeek asked for rebuttal comments. (2-621) Ms. Proud pointed out that on page 2, first paragraph, the purpose of the various zoning districts have been listed. Even though there isn't a great deal of M3, General Industrial, zoned land available, there is a large amount of M2 , Limited Industrial, zoned land available. (2-794) Mr. Williams commented there have been five sets of double trailers per day since the facility opened. If the ditches could be filled and culverts put in, the street would be immensely improved. There was no further testimony. The hearing was closed at 4 : 55 p.m. OBERTO SAUSAGE COMPANY Conditional Use Permit #CE-87-10 The second item on the agenda was a public hearing to consider the request by Oberto Sausage Company, 7060 S. 238th Street, Kent, WA 98035 for a conditional use permit to allow expansion of the company. The project is located in the M3 , General Industrial, zoning district and contains approximately six acres. The subject property is located east of Washington Avenue on the north side of SE 238th Street. (2-1051) Greg McCormick, Kent Planning Department, presented the staff ,... report. Some view graphs were shown depicting 1) the location of the property and 2) zoning of the subject site and surrounding area. Current uses in the area were identified. A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on December 22, 1987 with conditions. A video of the area was shown. Staff recommends approval with no conditions. The applicant had no testimony at this time. Ms. VanDerbeek asked if there was any public testimony. (2-1460) Rod Hathaway, Regional Sales Manager for Cascade Cookies, 810 4 Hearing Examiner Minutes February 17, 1988 N. Washington Street, Kent, WA, commented that where 238th intersects Washington Street traffic is very poor and it is difficult to get into traffic. Further, the site plan is incorrect. Ms. VanDerbeek asked if there was rebuttal testimony. (2-1535) Mr. McCormick commented that the City Traffic Engineer had estimated nine additional p.m. peak trips would be generated by this improvement. The map is just a representation of where the site is and surrounding zoning districts. (2-1603) Gary Gill, Public Works Department, commented the City currently has a project that is under the design phase to widen and improve West Valley Highway from James Street to S. 212th. There are provisions with, that project to consider future signal improvements when warranted. There are no immediate plans to put in a signal . There was no further testimony. The hearing was closed at 5: 10 p.m. TRI-STATE CONSTRUCTION Conditional Use Permit #CE-87-9 The third item on the agenda was a continuation of a public hearing from February 3 , 1988 to consider the request by R.W. Thorpe & Associates, Inc. , 1300 Alaska Building, 618 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 , for Tri-State Construction for a conditional use permit to locate a cement crushing plant on approximately 2. 67 acres in an M3 , General Industrial, zoning district. The site is located at 8021 S. 222nd Street. (2-1699) Stephen Clifton, Kent Planning Department, presented the staff report. He submitted a new plan to the Hearing Examiner, which plan is addressed in the Addendum to the staff report. Written comments from Pat Forstad and Agnes Mauritsen were received. View foils depicting the following were shown: 1) the location of the site 2) surrounding zoning of the site and 3) land uses in the area. A video of the area was shown. Mr. Clifton commented the use is considered to be too intense to be next to residential uses. In addition, there would be on the site stockpiles of material, approximately ten feet high and 60 feet in diameter. The material would be concrete. There is concern about the materials from the site sloughing off into the drainage system located nearby. A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on December 4 , 1988 . Mr. Clifton commented on some of the review criteria required 5 n•..r.rarr..r.rr.r.......r•I..+......0.r .......n . r ................. ..... ... ii .... _ ........... Hearing Examiner Minutes February 17, 1988 for a conditional use permit application. The staff recommends denial. Ms. VanDerbeek asked if the applicant would like to comment. (3-240) Robert Thorne, R W Thorpe & Associates, 1300 Alaska Building, Seattle, WA, commented this is a permitted use if you can mitigate the impacts and meet the conditions. The area is in transition. However, residential uses are obsolete in the area and most of the homes are not maintained. In fact, some of the homes are changing in uses. There have been no new residences built in the area. Mr. Thorpe commented on the operation of the business and how the site would be utilized. A noise and traffic study was done on the site. The applicant has discussed various mitigation measures with the staff. It is felt that the impacts could be mitigated; it is consistent with the industrial zoning; it complements the Comprehensive Plan; and with proper monitoring of the project, the impacts would be minimal. The site plan is flexible. Ms. VanDerbeek asked how the material would be put into the crusher. Further, what would prevent the applicant from bringing onto the site large dump truck loads of large pieces of concrete, rebar, etc. and breaking up the material on the site? _... Mr. Thorpe commented the material would be put into the equipment by using a small front-loader. A condition can be made limiting the size of the material brought onto the site. This type of condition has been made by King County. Further, at Lee Torgeson' s, 202nd and East Valley Highway, one can see the type of crushing equipment that would be used on this site. There would be two employees only on site at any one time. A traffic study was completed and given to the Public Works Department. One correction is that the owner of the site is Joe Agostino. (3-773) Fred Sutton, 8210 S. 222nd, Kent, WA 98031, has some apprehensions concerning: 1) the effect of noise on the adjoining property, 2) the dust caused by the equipment and 3) the material that would be brought in as well as the amount of material that would be on the site. Their business is about 600 feet from the site and they make precision tools so these types of problems could adversely impact their business. (3-887) Gary Volchok, 1600 Park Place, Seattle, WA, representing the applicant, commented that 1) the property is zoned for heavy industrial uses, 2) the applicant recognizes the concern about the noise, dust and use of the property and 3) the equipment can be moved on the site to keep the noise from affecting the residences. Further this machine has a 60 decibel rate and the allowed decibel rate is 80, 4) there are only two residences in the area and 5) there will be landscaping and other mitigating measures used on-site. The maximum feed opening size for the equipment is 2011x8411 . He submitted two items concerning the equipment (Exhibits 4 and 5) . 6 Hearing Examiner Minutes February 17, 1988 Ms. VanDerbeek asked for rebuttal comments. (3-1412) Mr. Clifton remarked that an existing residential dwelling may be rebuilt, repaired and used. Thus, the residences in that area area could be there indefinitely. In addition, residences are protected no matter what zone they are in. Further, if the site plan is only conceptual another plan would need to be submitted in order for the Planning Department to make a proper evaluation of the project. There was no further testimony. The hearing was adjourned at 6: 10 p.m. The hearing will be held open until February 24, 1988 , so the applicant can submit some information to the Hearing Examiner regarding federal regulations relating to the size of the material that trucks may haul. DIANE L. VANDERBEEK Hearing Examiner 7 i d \ Kent City Council Meeting , Date April 5, 1988 Y ` Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: 1989 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The City Council needs to consider three actions in order to receive 1989 CDBG block grant funds: (1) elect to receive "pass-through" funds, (2) allocate 15% of funds for public (human) services, (3) allocate 6% of funds for planning and administration. ' . 3 . EXHIBITS: memo to P1 nning Committee 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee Staff (Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc . ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $n/a SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 4-q� Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to approve, (1? the eceipt of "pass-through" funds for the 1989 CDBG program ar, (2) allocation of 15% of these funds for public (human) services, and (3) allocation of 6% of these funds for planning and administrator, as recommended by the City Council Planning Committee . DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 4B KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT March 29, 1988 MEMO TO: Judy Woods, Chair and City Council Planning Committee FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director SUBJECT: 1989 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS For the second year, the City of Kent qualifies to receive "pass- through" funds for the 1989 Community Development Block Grant Program. The City has received its estimate of 1989 funds from King County. The estimate is less than in 1988, due mainly to reduction in federal funds available. The estimate is $165, 354 . The county has stated that it is likely that the estimates will go up rather than down, once program income and recaptured Population and Needs Funds from prior years are included. The City Council needs to take three actions: 1. Receipt of Funds The City of Kent needs to inform the county as to whether it elects to receive the "pass-through" funds again this year or to compete for funds. The Planning Department recommends that the City accept the pass-through funds in lieu of the competitive funds. This recommendation is based on the following: a) With pass-through funds, the City is guaranteed a funding level far greater than that received in the previous years prior to the availability of the "pass-through" option. The only funds guaranteed previously were the "pop fund" monies, which in 1986 were approximately $94 , 000 for the City of Kent. b) If the City does not elect to take the pass-through monies, Kent is not guaranteed the receipt of any CDBG funds. Kent would have to compete with the county and other cities for all funds. c) The pass-through alternative maximizes the City' s discretion in use of funds. The City will be able to plan its own programs based on its own community needs without having to compete for funds to implement the projects. 2 . Public (Human) Services Funding If the City chooses to accept pass-through funds, it can reserve up to 15% of its pass-through dollars to allocate to public services. If the City does not reserve the right to use this amount of funding for human services, another city can request the use of any unreserved ceilings. In order to retain the maximum flexibility in the use of its CDBG funds, the Planning Department recommends that the City of Kent notify the county that it wishes to reserve the maximum 15% of its total allocated money for human services. 1 City Council Planning Committee March 29 , 1988 3 . Planning_ and Administration Funds As with human services, the City has a maximum amount of its CDBG funds that can be spent for Planning and Administration. The maximum amount which can be reserved is 6% of its pass-through allocation. If the City does not reserve the entire 6%, it loses the right to use the entire 6%. The Planning Department recommends that the City of Kent notify the county that it wishes to reserve the entire 6%. This will ensure maximum flexibility for Planning and Administration of the 1988 CDBG program. LB:JPH:ca 2 q Kent City Council Meeting ! G1 Date ARril 5 1988 Category Bid opening 1. SUBJECT: EAST SMITH STREET/EAST WALNUT STREET STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening was held March 21. with 15 bids received. The low bid was submitted by Site-Con in the amount of $66, 960. 15 . The Director of Public Works. recommends ,. . the bid from Site-Con be accepted. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from the Director Public Works and a bid summary 4 . RECOMMENDED BY, (Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc . ) 5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $n/a SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember r)il moves, Councilmember 6L_ seconds the bid in t amount of $66, 960 . 15 from Site-Con be accepted for the E. Smith St. /E. Walnut St. storm drainage improvement project. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No . 5A DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS March 31, 1988 TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council FROM: Don Wickstrom (� RE: E. Smith Street/E. Walnut Street/96th Ave. S./North Park Storm Drainage Improvements Bid opening was held March 21 with fifteen bids received. Site-Con of Federal Way submitted the low bid in the amount of $66,960. 15. The project will provide improvements to the storm systems on E. Smith, E. Walnut and N. 2nd Avenue north of Cole Street. Construction costs are estimated to be $73, 656. Project funding is included in the Miscellaneous Drainage Improvement budget established at $250, 000 of which $102, 000 has been expended. It is recommended the bid from Site-Con in the amount of $66, 960. 15 be accepted. BID SUMMARY SITE-CON $66,960 . 15 LANG CONSTRUCTION 68 , 460. 65 GARY MERLINO 69 , 966. 50 SCOTTY'S 70, 629 . 50 ROBISON CONSTRUCTION 70, 637 . 60 COMO CONSTRUCTION 72 , 074 . 00 RODARTE CONSTRUCTION 73 , 635.25 KODO CONSTRUCTION 76, 011. 25 R.W. SCOTT 78 , 563 .75 GARY BUDD 82 , 387 .50 GLACIER 82 , 863 . 50 MORRISON GRAVEL 85, 578 . 27 R.L. ALIA 88 , 392 . 00 SHORELINE CONSTRUCTION 90, 893 . 00 CECCANTI CONSTRUCTION 98, 375. 27 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE 77 , 009 . 00 Kent City Council Meeting j Date April 5 , 1988 Category_ Bid Opening 1. SUBJECT: FOURTH AVENUE TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS Was "Ij 001 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening is--&eked11 a ` March 31. The Director of Public Works will review the bids received and make a recommendation as to award. (\jL_ C_ (� D �- w 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from the Director Public Works and a bid summary 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc . ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $n/a SOURCE OF FUNDS: p 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: fD Councilmember moves, Councilmember QV seconds the recommenda on of the Public Works Directo a accepted as follows DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 5B DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS - March 31, 1988 TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council FROM: Don Wickstrom RE: 4th Avenue Traffic Signal Modifications Bid opening was held March 31 with two bids received. The low bid was submitted by U.D.L. , Inc. in the amount of $70, 314. 50. The project provides for traffic signal improvements at the intersections of 4th Avenue South and S. 228th and 4th Avenue South and James Street and interconnect to the signal system on West Valley Highway. Project budget has been established at $75, 000 which only allows for a 6 . 6% contingency in construction costs. However, it is recommended the bid from U.D.L. , Inc. in the amount of $70, 314 . 50 be accepted. BID SUMMARY U.D.L. , INC. $70, 314 .50 SIGNAL ELECTRIC 71, 337 . 50 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE 74 , 515 . 00 a Z 1 Kent City Council Meeting p Date April 5, 1988 ttt Category Bid Opening 1. SUBJECT: RIVERBEND GOLF COURSE SUPPORT STRUCTURES 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Six bids were received for Riverbend Golf Course support structures . After combining the base bid with several alternates, Pease Construction of Tacoma was the low bidder . It is recommended that the base bid and combined alternates be awarded as follows : Base bid $1, 255, 550 Add alternate 1, 6B, 7, 8 , 9 , 10 11, 12 , 13 and 16 378, 900 Deduct alternate 4 (34, 000) _ $1, 600, 450 _ 3 . EXHIBITS: bid tabulation and architects recommendation 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Department ORB Architects and the Parks Committee at their March 30, 1988 meetinq (Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc. ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $1 600 450 (plus Wash. State sales tax) SOURCE OF FUNDS: Golf Course Project Account financed by revenue bonds 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember i moves, Councilmember a_"a L—seconds to award the Riverbend Golf Course structur s contract to Pease Construction in the amount of $1, 600. 450.� I_l DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 5C THE ORS ORGANIZATION,Inc_ F f.� 1 March 31, 1988 City of Kent Parks and Recreation Department City Hall 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 Attention: Mr. Barney Wilson, Director and Mrs. Helen Wickstrcm, Superintendent of Parks Administration ~ Project: Riverbend Golf Course Support Structures ORB Job Nos. 8740 and 8876 Subject: Bid Analysis and Recommendation Ladies and Gentlemen: On Wednesday, March 16, 1988, at 10:00 a.m. , bids were received for the construction of the "Support Structures" portion of the Riverbend Golf Course Project. Proposals were received from six (6) general contractors. A copy of the BID TABULATION SHEET has been attached hereto for your reference. - As you are aware, the "Base Bid Amount" only is not sufficient in scope, in itself, to meet all the needs and requirements of the support structure's portion of the project. It is necessary that most of the work separated out as "Alternate Bid Items" during this bid process be considered in this final contract award in order to provide those "necessary appurtenances" to support the golf course operation. The following page recaps and directly compares five (5) of the proposals received for "BASE BID AMOUNT" and the "TOTAL CONSTRUCTION CONIRACT AMOUNT" for each of the contractors, assuming acceptance of the City's priority Alternate Bid items, as itemized below. a 9 i i i E Evergreen Building,Suite 510 •Renton,Washington 98055 •Telephone: (206)226 3522 City of Kent March 31, 1988 Page 2 The Alternate Bid items reflected in the following analysis are the acceptance of: Alternate Scope/ Bid TyL)e Description No. 1 Add "Bridge Crossing" and all Appurtenant Development No. 4 Substitute Cedar Shingles (Deduct) No. 6B Add Type "B" Bridge Railing No. 7 Add Finish Floor Materials at the Clubhouse No. 8 Add "Well Point Vault Structure" and "Electrical Service" No. 9 Add "Irrigation P►mtp House" and "Electrical Service" No. 10 Add "Electrical Service" to lake "A" and Two (2) Remote Restroom Sites No. 11 Add "Water Service" to Two (2) Remote, Future Restroom Sites and Drinking _.. Fountains No. 12 Add "Pedestrian Matting" to the Bridge Crossing No. 13 Add "Fuel Storage Tank" and "Dispensing Station" No. 16 Add "Chainlink Fencing" Please note that one proposal, received from P.C. & D. , INC. , is not listed as it was "nonresponsive" to Alternate Bid No. 13. This is inconsequential as their Base Bid amount was the highest of the six received. You should also be aware that the work associated with Alternate Bid No. 5 the Meeker Street Pedestrian Crossing - is not recommended for acceptance at this time due to initial budget constraints and the higher than anticipated value associated with the Pease Construction proposal. This work must ultimately be accomplished to satisfy the requirements of the Planning and Traffic Departments. '- 3P •.PftM13.n f•WYB fl 'M+^'lY.i3MLh.r.YT. ._ .. .T -.. .._ .. �'YK ae_.✓. e __ v x b =` City of Kent March 31, 1988 Page 3 Pease Gordon Federal CMS S.L. ORB ,.. Const. Kruse Const. Const. Larsen Estimate A. BASE BID 11255,550 1,265,900 11251,700 11434,312 11408,747 11064,000 B. ALTERNATE BIDS 344,900 375,841 414,900 421,47 484,425 451,873 Value of priority alt. bid items _., (listed above) C. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AMT. 11600,450 11641,741 1,666,600 1,855,359 1,893,172 1,5151873 -• D. Value of each -0- + 41,291 + 66,150 + 254,909 + 292,722 - 84,577 bid relative to 0% + 2.57% + 4.13% + 15.9% + 18.3% <- 5.28%> "low bids" As you can see, the proposals received from the three (3) lowest bidders were very close. The difference between the low and third bidders is only $66,150, or a 4.13% spread. The second bid is only $41,291, or 2.57% above the low bid. The low bid is within 5.28% of ORB's estimate for this same work. This suggests the bids received were very good and represented a true value of the work to be provided. Bidding this tight for such a broad scope of construction package is an indication that the design and bid documents (plans and specifications) were very clear and complete. ORB has made a cursory review of Pease Construction's experience and found nothing that should preclude them from carrying out the work of this contract to the extent and final quality required by the Construction and Contract Documents. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, ORB is recommending an award of a general construction contract to the firm of: PEASE CONSTRUCTION A division of Pease Lasing, Inc. P.O. Box 98046 Tacoma, Washington 98498 Contr. Reg. No. Peasec 165M5 Telephone No. 1-(206) 584-6606 We recommnend a contract award in the Lump Sum Amount of One Million, Six Hundred Thousand, Four Hundred and Fifty and No/100 Dollars ($1,600,450.00) . In addition, we recommend acceptance of the two (2) "UNIT PRICE" bid items, No. 1 and No. 2, relating to a possible increase or decrease in piling lengths for the Bridge Crossing. ''.»,w.s'4 ': 'u""..a.c"..w.�,�".:.......ic'.',�' n•,:::)ri' � ': r r.5� r.,.u...up°rA' � :..V �+eb r mw Tt '.5"ir. :a:.t�...,.. City of Kent March 31, 1988 Page 4 This award would be comprised of Pease Construction's BASE BID AMOUNT plus "acceptance" of the eleven (11) ALTERNATE BID ITEMS listed above in this analysis. Upon completion of review by your staff and approval by the City Council, ORB stands ready to prepare draft copies of the proposed Construction Contract between Pease Construction and the City of Kent for your review. It is our current understanding that the City Council will be reviewing the bids received and this recoation next Tuesday evening, April 5. If you have any questions relating to the foregoing analysis and recommendation, please call me. Sincergl_ r"TnE ORB O '7ATT LeRoy D. Charf, Architect Project Manager LDC mm Encl. Bid Tabulation Form v4 rx .x«.;4i1:,»#. E.,a ♦ -a, wpa.... ca -- Y w,-w g -"�' <n.^" . .,r n.. .-, ... x..., '.. 1111)TABULATION FORM GENEIIAI.CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT RIVERBEND GOLF COURSE SUPPORT STRUCTURES H CITY OF KENT,WASIIINGTON OR11 JOB NO.3740 DID OPENING: Wcdnesday,March 16, 1933 10:011 a.m.,PST PLACE: City of Ken(,Office of City Clerk 220 South Fourth,Kent,Washington for Parks and Recreation Department m o 'j •o •o � a Wm V r] m 2H N O P F P S m N zz J >O N U N s H N F O B U W O V W P W P Nn:00 U%O pV N 10L YW n erN;•r N<N p <N <m6O la= O JW� «WP yS LIFH J U.O LOr.� ^•'N W OWN SN W �< O V W H �O W V 1i161till nnuiiu 111YMA&Z 1u6,18in 1111i1i111 1111i1i1iu 11nIIIi1i1 DID BOND Proposal Signature Page Compliance Statement X X X X Noncollusive Affldarit ADDENDUM NO.I C a '! X X X ADDENDUM NO.2 i X X X X ADDENDUM NO.3 r X X X ne BASE BED M YES 1,434,312 1,251,700 1,265,900 1,408,747 DASE mixBit'EAKDOILN ? ` es .... e:SIECHAN rCAL SGBCOITR xC•F - - - ofEL�CTRIC:AL SUBCOh.TAXCt: : - 0.£ see ibbb .. aPAYING A�lD Sufi FrCf1NG. '': > e f ' .. .: ;(SeclinQ 026DD1 > ..i Y, .s+ Q o-:LAJti>,SC.>t2LYG AND ''. ..r. .. .:> .. k• ` , IkxlGxtraNSltnGOrsCBhGTS # � s r 4t1660 ..:fSeetlnm 02750 o;EALA.46:DF•DASE .:;,.;Gmaral t2orttrac[ ..::i . ..:::.Q ALTERNATE BIDS :11IIlIIIII Ifllllllili 111lBIIIII 1l1111111 1lIIIIIIII 1111111111 lllllillll ALTERNATE DID NO. 1: MQ Add •"BRIDGE CROSSING'AND ALL M APPURTENANT DEVELOPMENT �w .Yes 253,027 263,100 231,505 250,529 ALTERNATE BID NO.2: M� Add -*PARKING AREA LIGHTING' no 20,080 171800 • 18,275 l 17,000 ALTERNATE DID N0.3: -1 r-r 1• l-r r+1(-I i�l l-I :•I•-1 (-I l-� Suhs(Imle-SHEET METAL . ROOFING AND SIDING C. N0 25,000 60,500 47,000 42,000 ALTERNATE BID NO.a: snh,dlnte-CEDAR sumcLEs Myes 25,000 43,600 34,775 45,000 ALTERNATE IIID NO.5: i. d- Ad-1 -MEEKER STREET • PEDESTRIAN CROSSING no 47,277 60,70D 44,212 53,000 ALTE.IINATE HID NO.6: ` \•Id -IIIIIM;E HAILING � r } :Add •'I'YPE'A" II III DI:F:RAILINti no 32,874 37,800 28,055 32,000 A llcrn:ue Nu.611: >'• a 1n .TvrE u' uRlura: RAn.INc yes 29,174 34,500 25 325 28 ODD HID TABULATION FORM RIVERREND GOLF COURSE SUPPORT STRUCTURES PAGE mo o v ? c 2 o n N OAP n � P $�P u fo vNi rx.3 Uv< NN.O- - �2� S•JOP wtwa 2 ... �N^Y O 'J O V< F W S K J< Y OC N�• M3 �W U�(3 N•�O_<x YXS Y •A CN Y .Jtl 2 20 JO � O�O O Wes^ <^WP �NYN GYNJV lmrtJ W ^ �m 00,•O JQI,•O 1�^�V N"•K OOCI• IIOJ OU y. <N JO tM u WN =N W n N< ON W O W•O P u�tttu�s ��iiuun u>Ixiuw u�uun nininw uuu>I�eu tu�iHw ALTERNATE HID NO.7: C Add-FINISH FLOOR MATERIALS yes 19,624 19,60D 19,388 20,000 AT THE CLUBHOUSE ALTERNATE BID NO.E: Add-"WELL POINT VAULT STRUCTURE"AND .'7 yes 12,290 10,600 9,786 9,0DD 'ELECTRICAL SERVICE' C ALTERNATE BID NO.9: + ' ` Add -'IRRIGATION PUMP HOUSE' i AND'ELECTRICAL SERVICE' C yes 43,076 37,600 35,878 36,000 ALTERNATE BID NO. 10: C Add-'ELECTRICAL SERVICE'TO LAKE-A- AND TWO(2)REMOTE RESTROOM SITES yes 20,963 21,000 24,563 20,000 �. ALTERNATE HID NO.]i: C� Add-'WATER SERVICE"TO TWO('_) M REMOTE,FUTURE RESTROOM r s 11,295 11,200 6,002 9,000 SITES AND DRINKING FOUNTAINS C ye ALTERNATE BID NO.12: Lid-"PEDESTRIAN MATTING-TO p yes 2,878 3,50D 3,823 3,000 THE BRIDGE CROSSING M ALTERNATE BID NO. 13: C• i ' Add --FUEL STORAGE TANK"AND yes 11,100 17,900 11,910 20,000 'DISPENSING STATION" ALTERNATE BID NO. 14: C- O Deduct-"HOT WATER RADIANT = r10 1,400 1,200 2,210 1,100 FLOOR HEAT SYSTEM" � ALTERNATE BID NO. Is: Iq 10,833 12,800 10,925 11,000 D,,lncl-'AIR COOLED WATER CHILLER' m ALTERNATE BID NO. 16: AdJ --CHAINLINK FENCING" C yes 42,620 39,500 •42,436 41,500 UNIT PRICE BID Mm ITEM NO. I 0 - 2.14 - none FOUNDATION PILING PER LINEAL FOOT LESS TIIAN *BASIC DES If,N LENGTII' � (BY MORE.THAN 5 FF.E"f) ITEM NO. 2 '1' 46 ..... FOUNDATION I'I mc-, PEIi LINEAL FOOT SIlIR i_TII A N_ C 8.50 ,11.00 16.05 none 'BASIC DESIGN LEN(;,rir i. (IlY M011li'TIIAN 5 FELT) BID TABULATION FORM RIVERREND GOLF COURSE SUPPORT STRUCTURES PACE 2 • z . 2 OWJa N O P U w K PP �OP z wo 00FP um tl O W J t O Y I1iUM 1211n1fi ll 111illIDu 111111111 1101111111 11111111111 anan i[11H1111 BID BOND an an Proposal Signature Page an Compliance Staten,en i X X Noncollusl♦e Afflda,ll an y ADDENDUM NO.I X X ADDENDUM N0.2 ADDENDUM NO.3 an X X BASE BID es an 1.550, 1,255,550 1,064,000 f1eSE H1Di41tE�lADO N-- - � � -tt � o.OtECHANIGAL S{a¢CO�7R�C7 � 1f�yy�` 1I9,0(x$; 40s ..: 99 370 aw o:YAY#NC hNDSURFeIG.I\♦Cr = - ' 8Q,�45. o I.A�DSGAPL\G AND :. :i ]RHICATroN sUBGONLRAL7S < 43t4�Ob A5,000 ,73 $(Stelfolu¢2750 xnd 03900j .:.::: : 51 a�HALANCE'DF BAST QID '� < r ..:.,:an1f276f1 }Q(1,S5i�.? ALTERNATE BIDS Eli�lllllll 1111111111111111111111 111111111 Illlllltll 1111111111 Ililllllif =+ ALTERNATE BID NO.1: an Add-'BRIDGE CROSSING'AND ALL an 217,492 205,000 240,250 APPURTENANT DEVELOPMENT YE ALTERNATE BID NO.2: ae 11,315 Add-'PARAING AREA LIGHTING- NO 16,800 16,500 an ALTERNATE BID NO.3: Sul,sl ilttte-SHEET METAL NO = 4� 6M 6E 000 35 ,000 ROOFING AND SIDING ne 7.(+)C-D I+)0 NI 1-1 1♦)ld 1+)(-I Nil-) l+l� ALTERNATE BID NO.a: e' $ulnlllule-CEDAR SIZINGLES YES p 36,915 34,000 19,025 F- - BID NO.5: �'+ ' AddR STREET NO 45,000 55,000 40,M TRIAN CROSSINGWe BID NO.6:E IIAILI\G ne le N..6A:'A' BRIDGE RAILING N0 E• 33,E34,000 23,320 Nn.611: 29, 20 000 add -Tl'1'L'D' 111M)CE RAILING YES LJ t DID TABULATION FOAM RIVERBEND GOLF COURSE SUPPORT STRUCTURES PACE oWJ •o zo .0 KO W U w WO O<J 11 NN 66FaN0 `J•—p1J OW iuunn{ In1{111{i 1111{I{In11 moon 1{nll{I{I {IIII{IHIIi 111{IIIIIi ALTERNATE BID NO.7: Cm Add-FINISH FLOOR MATERIALS AT THE CLUBHOUSE YES 20,000 20,000 23 365 ALTERNATE BID NO.F: Add-'WELL POINT VAULT " STRUCTURE"AND 17,000 6,000 14,260 'ELECTRICAL SERVICE" YES ALTERNATE BID NO.9: "r ... Add-"IRRIGATION PUMP HOUSE" 27,000 36,500 42,748 AND"ELECTRICAL SERVICE"Y E S " ALTERNATE DID NO. 10: " Add-'ELECTRICAL SERVICE"TO LAKE"A"AND TWO(') YES " 20,700 20,000 23,100 . REMOTE RESTROOM SITES .t ALTERNATE BID NO.11: YES Add-"WATER SERVICE"TO TWO('—) 3,135 4,000 41,365 REMOTE,FUTURE RESTROOM " SITES AND DRINKING FOUNTAINS" ALTERNATE BID NO.12: " r r r Add-'PEDESTRIAN MATTING"Tp 3,000 3,400 3,210 THE BRIDGE CROSSING TES ALTERNATE BID NO. 13: r r Add -"FUEL STORAGE TANK"AND 'DISPENSING STATION' YES �H011e 13,000 17,500 ALTERNATE BED NO.14: Deduct-'HOT WATER RADIANT .. FLOOR HEATSYSTEM" NO 2,200 2,000 1,870 ALTERNATE BID NO. I5: NO Deduct-'AIR COOLED WATER CHILLER' " 10,000 11,000 14,435 ALTERNATE DID NO. Id: `�Y-' •• Add -"CHAINLINK FENCING" YES " 41,500 41,000 45,000 UNIT PRICE BID "� t ITEM NO. 1 = ; 10 15 14 FOUNDATION PILING PER .". LINEAL FOOT LESS TIIAN "BASIC DESIGN LENGLENGTH" " (RY MORE TIIAN 5 FEET) ITEM NO.3 �+ � FOUNDATION PILING PER - 10 1.00 14 LINEAL FOOT bIOIIF TITAN_ "BASIC DESII:N Lli Nf;TIP 111Y MO It F.TI IA,4 5 FEET) R E P O R T S A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE D. PLANNING COMMITTEE E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE F. PARKS COMMITTEE k G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS J OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES March 15, 1988 COUNCIL MEMBERS 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. He 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 no significant savings by using the existing dias 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. FUNDING THE POLICE/FIRE TRAINING CENTER Chief Angelo distributed a memorandum to the Committee noting that following the issuance of the Public Safety Bond Issue in December of 1986, that the regional Police/Fire training facility anticipated in that bond issue was no longer a viable solution for neighboring cities. Based upon this, an additional $950,000 was needed to complete the Police/Fire Training Facility. This amount was incorporated in the 1989 component of the Capital Improvement Program and this information is being brought to the Council at this time so that bonding capacity can be reserved for that purpose. Following Chief Angelo's presentation it was noted by Finance Director McCarthy that the $950,000 amount had not been set aside in Councilmanic capacity presentations previously made to the Council . In the initial discussions of their additional funds, it was thought that some kind of unique public/private partnership could be arranged such that the City's Councilmanic capacity would not be affected. When later information showed that this could not be the case the adjustment in the Councilmanic capacity forecast was inadvertantly not adjusted. Operations Committee Minutes March 15, 1988 Page 3 The Finance Director noted that Councilmanic capacity has been set aside in 1989 -. for transportation purposes and with the addition of this $950,000 amount for the training center, the Councilmanic capacity for 1989 may be short approximately $200,000. The capacity is based upon anticipated increases in the assessed valuation of 10 percent based on historical information. This amount may be more or less and whatever adjustment up or down would be could reflected in the transportation issue. Also of consideration is the fact that the capacity discussed is a January 1 capacity which increases during the year as debt payments are made on other outstanding issues. Since neither the transportation or public safety bonds need to be sold in the very first part of 1989, additional capacity may be available later in the year for funding both at their full level . Based upon this, the Committee felt it was important to still reserve the additional amount to complete the Police/Fire training facility and any adjustment that might need be made in the amount of bonds that could be issued could be reduced from the amount set aside for transportation. The Committee unanimously approved the recommendation for this item to be placed on the April 5th agenda. 66F-01F r .. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE March 8, 1988 PRESENT: Jon Johnson Gary Gill Berne Biteman Jim Harris Judy Woods Mike Ledbetter Don Wickstrom Jerry L. Graham Brent McFall Gary Ewing Sandra Driscoll Tom Sharp Burlington Northern Easement Wickstrom explained that Council has previous passed a resolution requiring that permanent rights be obtained when seeking utility crossings of railroad rights of way. In conjunction with our 1987 Sanitary Sewer Rebuild project, a sewer crossing of the Burlington Northern tracks at James Street is required. Burlington Northern had originally proposed a permit and after much negotiating they now propose an easement similar to what they have granted to Metro. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposal . Wickstrom requested authorization from the committee to accept the easement: The Committee unanimously approved the request. Solid Waste Issues Jon Johnson stated there are two issues to be discussed under this topic. The first deals with the recycling proposals we requested. The purpose today is to discuss whether awarding the bid or to take some other action . The second item deals with making recommendation to the Council on a decision whether to commit Kent ' s waste stream to the County or to develop an alternative program. Johnson proposed that, based on the RFPs submitted, staff be directed to negotiate an agreement with Kent Disposal for curbside recycling program for a maximum of 18 months. In concurrence with that, Kent Disposal should petition the WUTC to include the cost of the recycling program into the tariff structure. That way there would be a definite period where Kent would no longer be subsidizing the recycling program. Johnson continued that if WUTC determined another carrier(s) were to be the exclusive hauler(s) we would then have to negotiate a similar type of agreement with those haulers. Johnson added the agreement should also include language to the fact that it is a voluntary program for the customers. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE March 8, 1988 PRESENT: Jon Johnson Gary Gill Berne Biteman Jim Harris Judy Woods Mike Ledbetter Don Wickstrom Jerry L. Graham Brent McFall Gary Ewing Sandra Driscoll Tom Sharp Burlington Northern Easement Wickstrom explained that Council has previous passed a resolution requiring that permanent rights be obtained when seeking utility crossings of railroad rights of way. In conjunction with our 1987 Sanitary Sewer Rebuild project, a sewer crossing of the Burlington Northern tracks at James Street is required. Burlington Northern had originally proposed a permit and after much negotiating they now propose an easement similar to what they have granted to Metro. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposal. Wickstrom requested authorization from the Committee to accept the easement: The Committee unanimously approved the request. Solid Waste Issues Jon Johnson stated there are two issues to be discussed under this topic. The first deals with the recycling proposals we requested. The purpose today is to discuss whether awarding the bid or to take some other action . The second item deals with making recommendation to the Council on a decision whether to commit Kent ' s waste stream to the County or to develop an alternative program. Johnson proposed that, based on the RFPs submitted, staff be directed to negotiate an agreement with Kent Disposal for curbside recycling program for a maximum of 18 months. In concurrence with that, Kent Disposal should petition the WUTC to include the cost of the recycling program into the tariff structure. That way there would be a definite period where Kent would no longer be subsidizing the recycling program. Johnson continued that if WUTC determined another carrier(s) were to be the exclusive hauler(s) we would then have to negotiate a similar type of agreement with those haulers. Johnson added the agreement should also include language to the fact that it is a voluntary program for the customers. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL OPTION Contract Provision 6.2.2 Terminate this agreement and remove the City from the County System. In order to implement this option, the following items must be accomplished prior thereto. 0 Develop an interim revenue source to finance the planning/study efforts 0 Develop a Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for the City in accordance with RCW 70.95 0 obtain DOE and Seattle King County Health Department approval of the Plan 0 Prepare a detailed analysis of the various disposal options including the respective EIS o Select the disposal option 0 Develop a financing plan 0 Reinstate Solid Waste Utility in order to get control of the waste stream o Develop an interim means for disposal of the solid wastes until a facility is built *Because the County has the only DOE approved landfill in King County and County ordinance prohibits the transporting of garbage outside the County, the City's only option is to interim contract with County. Possibility of County concurrence therewith is estimated at minimal. 0 Prepare detailed site selection report with EIS *Any facility whether it is recycling to incineration needs a landfill to deposit residuals in. Because the County has the only DOE approved landfill in the County and their ordinance prohibits the transporting of garbage out of the County, the City has to either develop its own landfill (within City limits) or contract with County. Probability of County concurrence therewith is estimated -- at minimal. o Build facility 0 Estimated time to accomplish above - 3 years or more. Conclusion: This was never a realistic option. 44 -- PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MARCH 22 , 1988 - PRESENT: Jon Johnson Sandra Driscoll Berne Biteman Johnie Nall Don Wickstrom Ken Dozier Gary Gill Don Barnes Citizen Concerns Regarding 30th Avenue Mr. Barnes stated it wasn't only 30th but 240th as well. Mr. Barnes commented there are a few blind people who try to negotiate 30th Avenue. He suggested 30th and 240th be widened to allow for a pedestrian pathway. Another item, is the street sweeping business which has no fence around the property and "junk" hangs over ditches. Mr. Barnes commented there is no place for people to walk on the south side of 240th. He suggested the use of a strip now used for parking for the swap meet on the south side of 240th as a foot path. Mr. ' Barnes observed also there are no crosswalks on Pacific Highway from 240th to Kent Des Moines Road. He stated people are crossing in the middle of the road rather than going to the intersection. He suggested a "Barnes" crosswalk at 240th and old 99. Mr. Barnes stated also that old junk trailers are being parked on a lot behind him. Wickstrom suggested that we prepare a list of Mr. Barnes concerns addressed today, have him review the list and then refer the items to the proper departments for review and response. Mr. Barnes stated his priority would be 240th and clean up the intersection, cut the bank back, put some type of retainer on the bank. Service off Kent Springs Transmission Main Wickstrom explained that Mr. Dozier receives his water service from the Kent Springs Transmission Main. Mr. Dozier stated the last time the transmission main was repaired the service line was reduced to either a 1-1/2 or 2 inch line . He has had a deterioration in volume and pressure from that time. Mr. Dozier asked that the City investigate the problem. Wickstrom stated we would have the pressure and flow at the meter checked. The City has replaced portions of the transmission main which has reduced the friction in the main further reducing the pressure to those services off the transmission main. In addition, Wickstrom stated Public Works Committee March 22 , 1988 Page 2 the new fire station will be built across the road from Mr. Dozier ' s property. In conjunction with that development, Water District 111 's water main will be extended thus giving Mr. Dozier another water source . Following existing city policy for transmission main customers , the water customer would pay any charge in-lieu-of assessement associated with connection and the City would pay any meter and connection charges. The main would be available next year. Mr. Dozier commented also that he recently had an extremely high water bill, the following bill was still high but about half of the first bill and now the bills are back to normal levels. Wickstrom stated we would have the meter checked at ' the same time as the pressure and flow. County/City Solid Waste Agreement Driscoll distributed copies of a letter from King County Executive Tim Hill which refuses to extend the deadline beyond March 31. Sandra continued we are back to the three choices - go into business ourselves, continue under existing agreement or try to negotiate a new agreement. ' A special Council meeting at 8 : 00 on Tuesday , 3/29 has been scheduled to consider the interlocal agreement between King County and the City. This will follow the 7 : 00 meeting with King County Solid Waste Committee. Sandra pointed out there are still several cities that have not yet signed the agreement. Sandra pointed out that the model agreement will allow the City to participate in the interlocal forum on development of the solid waste management plan. Under the old agreement, we would not have this option available to us. The staff recommendation would be that the City continue in the County system and negotiate the new language in the new agreement . Biteman asked what the agreement holds the City to with respect to the amount of the waste stream. Sandra explained the City does not have to commit to any amount of waste. The only obligation we have is to inform the County of our recycling program but we have control over it. Sandra clarified for Biteman that if we do nothing we would continue under the existing agreement. The Committee unanimously agreed to recommend the City continue in the County system and negotiate a new agreement. KENT CITY COUNCIL MAR 24 1888 CITY OF KENT PLANNING COMMITTEE CITY CLERK March 15, 1988 4 : 00 PM Council Members Present Staff Present Judy Woods, Chair Charlene Anderson Steve Dowell Lin Ball Jon Johnson Jim Harris Dan Stroh others Present Dee Moschel, Human Services Commission Lyle Price, Kent News Journal 1989 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOCAL PROGRAM POLICIES Lin Ball stated the policies as presented are basically the same as last year's policies. The human services policies were updated to reflect a wider range of services than health care only; the human services policies were reviewed and endorsed by the Human Services Commission. Jim Harris added that the policies as presented de-emphasize parks programs which did not fall within H&CD target areas. The committee approved the recommended changes as presented. The program policies will be forwarded to the City Council at their meeting on April 5th. Chairwoman Woods requested that in the City Council packet it is indicated that the policies have been recommended by the Human Services Commission (for the human services portion) and approved by the City Council Planning Committee. HUMAN SERVICES FUND The committee approved the amendment to the human services ordinance to provide a vehicle whereby the City of Kent can receive gifts, donations, etc. for human services. Lin Ball stated the proposed amendment is patterned after the Arts Commission ordinance; gifts, donations, etc. would be presented to the City and forwarded through the City Council to the human services fund. This item will appear as an agenda item for the City Council meeting scheduled this same night. CLOSEOUT OF 1985 BLOCK GRANT CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAM PROJECT NO. C85764 Dan Stroh indicated that $2 , 353 remains in this program fund. Since housing repair related to crime prevention can be accomplished through the regular housing repair program, staff recommends to transfer the remaining funds in Project #C85764 to the general housing repair project. The committee approved the staff proposal. The next Planning Committee meeting is scheduled for April 5th at 4 : 00 PM in the 2nd Floor Conference Room. 1 MINUTES FOR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING MARCH 8, 1988 PRESENT: Paul Mann Sgt. Bob Cline Christi Houser Chief Bond Chief Frederiksen Mary Ann Kern Chief Angelo Priscilla Shea Brent McFall Charles Walter Cooke - citizen PARKING PROBLEM Mr. Cooke presented a letter to the Committee regarding his concerns for the parking problems that he has encountered in and around the area of Stewart's Drug Store. Apparently some of the business people in the area are parking along the street for extended periods of time, limiting the parking available for customers. Mr. Cooke indicated that he has previously spoken with Chief Frederiksen regarding this issue, but felt that it should be presented to the Public Safety Committee. Mr. Cooke indicated that he had perused the - area again yesterday and found the same vehicles parked there. He also had opportunity to speak with the parking enforcement officer regarding these vehicles. Apparently after these vehicles have been chalked, they are being moved just enough to eliminate the chalk marks prior to the expiration of the two-hour parking period. Chief Frederiksen stated that citations are being issued and will continue to be issued as long as there is a violation. Chief Frederiksen indicated that a review of the current ordinance on parking violations will be conducted and the possibility of a progressive type fine looked at. Paul Mann questioned as to why parking meters were not used. Chief Frederiksen indicated that there were no parking meters when he came to Kent and that this was apparently because the downtown business community chose to not have the meters in order to be more competitive with the larger shopping centers. Mann questioned as to why the vehicle could not be towed. Chief Frederiksen indicated that with the current ordinance that this could not be done and again indicated the need for review and modification of the current ordinance. Christi Houser indicated that after the review is done that the alternative should be presented to the Chamber and KDE to get a feel as to how the local business community would react. CONFIDENTIAL BUY FUND - POLICE DEPARTMENT Chief Frederiksen indicated that there had been a cash flow problem earlier in the year for the narcotics buy fund. The fund had been down to approximately $5, 000 and they were in the middle of a major operation and they felt that they would need to ask for additional funds. Sgt. Bob Cline indicated that due to the sale of a vehicle, MINUTES FROM PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING MARCH 8, 1988 PAGE -2- in which a determination was made that the funds received can now be deposited into the confidential buy fund, the situation is now not as critical. Also, due to the fact that the purchase of surveillance equipment was approved through the budget helped to free up additional funds. Chief Frederiksen indicated that last year was very conservative and that they needed become more aggressive in their efforts and that they may be back later in the year to ask for additional funds. STATUS ON BOND ISSUE BUILDING PROJECTS Chief Angelo indicated that at the current time all projects are estimated at over budget, but plans are being cut back as far as possible without cutting out police and fire operations. Although the Bonds wouldn't actually be sold until 1989, it is necessary to get approval/authorization to issue Bonds now in order to proceed with buildings. Approval for the $950, 000 to go to Operations and then to Council. Chief Angelo and Chief Bond reviewed plans and diagrams for the various building projects and pointed areas of change to the Committee. Some of those changes are as follows: Training Facility would be one story and would be joining the buildings together. This was done to keep within budget and to lower the silhouette. All the building plans are being done so that it can be added on to later as far as adding space for classrooms, meeting rooms, etc. Shingle roofs rather than metal. Trying to work towards low maintenance facilities. Christi Houser questioned as to whether or not the proceeds of the sale of part of the Westhill property would be put back into the project. Chief Angelo indicated that yes, it would be, but that would not occur for some time. It was brought to the attention of the Committee that there may be a purchase offer on the surplus house on the Easthill site. Chief Angelo indicated that burning of the house is currently scheduled for 3/24/88, but that if a firm offer was presented by 3/18/88, they would take the offer. If nothing firm was presented by the 18th, they would burn the house on the 24th. Houser questioned as to why the change from metal to shingle roofs or why tile wasn't considered. Chief Angelo indicated that the reason for changing was because of the costs involved. The costs for tile would be strictly out of the question. Chief Angelo again stated that everything was being done to keep the MINUTES FOR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING MARCH 8, 1988 PAGE -3- the projects within budget and still be function for police and fire operations and that there will not be requests for additional monies for the projects, unless for some reason they come across a major glitch as the projects progress. Chief Frederiksen notified the Committee that Officer Lorna Rufener will be leaving the Crime Prevention Unit. Officer Rufener has been with the Crime Prevention Unit for approximately. five years and has limited opportunity for advancement within the Unit and has therefore chosen this move in her career. Paul Mann volunteered his assistance in the areas of Block Watch and other such programs if there ever was a need. Meeting adjourned. SPECIAL MEETING KENT CITY 'COUNCIL MARCH 29 , 1988 8 : 00 P . M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS The City Clerk has given proper legal notice for this special meeting of the Kent City Council . AGENDA CALL TQ ORDER ROLL CALL BUSINESS ITEM Interlocal agreement between King County and Kent regarding solid waste disposal ADJOURNMENT Kent City Council Special Meeting Date March 29 , 1988 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN KING COUNTY AND KENT REGARDING SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Pursuant to the "Agreement Between King County and the City of Kent Concerning Use of King County Solid Waste Disposal Facilities" , the City may give written notice to the County by March 31, 1988 either (1) that it intends to continue use of the County system at which time the County must offer to amend the existing agreement as necessary to make it reasonably equivalent and reasonably consistent with agreements made with other users, or (2) give notice to the County that it will terminate this agreement and remove the City from the County system. If no notice is given to the County by March 31, 1988 , the existing agreement remains in full force and effect. It is recommended by the Public Works Committee that the City Council pursue its option to notify the County of its intent to continue use of the County system and negotiate amendments to the existing agreement. 3 . EXHIBITS : Memorandum from Brent McFall and memorandum from ' Sandra Driscoll . 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc . ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds that by March 31, 1988 the City notify the County of the City' s intent to continue use of the County system so that the County must offer to amend the existing agreement between the County and the City concerning use of King County solid waste disposal facilities as necessary to make the agreement reasonably equivalent, where appropriate, and reasonably consistent with agreements made with other users . DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3816L-02L F L E MEMORANDUM DATE: February 24, 1988 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Brent McFall , City Administrator �� SUBJECT: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WI TH KING COUNTY CONCERNING THE USE OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES The existing "Agreement between King County and the City of Kent. Concerning Use of King County's Solid Waste Disposal Facilities" provides that relevant provisions of the agreement will be examined after the County has concluded negotiations with other municipal users of the County system. Based upon this proviso, the City and County agreed to the following: 1 . By March 31 , 1988, the City may notify the County of its intention to continue to use the County system, at which time the County must offer to amend the agreement as necessary to make the agreement reasonably equivalent, where appropriate, and reasonably consistent with agreements made with other users; or 2. By March 31 , 1988, the City may terminate this agreement and thereby remove the City from the County waste disposal system. 3. If no written notice is given to the City, then the existing agreement remains in full force and effect according to its existing terms, which is for 40 years from the date of execution, that being December 31 , 1986. It is recommended that the Council choose the first option. Although the County Council has only entered into approximately ten interlocal agreements with .other cities, the terms and conditions of those agreements generally are more favorable to the City. In particular, the greatest advantage is that the •new agreements would allow the City to participate in the County' s process of developing its comprehensive solid waste management plan. The model agreements call for the establishment of an interlocal forum composed of representatives of the Suburban Cities, Seattle, and King County. The purpose of the forum is to develop a proposed comprehensive solid waste management plan to be submitted to the cities for their review and approval . By not availing itself of the option to include itself in this forum, the City precludes itself from participating in the development of the plan. If the Council exercises the option to terminate this agreement, it must be prepared to direct its solid waste elsewhere. This must occur by March 31 , 1988. This option is contrary to the direction the Council took when it decided to disband its garbage utility and have the disposal of its garbage by franchised haulers regulated by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. As it stands now, the City is not prepared to dispose of its own solid waste. We have no facility in place which can accept our waste at this early date. Furthermore, the possibility of extending our agreement with King County on a short term basis until such a facility can be developed is remote. This doesn't even take into account the problem Ore would face in siting a waste disposal facility of any type which we do not have to address if we stay with King County. Finally, we can only exercise authority to direct a hauler to dispose of solid waste at a specific site if we control the waste stream. In other words, we would need to get back into the garbage business and enter into a contract with one or more haulers in order to he� able to direct waste to any disposal facility. I am not prepared to recommend such action to you. Therefore, it is recommended that the City notify King County of its intent to continue use of the County system. The County is thereby obligated to offer to amend the existing agreement as necessary to make the agreement reasonably equivalent, where appropriate, and reasonably consistent with agreements made with other users. cc: Don Wickstrom Sandra Driscoll 370OL-09L OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DATE: March 24, 1988 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers ROM: Sandra Driscoll , City Attorney BJECT: SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN KING COUNTY AND THE CITY OF KENT Through the contractual "Agreement Between King County and the City of Kent Concerning Use of King County Solid Waste Disposal Facilities", the County and the City agreed, among other things, that by March 31 , 1988 the City may give written notice to the County of one of two options: 1 . Notify the County of its intent to continue in the use of the system at which time the County must offer to amend the agreement as necessary to make the agreement reasonably equivalent, where appropriate, and reasonably consistent with agreements made with other users; or 2. Terminate this agreement and, thereby, remove the City from the King County solid waste disposal system. If the City takes no action by Thursday, March 31 , 1988, then the City continues under the terms and conditions of the existing contract with the County. At its last meeting in February, 1988, the Council directed the Administration to request an extension of the March 31 deadline to September 30, 1988. This request has been denied by the King County Executive. (See attached letter. ) Therefore, the Kent City Council must determine whether or not to exercise one of the two options listed above by March 31 or to continue under the existing agreement. SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS 1 . Existing Agreement In brief, the existing agreement provides that King County shall dispose of all non-recycled solid waste generated and collected in the City of Kent for a period of 40 years from the date of entering into the agreement, which was December 31 , 1986. Major provisions of the agreement are: A. The City must by ordinance designate the County disposal system for all disposal of solid waste generated in the corporate limits of the City. 1 B. The waste that is eliminated through waste reduction or recycling activities that have been coordinated with the City are exempt from this requirement. C. No nonrecycled solid waste may be diverted from the County disposal sites without King County approval . D. The City and County agree to work together to achieve State priorities for waste reduction, recycling, and energy recovery. Recycling activities must be coordinated with the County, but that coordination is not a grant of authority to the County to approve or disapprove of recycling activities. E. Certain payments for mitigating environmental impact were agreed to. Service fees are to be consistent with those adopted by the County for all users of the same class. F. The County is obligated to explore rate and service alternatives with the City or request the Puget Sound Council of Governments to convene a regional rate equity advisory committee. Through March 31 , 1988, the City is not responsible through any increased disposal rates for costs that may be allocated from environmental - 2 - damages incurred by the County attributed to the operation or closure of Cedar Hills. After March 31 , 1988, the County may recover those allocated costs through disposal fees the same as it does with all other system users through the disposal fees. G. The County holds the City harmless against claims arising out of the County's operation of the disposal system. This does not cover claims arising out of the City's operation of motor vehicles in connection with the system. H. The City must hold the County harmless for any property damage or personal injury caused by the City's sole negligence in its use of the system. I. The City agrees that all waste delivered to Cedar Hills is in compliance with certain state and federal environmental health laws. If the County notifies the City of any violation of this provision, the City must take immediate steps to remedy the violation. 2. Model Interlocal Agreement The County is currently negotiating interlocal agreements for disposal of solid waste with other cities in King County. It is starting with a model solid waste interlocal agreement. This agreement is substantially similar to the contract currently in existence between King County and the City of Kent. The significant differences are as follows: A. The County is specifically designated as the planning authority for solid waste, including moderate risk waste. B. The County must provide support and technical assistance to the city if the city seeks to establish a waste reduction and recycling program. C. The County must develop waste stream forecasts as a part of the comprehensive planning process. - 3 - D. The County assumes all risks related to facility sizing based upon those forecasts. E. The contract clarifies that the County may adopt and amend rates that are necessary to recover all costs of operation, including closure of landfills. E. The County assumes the same liabilities as in the existing agreement. F. If the County finds that the City is in violation of the federal , state or local environmental health laws, the County must provide the city with written notice of such. Upon the notice, the city must take steps to remedy the violation unless, in good faith, the city disagrees with the County regarding the violation. The agreement then sets forth the mechanism through which this dispute will be settled. G. The agreement specifically declares that the city is not held harmless with regard to liability under CERCLA and SARA for cleanup of contaminated property, pollutants or hazardous or dangerous substances. H. The most significant difference between the agreements is that by the new model interlocal agreement provides that the County and the city agree to enter into a "forum interlocal agreement" . This establishes a representative forum that will participate with the County in the preparation of the comprehensive solid waste management plan. That plan must promote waste reduction and recycling in accordance with the state-dictated solid waste management priorities. The elements of the plan are specifically spelled out in the proposed model forum interlocal agreement. The plan must be approved by both the King County Council and cities representing three-quarters of the population of the incorporated population of jurisdictions that are parties to the - 4 - forum interlocal agreement. If three-quarters of the cities do not approve the plan, then the State Department of Ecology will resolve the dispute. The "forum interlocal agreement" sets forth the specific functions, duties and responsibilities of members of the forum. It will be composed of representatives from unincorporated King County, Seattle, and the suburban cities. 3. Remove the City from the County Solid Waste System The last option for notifying the County by March 31 provides that Kent will no longer have the city solid waste disposed of in the County solid waste disposal system. Should that be the decision, the City must, by March 31 , 1988, find an alternative for disposal of its solid waste. Realistically, it would take the City approximately three years to establish its own alternatives for solid waste disposal . A complete summary of the steps that would have to be taken by the Council in order to dispose of its own solid waste is set forth in the attached memorandum prepared by Don Wickstrom. STATE ENVIRONMEIJTAL POLICY ACT The State Environmental Policy Act requires environmental review when the Council is considering action on non-project proposals. This review may be required of this decision the Council is currently considering regarding the agreement for disposal of the City's solid waste. The City staff has prepared an environmental checklist on two of the three options available to the Council . It has determined that both the option to continue under the existing agreement and the option to negotiate amendments to the current agreement are not significant actions. A checklist was not prepared on the third option of withdrawing from the system because it is not a feasible option at this time. Upon decision by the Council , the City will follow the remaining appropriate procedures under the State Environmental Policy Act for review and comment by other agencies of the Determination of Non-Significance. Copies of the checklist may be obtained from the City Clerk or Lin Ball of the Planning Department. 3817L-02L _ 5 _ @ RECEIVCU King; County Executive y!!-.It , 1 1988 T1A1 HILL CITY ADMINISTRATI©I dDO King Cuunly C(Iurlhuusc 16 Third ilvcnnc soalllc.\Vashin);hm!1lIIU•I 1206):414•40•10 March 15, 1988 Mr. J. Brent McFall City Administrator City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 RE: Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement Dear Mr. McFall : Thank you for your March 3, 1988 letter regarding the "Agreement Between King County and the City of Kent Concerning Use of King County Solid Waste Disposal Facilities." As noted in your letter, the agreement between the City of Kent and King County requires the City to make specific decisions by March 31 , 1988. The options available to the City are: (1) withdraw from the County solid waste system by March 31 , 1988; (2) stay in the County system under the terms of the existing agreement; or (3) stay in the County system and negotiate amendments to the current agreement. It is my understanding that negotiations with municipalities regarding the provisions of the Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement are completed. A model agreement was developed by committees comprised of representatives from cities and King County and was reviewed and recommended by the Puget Sound Council Governments King Subregional Council , the Suburban Cities Association, and the King County Council . The City of Kent and other municipalities in King County were provided with copies of the approved agreement in October 1987. The King County Council extension of the original December 31 , 1987 deadline to June 30, 1988 was intended to provide cities with time to fulfill administrative processes related to execution of the agreement. Substantive changes to the provisions contained in the model agreement are not expected. I believe that the City will have sufficient information available to make a decision within the time frame of our existing agreement. Mr. J. Brent McFall March 15, 1988 Page Two I appreciate the City of Kent's commitment to a regional approach to solid waste issues and the cooperative work that has been accomplished by the City and King County's Solid Waste Division in establishing Kent's recycling information center and hotline. I look forward to your response regarding the direction of planning efforts. I hope to continue to work with City of Kent staff to develop and implement solutions to the varied solid waste issues facing the region. Thank you again for your letter. If you have additional questions or concerns prior to the March 31 , 1988 deadline, please call Rod Hansen, Manager, Solid Waste Division, at 344-3842. Sincerely, Tim Hill King County Executive TH:MM:dvs MM388-5 cc: Dan Kelleher, Mayor, City of Kent Kent City Councilmembers King County Councilmembers ATTN: Cal Hoggard, Program Director Jerry Peterson, Administrator Cynthia Foster, Council Staff Sandra Driscoll , Attorney, City of Kent Richard Holmquist, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney ATTN: Jim Brewer, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Paul Tanaka, Deputy Director. , Department of Public Works ATTN: Rodney G. Hansen, Manager, Solid Waste Division Gary Kiyonaga, Assistant Manager Ken Guy, Lead Program Coordinator Marilyn Monk, Program Coordinator RECEIVED 1988 King Comity Executive '!'11v1 HILL CITY ADMINISTRATION' •11111 King Cot u 1p Cuurlhuuce 511i•I•hird Avvnur SmIlle.N'nshin};luu!A{10•I (206)34-1.4040 March 15, 1988 Mr. J. Brent McFall City Administrator City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 RE: Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement Dear Mr. McFall : Thank you for your March 3, 1988 letter regarding the "Agreement Between King County and the City of Kent Concerning Use of King County Solid Waste Disposal Facilities. " As noted in your letter, the agreement between the City of Kent and King County requires the City to make specific decisions by March 31, 1988. The options available to the City are: (1) withdraw from the County solid waste system by March 31 , 1988; (2) stay in the County system under the terms of the existing agreement; or (3) stay in the County system and negotiate amendments to the current agreement. It is my understanding that negotiations with municipalities regarding the provisions of the Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement are completed. A model agreement was developed by committees comprised of representatives from cities and King County and was reviewed and recommended by the Puget Sound Council, Governments King Subregional Council , the Suburban Cities Association, and the King County Council . The City of Kent and other municipalities in King County were provided with copies of the approved agreement in October 1987. The King County Council extension of the original December 31 , 1987 deadline to June 30, 1988 was intended to provide cities with time to fulfill administrative processes related to execution of the agreement. Substantive changes to the provisions contained in the model agreement are not expected. I believe that the City will have sufficient information available to make a decision within the time frame of our existing agreement. Mr. J. Brent McFall March 15, 1988 Page Two I appreciate the City of Kent's commitment to a regional approach to solid ' waste issues and the cooperative work that has been accomplished by the City and King County's Solid Waste Division in establishing Kent's recycling information center and hotline. I look forward to your response regarding the direction of planning efforts. I hope to continue to work with City of Kent staff to develop and implement solutions to the varied solid waste issues facing the region. Thank you again for your letter. If you have additional questions or concerns prior to the March 31 , 1988 deadline, please call Rod Hansen, Manager, Solid Waste Division, at 344-3342. Sincerely, Tim Hill King County Executive TH:MM:dvs MM388-5 cc: Dan Kelleher, Mayor, City of Kent Kent City Councilmembers King County Councilmembers ATTN: Cal Hoggard, Program Director Jerry Peterson, Administrator Cynthia Foster, Council Staff Sandra Driscoll , Attorney, City of Kent Richard Holmquist, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney ATTN: Jim Brewer, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Paul Tanaka, Deputy Director, Department of Public Works ATTN: Rodney G. Hansen, Manager, Solid Waste Division Gary Kiyonaga, Assistant Manager Ken Guy, Lead Program Coordinator Marilyn Monk, Program Coordinator SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL OPTION ooncza�c Prods>on 9.2.2 Tcrminata this agreement and remove the City from the County System. In order to implement this option, the following items must be accomplished prior thereto. o Develop an interim revenue source to finance the planning/study efforts o Develop a Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for the City in accordance with RCW 70.95 o Obtain DOE and Seattle King County Health Department approval of the Plan o Prepare a detailed analysis of the various disposal options including the respective EIS o Select the disposal option o Develop a financing plan o Reinstate Solid Waste Utility in order to get control of the waste stream o Develop an interim means for disposal of the solid wastes until a facility is built *Because the County has the only DOE approved landfill in King County and County ordinance prohibits the transporting of garbage outside the County, the City's only option is to interim contract with County. Possibility of County concurrence therewith is estimated at minimal. o Prepare detailed site selection report with EIS *Any facility whether it is recycling to incineration needs a landfill to deposit residuals in. Because the County has the only DOE approved landfill in the County and their ordinance prohibits the transporting of garbage out of the County, the City has to either develop its own landfill (within City limits) or contract with County. Probability of County concurrence therewith is estimated at minimal. o Build facility o Estimated time to accomplish above - 3 years or more. Conclusion: This was never a realistic option. _ City of Kent _ City Council Meeting Agenda 3 -15- 88 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Council Chambers City of Kent March 15. 1988 •w 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 9 . Zt-' w W 2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS (A. Recycling Program B. Roles of City Government Officials ••- 3 . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes B. Bills C. %--Iluma-n- BerVices Roundtable - Resolution IM D. East Hill Community Well Annexation Zoning - Ordinance -' 77/ E . Mutlifamily Development Standards - Ordinance -,�' 77,;� F. Street Vacation - Brutsche Petition - Resolution 11LO G. Hehr Annexation Petition H. Forte Rentals Bill of Sale I . Sale of Surplus Property J . Burlington Northern Easement K. Drinking Driver Task Force Donations L. Appointments 4 . OTHER BUSINESS A. Mari-Park Preliminary Subdivision No . SU-87-5 B. Human Services Fund - ordinanceJl 1 C. Kent Centennial Medallion - Resolution 11W D: Zoning Code Amendment - 20% Multifamily Reduction E� Recycling Program 5 . BIDS A. Public Works Fuel Tanks B. Riverbend Golf Course, Phase II 6 . REPORTS CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time, make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly heard. 677 �Q / l Kent City Council Meeting G� Date March 15, 1988 Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: RECYCLING 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set for public hearing on the curb side recycling program. RELATED MATERIAL UNDER OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4E 3 . EXHIBITS• 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc . ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT: CLOSE HEARING: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 2A F Kent City Council Meeting Date March 15 , 1988 Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This time has been established to conduct a public hearing for purposes of gathering input and discussion on the roles and responsibilities of City Government Officials . No action required. i 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from City Attorney on statutory duties of Mayors and Council members , City ordinance creating the position of City Administrator, position description of City Administrator 4 . RECOMMENDED BY• (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT: CLOSE HEARING: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 2B OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM DATE: December 31 , 1987 TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and Councilmembers FROM: Sandra Driscoll , City Attorney SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF STATUTORY DUTIES OF MAYORS AND COUNCILMEMBERS Set forth below is a summary of the duties and authority of the mayor and councilmembers as established in Washington state law for noncharter code city, mayor/council form of government. I. MAYOR The mayor is declared to be the chief executive and administrative officer of the city. He or she has the following duties and authority: 1 . The mayor is in charge of all departments and employees with the authority to designate assistants and department heads. 2. The mayor is authorized to appoint and remove a chief administrative officer or assistant administrative officer if so provided by ordinance. 3. The mayor has the power of appointment and removal of all appointive officers and employees subject to applicable laws or regulations related to civil service except for municipal judges. 4. The head of a department may be authorized by the mayor to appoint and remove subordinates in the department subject to applicable civil service provisions. 5. All appointments of city officers and employees must be done on the basis of ability and training or experience of the appointees in the duties they are to perform from among persons having such qualifications as may be prescribed by ordinance and in compliance with provisions of any merit system applicable to the city. 6. The mayor must see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced. 7. The mayor must see that law and order is maintained. 8. The mayor has general supervision of the administration of city government and all city interests. 9. All official bonds and bonds of contractors must be submitted to the mayor or the mayor' s designee for approval or disapproval . 10. The mayor must see that all contracts and agreements made with the city or for its use and benefit are faithfully kept and performed. To accomplish this purpose, the mayor may cause any legal proceedings to be instituted and prosecuted in the name of the city subject to approval by a majority vote of all members of the council . 11. The mayor must preside over all meetings of the city council , when present. 12. The mayor has a vote only in the case of a tie in votes of the councilmembers with respect to matters other than: A. The passage of an ordinance, grant, or revocation of franchise or license; or B. Any resolution for the payment of money. 13. The mayor must report to the council concerning the affairs of the city in its financial and other needs. 14. The mayor must make recommendations to the council for consideration and action. 15. The mayor must prepare and submit to the council a proposed budget pursuant to other statutory provisions. 16. The mayor is the official and ceremonial head of the city and represents the city on ceremonial occasions. When illness or other duties prevent the mayor' s attendance at an official function and no mayor pro tem has been appointed by the council , a member of the council or some other suitable person may be designated by the mayor to represent the city on those occasions. 17. All ordinances passed by the council in order to become valid must be presented to the mayor. If the mayor approves it, he or she must sign it. If not, the mayor must return it with his or her objections to the council and the council must cause the objections to be entered upon the record and proceed to a reconsideration of the - 2 - ordinance. If, upon reconsideration, a majority plus one of the whole membership upon an oral call of the yeas and nays, favors its •- passage, the ordinance will become valid notwithstanding the mayor's veto. If the mayor fails for ten days to either approve or veto an ordinance, it becomes valid without his or her approval . The ordinances are to be signed by the mayor and attested to by the clerk. 18. The salaries of the mayor and councilmembers are to be fixed by ordinance and may be revised from time to time by ordinance, but any increases in compensation are not to be applicable to the term then being served by the incumbent if the incumbent is a member of the council fixing his or her own compensation or as mayor if the mayor casts a tie breaking vote related to the ordinance. If the mayor does not cast such a vote, his or her salary may be increased during his or her term of office. 19. Confirmation by the city council of appointment of officers and employees shall be required only when the council by ordinance provides for such confirmation. 20. Confirmation of mayoral appointments by the council may be required by the council in any instance where qualifications for the office have not been established by ordinance. II. COUNCIL The council acts as the legislative body of city and has the following rights, powers and privileges: 1 . The council has the power to organize and regulate its internal affairs. 2. The council has the power to define the functions, powers and duties of the city officers and employees. 3. Within the limitations imposed by any vested rights, the council must fix the compensation and working conditions of officers and employees and establish and maintain civil service or merit systems, retirement -• and pension systems. These must be in compliance with existing state law for firefighters and police officers. 4. The council may adopt and enforce ordinances of all kinds relating to and regulating its local or municipal affairs and appropriate to the good government of the city. - 3 - 5. The council may impose penalties of a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment for any term not exceeding one year, or both, for violation of the city ordinances constituting a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor. 6. The council alternatively may provide that violation of the ordinances constitutes a civil violation subject to monetary penalty. 7. The council has all the powers possible for a city to have under the constitution and not specifically denied to code cities by law. This includes the acquisition, sale, ownership, improvement, maintenance, protection, restoration, regulation, use, leasing, disposition, vacation, abandonment or beautification of public ways, real property of all kinds, waterways; structures, or any other improvements or use M1 of real or personal property, all aspects of collective bargaining subject to the provisions of state law, and rendering local social , cultural, recreational , educational , governmental or corporate services including the operation and supplying of utilities and municipal services commonly or conveniently rendered by cities. 8. Councilmembers have the power within their territorial limits of taxation for local purposes except as preempted by the state. 9. Powers of eminent domain, borrowing, taxation and granting of franchises may be exercised by the council. 10. The council may exercise any of its powers or functions including purchasing and participating in financing thereof through intergovernmental cooperation. 11 . The council has the power to accept a gift or grant for any public purpose and may carry out any conditions of that gift or grant when not in conflict with state or federal laws. 12. The council is authorized to by resolution or ordinance take whatever action it deems necessary to enable the city to participate in the programs of the Economic Opportunity Act. 13. The council has the authority to participate in tourist promotion activities as specified under state law. 14. Upon a unanimous vote of the council , the council may authorize any of its members to serve as volunteer firefighters and to receive the same compensation, insurance and other benefits as may be applicable to other volunteer firefighters employed by the city. - 4 - _. ordinance. If, upon reconsideration, a majority plus one of the whole membership upon an oral call of the yeas and nays, favors its passage, the ordinance will become valid notwithstanding the mayor's veto. If the mayor fails for ten days to either approve or veto an ordinance, it becomes valid without his or her approval . The ordinances are to be signed by the mayor and attested to by the clerk. 18. The salaries of the mayor and councilmembers are to be fixed by ordinance and may be revised from time to time by ordinance, but any increases in compensation are not to be applicable to the term then being served by the incumbent if the incumbent is a member of the council fixing his or her own compensation or as mayor if the mayor casts a tie breaking vote related to the ordinance. If the mayor does not cast such a vote, his or her salary may be increased during his or her term of office. 19. Confirmation by the city council of appointment of officers and employees shall be required only when the council by ordinance provides for such confirmation. 20. Confirmation of mayoral appointments by the council may be required by the council in any instance where qualifications for the office have not been established by ordinance. II. COUNCIL The council acts as the legislative body of city and has the following rights, powers and privileges: 1 . The council has the power to organize and regulate its internal affairs. 2. The council has the power to define the functions, powers and duties of the city officers and employees. 3. Within the limitations imposed by any vested rights, the council must fix the compensation and working conditions of officers and employees and establish and maintain civil service or merit systems, retirement and pension systems. These must be in compliance with existing state law for firefighters and police officers. 4. The council may adopt and enforce ordinances of all kinds relating to and regulating its local or municipal affairs and appropriate to the good government of the city. - 3 - 15. The council has the authority to establish a municipal court. 16. The council, by majority vote, may designate one of the councilmembers as mayor pro tempore or deputy mayor to serve in the absence or temporary disability of the mayor or, in lieu of that, the council may, as the need may arise, appoint any qualified person to serve as mayor pro tempore in the absence or temporary disability of the mayor. In the event of extended excused absence or disability of a councilmember, the remaining councilmembers by majority vote may appoint a councilmember pro tem to serve during the absence or disability. 3521L-09L - 5 - 2 . 04 . 020 . COUNCIL MEETINGS . The regular and other etings of the City Council shall be held in the Council Chambers at he City Hall unless otherwis/dan nated by ma ' rity of the Coun ' 1 at a regular or special , and sai regular meetings to be eld on the first and thiray in th evenings of each month a the special meetings aided by aw at such times as may be de ' gnated, said meetingsvene 7: 00 o' clock p.m. ; provided, i any such day of a rmee ng be a legal holiday, the said meet ' g shall be held ofol owing day at the same hour . ( 0 . 510, 1; 0 . 1563 , S1; 00 . 1764, §1; 0 . 2341, Sl; 0 . 2608 §1; 0. 270 CHAPTEPOLIC S AND PRES MANUAL 2 . 06 . 010 . ADOPTION . e "City of Kent Policies and Procedures Manual , " hereafte called "the Manual , " adopted by Resolution 658 of the City of ent and amended by the Supplement promulgated October 14 , 1 71 , t ether with all revisions thereof, is hereby adopted as th official olicies and Procedures Manual of the City of Kent . 0 . 1784 , Sl ; . 1917, §1 ) 2 . 06 . 020 . R ISION. The Manua is intended to be a flex- ible document, to erve as a guide to Ci personnel in the opera- tion of the City ' business . It is unders od that the Manual will necessaril require revision and updati g from time to time in order to re ain effective in assisting Cit personnel in answering dai y operating questions and in maki routine manage- ment decisi s . Changes and revisions in the Man al shall be made as require and approved .by the City Administrator ubject to review b the Mayor and City Council . ( 0 . 1784 , §2) . 2 . 06 . 030 . PRIORITY. To the extent that any of t e polic es or procedures in the Manual are inconsistent with ordi ances of the City enacted prior to Ordinance 1784 , the Manual sh 1 prevail . ( 0 . 1784 , §3 ) CHAPTER 2 . 08 CITY ADMINISTRATOR 2 . 08 . 010 . POSITION CREATED . There is created the position of Kent City Administrator , who shall be and act as the adminis- trative and executive supervisor of the City government under the authority and direction of the Mayor . The position may be filled by appointment of the Mayor , subject to the confirmation of a majority of the members of the City Council . The City Administrator may be terminated by the Mayor, subject to the confirmation of the majority of the members of the City Council . ( 0 . 1494 , §l; 0 . 1754 , §l ) 6/30/87 2 - 2. 08. 020 . DUTIES . The City Administrator shall assist the _,.. Mayor and the Counci—il n the performance of their duties . The City Administrator shall at the direction of the Mayor or City Council assist in the administration of the business of the City government . The Administrator shall oversee and supervise the various City departments as directed by the Mayor, and shall assist in the coordination and liaison of the City business between the City Council and the various City officers and departments . ( 0 . 1494, §2) 2 . 08. 030. OATH. Before entering upon the duties of his office, the City Administrator shall take the official oath for the support of the government and the faithful performance of his duties and shall execute and file with the City Clerk a bond in favor of the City in such sum as may be fixed by motion of the City Council . ( 0 . 1494 , §3 ) 2. 08. 040 . APPOINTMENT. The City Administrator need not be a resident. The Administrator shall be appointed by the Mayor , subject to confirmation of the majority of the members of the City Council, solely on the basis of his executive and administrative qualifications with special reference to his education, actual experience in, and knowledge of accepted practice in respect to the duties of the City Administrator and the field of municipal administration and finance . ( 0 . 1494, §4 ) 2. 08. 050 . GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES . Subject to the provisions of Section 2. 08. 020 above, the general powers and duties of the City Administrator shall be: A. To have general supervision over the administrative affairs of the City; B. To attend all meetings of the City Council and such other meetings as may be suggested by the Mayor ; C. To recommend for adoption by the Mayor and/or the City Council such measures as he may deem necessary or expedient ; D. To prepare and submit to the Mayor and the City Council such reports as may be required by them or as he may deem advisable ; E . In cooperation with the Director of Finance, to keep ,,• the Mayor and City Council fully advised of the financial condi- tion of the City and its future needs and to assist in the prepa- ration and submission to the Mayor and City Council a tentative budget for the fiscal year . F . To investigate all complaints in relation to matters concerning the administration of the government of the City and in regard to the service maintained by public utilities in the City, - 3 - and to see that all franchises, permits and privileges granted by the City are faithfully observed ; G. To make, compile and file with the City Clerk a complete inventory of the property, real and personal , owned or leased by the City and file amended inventories thereof at least semiannually as to stock , supplies and equipment , and at least annually as to other properties. (0 . 1494, §5 ) 2 . 08. 060 . COUNCIL INELIGIBLE. No person elected to membership on the City Council shall , subsequent to such election, be eligible for the appointment of City Administrator until one ( 1 ) year has elapsed following the expiration of the last term for which the Council member was elected. ( 0 .1494, §6 ) 2. 08 . 070 . SALARY AND BENEFITS . The salary of the City Administrator shall be that as established in the annual budget of the City. With respect to employee benefits, the City Adminis- trator shall never receive less by way of benefits than any other City employee. In the event , however , that the City elec#s to enter into a formal contract of employment with the City -Adminis- trator , the contract may provide for benefits to the City Adminis- trator which may be greater than or not otherwise available to other city employees . To the extent that the provisions of this Section or any contract of employment may be in conflict with any of the provisions of the City of Kent Policies and Procedures Manual , the provisions of this Section or the terms and conditions of any such contract of employment shall prevail . (0 . 1494, 97 ; 0. 2137, §1 ) CHAPTER 2. 10 CITY ATTORNEY 2 . 10. 010 . CITY ATTORNEY. There is he by created the positi known as City Attorney. Said pos ion is created in accordance ith the Kent City Policy Ma al . ( 0. 2366, § 1 (part ) ) 2.10 . 020 . APPOINTMENT . Th City Attorney shall be appointed by the Ci Administr or in accordance with the provi- sions of the Policies a Pro dure Manual solely on the basis of professional experience, cation , and demonstrated knowledge of accepted practices relat ' g the duties of the office . ( 0. 2366, §1 (part ) ) 2. 10 . 030 . UALIFICATIONS . The Attorney must be a graduate of an credited law school and a mber in good standing of t Washington State Bar Associati ( 0. 2366, §1 art ) ) 4 - Masterfile CITY ADMINISTRATOR DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATION CLASS. NUMBER: 1121 DIVISION: CLASS. TITLE: City Administrator -... NATURE OF WORK The position of this class is responsible for the efficient and economic administration of City government through effective management of available human, financial and material resources. The primary responsibility of this position is to work with the Mayor and City Council in the development of short- and long-range goals and objectives for providing municipal services; to direct and motivate the Senior Management group in the development and implementation of action programs to obtain results through the effective utilization of human, financial and material resources; to integrate interdepartmental activities as required; to report periodically on operations and recommendations for appropriate courses of action and improvements. The incumbent of this position is required to exercise keen judgment, imagination and foresight in making administrative and management decisions and in meetings with state and federal administrative officials and legislators. Work is performed according to the policy directives of the Mayor and City Council and serves at the pleasure of the Mayor and City Council . EXAMPLES OF DUTIES ** Develops, recommends, and implements plans and policies to effectively attain long- and short-range goals and objectives of the City of Kent. ** Establishes and maintains an effective organizational structure to assure continuity of managerial and specialized skills capable of accomplishing City government objectives. ** Ensures direction, control , and measurement of results necessary to planned growth while maintaining an efficient balance between the quality and the cost of City government. ** Organizes, directs and motivates a management team in a manner that will assure the accomplishment of objectives and optimize the utilization of financial , physical and human resources. ** Ensures the effective administration of City government by coordinating programs among the major departments so that the most effective degree of unified action may be attained. ** Ensures the financial soundness and integrity of the City to assure its capability to meet commitments and continue to provide the high quality of service to the community; ensures long-range economical and financial planning for the City of Kent to provide optimum expansion of facilities to meet growth requirements, projects and recommends expenditures for the City of Kent's annual budget to provide a sound basis within which to operate and in order to control costs; prepares and submits the proposed budget for the City administration for Council approval . 671W-14W (Rev 8/85) ADMINISTRATION Masterfile City Administrator Page 2 of 3 ** Provides for community relations, plans and policies to contribute to the goodwill and support of the City government. ** Provides an effective relationship with the Mayor and the City Council to assure the establishment of objectives and the successful pursuit of their policy leadership role. ** Maintains an awareness of significant developments affecting the City of Kent, appraise the Mayor, Council and appropriate department heads and facilitate timely and appropriate action; reports to the Mayor and City Council on operations and recommends appropriate courses of action and improvements. ** Meets with state and federal administrative officials and legislators to present the City's viewpoint on pending administrative or legislative actions. Gives speeches to community interest and civic groups to further understanding between the City administration and the public. ** Assures that the City of Kent maintains a position of leadership through the effectiveness of its City government by keeping abreast of trends and developments in City management, seeing that the basic needs of the public are anticipated and satisfied, and aggressively pursuing the development of new and improved benefits that meet the developing and future needs of the public. DESIRABLE KNOWLEDGE, ABILITIES AND SKILLS ** Considerable knowledge of the latest state-of-the art theories and practices of management, including program planning, direction, coordination and evaluation. ** Considerable knowledge of the organization and programs of municipal government. ** Ability to develop and recommend goals and objectives, to plan for needs and improvements in City administration, integrate department programs, effectively lead and motivate the Senior Management group, and evaluate accomplishments and recommend improvements. ** Ability to present ideas and data clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing. ** Ability to exercise keen judgment, imagination and foresight in making administrative and management decisions. ** Ability to plan for the financial strength of the City through the development of programs for generating income, controlling expenses and efficient utilization of resources. 671W-14W (Rev 8/85) t ADMINISTRATION Masterfile City Administrator Page 3 of 3 ** Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships with the Mayor and City Council , Senior Management group, representatives from the public and private sector, and the public. TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE ** Four years of managerial experience in a position equivalent to assistant city administrator/manager in a similar sized organization; or, substituting course work or training in public or business administration for up to two years of the experience. 671W-14W (Rev 8/85) ,.. CONSENT CALENDAR 3 . City Council Action: Councilmember � 'I%1 moves, Councilmember seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through L be approved . Discussion Action 3A. Approval of, Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of March 1, 1988 �,' 3B. Approval of Bills . Approval of payment of the bills received through March 23 , 1988 V\l after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 8 : 30 a .m. on March 31, 1988 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount " 2/16 57875 - 57876 2/17 -2/24 58354 - 58372 $213,443.83 2/29 58380 - 58863 522,153.62 735,597.45 Approval of checks issued for payroll : - Date Check Numbers Amount 3/5/88 101303 - 101915 $589,367. 19 Council Agenda Item No. 3 A-B Kent, Washington March 1 , 1988 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7: 00 p.m. by Mayor Kelleher. Present: Councilmembers Biteman, Dowell, Houser, Johnson, Mann, White and Woods, City Administrator McFall, City Attorney Driscoll, Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom and Finance Director McCarthy. Also present: Police Chief Frederiksen, Parks Director Wilson and Personnel Director Webby. Approximately 130 people were in attendance. PRESENTATIONS Employee of the Month. William Linville, Correc- tions Facility Administrator, introducted Ellen Norton, who has been named Employee of the Month for March. The Mayor noted that .Ms. Norton works as a Corrections Officer and commended her on her om nit- ment to her job, team and organization. He then presented her with the Employee of the Month plaque. CONSENT CALENDAR WHITE MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through K be approved, with the exception of Items G and J which were removed by Councilmember Dowell and Item I which was removed by Councilmember White. Houser seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3A) Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of -... the regular Council meeting of February 16 , 1988. STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3C) James Street Storm Overlay. ACCEPT as complete, the contract with M. A. Segale for the James Street storm overlay project and release of the retainage after receipt of the necessary releases from the State. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3G) . REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOWELL LID 318 - North Central Avenue Improvements. AUTHOR- IZATION to transfer $35, 000 from the Unencumbered Water Utility Funds and $35, 000 from Unencumbered Sewerage Utility Funds to the North Central Street Improvement Fund to compensate for a miscalculation in the estimate of the project financing, as approved by the Public Works Committee. Dowell noted that he owned property in this LID and would, therefore, abstain from voting on this matter. -• JOHNSON MOVED to approve Item G. Biteman seconded and the motion carried with Dowell abstaining. - 1 - March 1 , 1988 TRAFFIC CONTROL (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3I ) REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE 277th Corridor. AUTHORIZATION to use $75, 000 of the Advanced Acquisition Fund for a study to deter- mine the alignment, configuration and preparation of the environmental analysis for the 272nd/277th corridor, as approved by the Public Works Committee. Upon White 's question, Wickstrom explained that the funding was to study a series of routes, to be refined to one particular route, and that funds have been committed by the State, King County and Auburn. WHITE THEN MOVED to approve Item 3I, Woods seconded and the motion carried. PRELIMINARY PLAT (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3F) Mari-Park Preliminary Subdivision No. SU-87-5) . AUTHORIZATION to set March 15, 1988, as the public meeting date to consider the Hearing Examiner ' s recommendation of conditional approval for the Mari-Park preliminary plat. The property is located on the east side of 3rd Avenue North and south of Bowen Street extended. ZONING CODE Amendments to Multifamily Development Standards. AMENDMENT The Planning Commission has recommended that the multifamily development standards of the Kent Zon- ing Code be amended. The recommendation is in response to Council Resolution No. 1148 of October 6 , 1987. The resolution expressed Council ' s con- cern about the impacts of multifamily development on adjacent single family uses and on City entry ways and arterials . At its February 2, 1988 meeting, the City Council referred this matter to the Planning Committee. The Planning Department has revised the proposal pursuant to the Committee ' s direction at their meetings held on February 16 and March 1 , 1988. Woods noted that the Planning Committee had met today, reviewed the draft changes and recommended they be approved. She then MOVED to amend the multifamily development standards of the Kent Zon- ing Code per the Planning Commission ' s recommend- ation and as amended by the City Council Planning Committee and to instruct the City Attorney to pre- pare the amending ordinance. Dowell seconded. Woods pointed out that input had been received from Tom Sharp, Raul Ramos and Larry Frazier of Master Builders Association. She noted that the suggestion 2 - March 1 , 1988 ZONING CODE from Frazier regarding density bonuses would be AMENDMENT addressed when PUDs were considered. Tom Sharp stated that although he had some questions about smaller lots , he favored going ahead with this amendment, noting that the administrative plan review would provide an avenue for this type of concern. Fred Satterstrom clarified for Biteman that setbacks, landscaping and height regulations had been addressed for the protection of single -.• family residences . Larry Frazier commented on the proposal, noting he had attended the meetings and referred to his letters of January 18 and January 26, both of which were filed with the record of the February 2 Council meeting. He stated that he did not support the multifamily reduction or the setback or landscaping proposals , but that the provision for the administrative design review would provide some flexibility. Susan Sampson of the Renton law office of Loren Combs asked, on behalf of a client who owned multi-density property, to have this matter referred to the committee again. She questioned as to whether this was the appropri- ate way to reduce density under the Council ' s long range plan. Woods ' motion then carried unanimously. ANNEXATION ZONING East Hill Community Well Annexation No. 2 - Carey Appeal. This public hearing was originally scheduled for January 19 , 1988 to consider an appeal of the Hearing Examiner ' s recommended zoning for the property located east of 112th Avenue S.E. extended to 114th Avenue S.E. approximately and north of S.E. 244th extended. The Hearing Examiner recommends zoning of R1 -9. 6, single family resi- dential ( 9600 sq. ft. minimum lot area ) . Councilmember Mann stated that on January 19, 1988 , he had met with Mike and Pam Alamos at 25207 111th Avenue S.E. They expressed their concerns, showed him the lots in question and stated that they felt the lots were too small for multifamily development. Mann noted that this statement for the record is a disclosure of all information on the conversations that he has had outside the public process on the subject of the zoning for this annex- ation. He stated that he can be unbiased on his deliberations, that this information has not tainted his ability to be open and fairminded. Mann stated that he has not made up his mind and would not do so prior to final deliberation of these hearings. 3 - March 1 , 1988 ANNEXATION ZONING The Mayor declared the public hearing open. Leona Orr, 24909 114th Avenue S.E. , stated that she is opposed to multifamily zoning. There were no further comments from the audience and BITEMAN MOVED to close the public hearing. Woods seconded and the motion carried. After the public hearing on the entire Area C was concluded and acted upon, JOHNSON MOVED to deny the appeal and for the area to be zoned single family residential with a mini- mum lot size of 12 , 000 sq. ft. Woods seconded and the motion carried. East Hill Community Well Annexation No. 2 - Berg- strom Appeal. This is a continuation of the public hearing of January 19 , 1988, to consider an appeal of the Hearing Examiner ' s recommended zoning for the property located at 25219 113th Avenue S .E. The Hearing Examiner recommends zoning of R1 -7. 2, single family residential ( 7200 sq. ft. minimum lot area ) . The Mayor declared the public hearing open. Mike Bergstrom of Construction & Development Services, Inc. , distributed a map to the Council which shows the property in relation to its surrounding con- siderations. No copy was provided for the record. He noted that he is requesting multifamily zoning, proposing 45 units rather than the 80 which are allowed under the Comprehensive Plan. He also stated that he feels this proposal is consistent with Resolution 1123 , which seeks a 20% reduction in multifamily potential densities city-wide. Pam Alamos, 25207 111th Avenue S.E. , speaking for the Olsons who live at 25239 111th Avenue S.E. , stated that they are concerned abou their property values. She stated that lot sizes of 12 , 000 sq. ft. would be compatible. She noted that the residents are concerned with vandalism and asked for single family zoning. Arnold Hamilton, 25410 113th Avenue S .E. , stated that multi-family zoning would be detri- mental to the neighborhood. Delores Cameron also spoke against multifamily zoning. Sarah Boyer, 25226 113th Avenue S.E. , noted that no one would buy the homes which are up for sale in the area if apartments are to be allowed across the street. Leona Orr, 24909 114th Avenue S.E. , noted that a petition had been submitted requesting R1 -12 zoning which had been signed by approximately 130 people. - She urged the Council to deny the appeal. 4 - March 1 , 1988 ANNEXATION ZONING There were no further comments and BITEMAN MOVED to close the public hearing. Woods seconded. Motion carried. After the public hearing on the entire Area C was concluded and acted upon, JOHNSON MOVED to deny the appeal and to zone this area single family residential with a minimum lot size of 9600 sq. ft. Woods seconded and the motion carried. East Hill Community Well Annexation No. 2 - Area C. This is the second and final hearing to consider the Hearing Examiner ' s recommended zoning for the East Hill Community Well Annexation No. 2, Area C. The first hearing was held on January 19, 1988. The Hearing Examiner ' s recommendation is outlined in the attached findings and recommendation dated October 7, 1987. Kathy McClung of the Planning Department pointed out the area on the map and noted that the Hearing Examiners recommendation for Area C as follows: 1. For the area west of 112th Avenue SE extended and north of SE 248th Street: R1-7.2, Single Family Residential -• (7,200 square foot minimum lot size) . 2. For the area south of SE 252nd Street: R1-7.2, Single Family Residential (7,200 square foot minimum lot size) except the 4.80 acre parcel known as Stratford Arms. 3. Stratford Arms: MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential, allowing 23 units per acre (entire Stratford Arms site, including the undeveloped , portions) . 4. H. L. Bainton property south of SE 248th Street, -. adjacent to former City boundary: MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential, maximum of six dwelling units per acre. 5. Property east of 112th Avenue SE extended, north of SE 252nd except Bainton property: R1-9.6, Single Family Residential (9,600 square foot minimum lot size) . McClung noted for Dowell that the property not developed with Walnut Park zero lot line would revert to single family zoning. The Mayor declared the public hearing open. Brad Bell of Bell Anderson Realty, spoke on behalf of John and Edith Lambert and Mary Morrell. Both are strongly opposed to single family zoning and the Lambert property at 11008 S.E. 256th, is surrounded by multifamily development. Bell noted that both of these properties were zoned multifamily in the East Hill Plan and stated that these properties are - 5 - March 1 , 1988 ANNEXATION ZONING not suitable single family dwelling sites. He pointed out that neither the Lamberts or Mrs. Morrell were developers. Robert Thorpe of R. W. Thorpe & Associates, Seattle, stated that he represents the Harry Boat property at 11214 S.E. 256th Street, adjacent to the Strat- ford Arms complex. Thorpe stated that the Boats request that the area be designated MRG, subject to the conditions listed in his letter of January 27 , 1988, distributed as a part of the agenda packet. Lori Sunsted, 24805 114th Avenue S.E. , stated that she is opposed to multi-family zoning and urged the Council to zone the Bergstrom and Bainton pro- perties R1 -12 . William R. Bratton, 23621 112th Avenue S.E. , stated that he represents property at 256th and 111th. The zoning of 7200 sq. ft. lots would allow 11 units on that three parcels of land. He pointed out that a proposal to build five single family residences there would require a variance of 10 ' per lot in order to comply. He also noted that the lots would be approximately 8000 sq. ft. Pam Alamos, 25207 111th Avenue SE, urged the Council to zone the area single family. Arnold Hamilton, 25410 113th Avenue S.E. , showed a video tape show- ing the rural nature of the area, and stated that the area should be zoned single family. Vicki Olson, 25239 111th Avenue S.E. , concurred with Alamos . Jackie Silva, 25352 113th Avenue S.E. , noted that vandalism has increased in the area and asked for single family zoning. Elizabeth Carson asked that the area be left as it is. Tom Delaney, 25420 113th Avenue S.E. , noted that traffic has already increased on his street and multifamily zoning will increase it even more. Janet Hansen, 25308 113th Avenue S.E. , stated that she does not want any more apartments in the area. Wayne Cameron, 25218 113th Avenue S.E. , also expressed concern over the increased vandalism since the Stratford Arms was built. Douglas Walker, 11727 S.E. 244th, asked the Council to restrict multifamily housing. Alfred Silva , 25322 113th Avenue S.E. , showed various viewgraphs of the area and noted that people have been moving out of Kent because of the zoning policies . Silva recommended that the Council stop the encroachment of multifamily development in the area. Randy Brealey, 10910 N.E. 66th Place, Kirkland, noted that he had submitted site plans for a duplex condominium at the previous public - 6 - March 1 , 1988 ANNEXATION ZONING hearing, and asked that MRM zoning be retained. Jim Orr, 24909 114th Avenue S.E. , noted that a peti- tion containing 130 signatures calling for R1 -12 zoning had been submitted and urged the Council to keep the rural atmosphere in the area. Jim Sunsted, 24805 114th Avenue S.E. , stated that he does not want to see any more multifamily development in the area. The following letters received since the January 19 hearing have been distributed and filed for the record: Pete Curran, February 26 , regarding Lambert property R. W. Thorpe, February 24, regarding Boat property Myron Vigoren, January 18 WOODS MOVED to make the letters a part of the record. White seconded. Motion carried. There were no further comments from the audience and WOODS MOVED to close the public hearing. Johnson seconded and the motion carried. WOODS MOVED to adopt the _.. findings of the Hearing Examiner and to concur with the Hearing Examiner ' s recommended zoning and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the required ordinance. Johnson seconded. Upon Johnson ' s ques- tion, McClung noted that on East Hill there are approximately 100 acres of undeveloped multifamily zoned land and approximately 100 acres of under developed multifamily zoned land. Harris determined for White that after the Council ' s request for an update of the East Hill Plan, the Planning Commission had held hearings on portions of the plan. Resol- ution 1123 was adopted in December 1986 and declared the intent of achieving a reduction of 20% on all undeveloped multifamily zoned lands. Hansen noted that the East Hill Plan review had been delayed by the commercial land study and that the County had begun updating the Soos Creek Plan. It was pointed out that the East Hill Plan was updated in 1982, then the north end was updated. The south end was caught up in the provisions of Resolution 1123 . A -. full update of the plan has not been completed. JOHNSON MOVED to amend the motion to modify the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner as follows : for the area north of S.E. 252 to be zoned R1 -12 , 12, 000 sq. ft. lots and for the parcel south of S.E. 252nd to be zoned R1 -9. 6 , 9600 sq. ft. lots. _.. _ 7 _ March 1 , 1988 ANNEXATION ZONING He commented that most of the S.E. 244 and S.E. 248th area out to 116th is currently single family with predominately large lots, and therefore 12, 000 sq. ft. lots for that area is indicated. The area he proposed for 9600 sq. ft. lots already contains smaller lots. He noted his reasons included traffic problems, overcrowding of schools, and police and fire service demands. Upon McFall ' s question about Stratford Arms, it was clarified Johnson 's pro- posal excludes any property already developed as multifamily. Upon Biteman' s question, Hansen noted that he was not aware of any applications for multifamily develop- ment now pending for that area. Driscoll clarified for Mann that if any permits had been issued the law would require that they be honored. Dowell stated that he would support the amendment and sug- gested that this area could be considered a portion of the 20% reduction mentioned in Resolution 1123 . The amendment carried unanimously and the motion as amended also carried unanimously. RAILROAD CROSSINGS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3H) Railroad Petitions. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign petitions to the WUTC for approval of vari- ous Union Pacific Railroad street crossings (exist- ing spur crossings ) and establishing the respective warning devices thereon. PERSONNEL Implementation of the 1987 Classification and Pay Recommendation. The implementation of the Plan was reviewed by the Council at the February 16 meeting and was referred to the Operations Committee. McFall explained that the Committee met this morning and has recommended modifications in the City Clerk ' s division and in the reorganization proposal for the Administration Department, copies of which have been supplied to the Council . It was noted at the February 16 Council meeting that approval of the Pay and Classification Plan would include the reorgan- ization proposal. HOUSER MOVED to implement the 1987 Classification and Pay Study with the modifica- tions recommended at the Operations Committee meet- ing this morning. Mann seconded. White asked questions of Webby and McFall related to the reorganization in the Administrator ' s and Mayor ' s office. These included title, job descrip- tion, pay scale, reporting procedure, subordinates, etc. for the proposed executive assistant ' s position. 8 - March 1 , 1988 PERSONNEL He noted that a memo from McFall and Kelleher stated that an acceptable compromise had been reached, but that he felt the reorganization would have the effect of polarizing the Administrator from the Mayor and from the City Council, would further add to the confusion and that he would not support it. Biteman stated he had seen the material and that Classification the consultant had documented the justification and Pay Study for the salaries covered in the reorganization pro- Implementation posal, and that the Council President should not be going into such detail at a Council meeting. White stated that he was attempting to bring everything out into the open. Woods stated that the memo from Mayor Kelleher and Brent McFall stated that they had resolved their differences about the reorganization and had reached a compromise and further, that they hoped that the Council would accept the compromise in the spirit of cooperation. She noted that she would support Houser ' s motion. Johnson stated he would vote against the motion because he was opposed to the reorganization, as unnecessary. He suggested that the reorganization matter be postponed until the consultant could be asked if it was necessary and if so, to propose a salary range. He noted that he had asked at the Council retreat that a workshop discussion be held to discuss the roles of Mayor and Administrator. Upon Ford Kiene ' s question, it was determined that the proposed executive assistant would continue to report to the City Administrator. Kiene suggested that since the City had already budgeted for another Assistant City Administrator and a secretary for McFall, that these positions be filled instead of creating a new position of executive assistant. Houser noted that other departments had reorganized in the past without incident and suggested that this matter should be concluded. Nancy Leahy, Com- munity Information Coordinator, agreed with Houser, noting that she had participated in reorganizations in other departments . She stated that she hoped it would work well and that she was anxious to see what changes would be made in her job description and in her reporting procedure. Mann noted that modifications had been made to salaries in other departments as well as in this proposed reorgani- zation. White pointed out that he was not opposed to the classification study itself but that he questioned including the reorganization issue in the study instead of having it stand on its own merit - 9 - March 1 , 1988 PERSONNEL Dowell stated that too much time had been spent on this issue, that the Council was a legislative body, not an administrative body. Houser ' s motion then carried, with White and Johnson opposing. Mayor Kelleher expressed his concern as to how the Council vote would be perceived and that he did not see this as the Council wanting to :Hove away from professional administration of the City. He pointed out that it was never his intent to signal a new era of Mayoral authority in the City Hall. He noted that the State statutes give authority to the Mayor, which he has never exercised, such as veto of ordinances, or hiring or firing certain of the staff. The statutes allow the Mayor to delegate hiring and firing authority of department heads , except those under Civil Service, and he has dele- gated this to McFall. He noted that the reorgani- zation was to move one clerical position to assist the Administrator in some of his supervisory roles. He opined that the issue had been blown out of propor- tion, that he supported professional administration, and had confidence in McFall in that role. SOLID WASTE BITEMAN MOVED that the City Administrator be directed to formally request King County to extend the notification deadline under the Agreement for Disposal of Solid Waste from March 31 , 1988 to September 30. This will enable the City to complete a study to determine the financial and environmental feasibility of development of a non-incineration facility for disposal of Kent ' s solid waste. Houser seconded. Biteman noted that the County had delayed the date for site selection for the incinerator to April of 1989 . Johnson proposed an amendment that this matter and the recycling program be referred to the Public Works committee and further that a public hearing be held before the Council to discuss not only the curbside recycling issue but also Biteman ' s proposal so that public input may be gathered as to whether to commit to King County or to develop our own disposal methods. Woods seconded the amendment. Houser and Biteman stated that recycling is a separate matter and that there was not time to refer this to committee due to the March 31st deadline. Woods suggested that the com- mittee could report to Council at the March 15 meet- ing. The proposal to refer to committee was with- drawn. Biteman ' s motion carried with Woods voting against it. - 10 - March 1 , 1988 SOLID WASTE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3J) REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOWELL Recycling. AUTHORIZATION to continue the pilot recycling program on the West Hill and tabling any decision on a City-wide expansion of the program until such time as WUTC makes a ruling on whether recycling costs can be included in the tariff structure, as recommended by the Public Works Com- mittee. Upon Dowell ' s questions, McFall clarified that a time frame for continuation of the program could - not be given until the WUTC reaches a decision. He further noted that the City would continue to subsidize the program. WOODS MOVED to approve Item 3J. Houser seconded. Johnson noted that Gary Ewing of Kent Disposal had a short video to show regarding recycling, and the Council elected to view it at this time. The six-minute film showed the West Hill curbside recycling program entire process. The motion to approve Item 3J then carried. OUT OF STATE TRAVEL (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3D) Out of State Trip. AUTHORIZATION for Kurt Palowez of the Engineering Department to attend a Delta Map Users Seminar in Fort Collins, Colorado, as approved by the Public Works Committee. Funds will come from the Department ' s operating badget. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3B) Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through March 7, 1988 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 8 : 30 a.m. on March 15 , 1988. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 1/29-2/16 57469-57437 57656-57874 $161,833.98 2/17 57877-58353 $560,658 .03 $722, 492.01 Sproval of checks issued for payroll: Date Check Numbers Amount 2/15 100701-10703,100706. 100707 (replacement) 2/19 100704. 00705,100708-101302 $597,365.35 - 11 - March 1 , 1988 FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3E) CLID 316 - Bond Ordinance and Purchase Contract. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign a bond purchase contract in the amount of $1 , 359, 791 . 52 with Shear- son, Lehman, Hutton for CLID 316 , covering LIDs 316, 319, 320, 321 and 324 , as discussed at the Operations Committee meetings of February 16 and March 1 , and ADOPTION of Ordinance 2770 authorizing the issuance of the bonds. The interest rate is 7. 349964% with a gross underwriting spread of $22. 00 . COUNCIL (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3K) 1988 Target Issues. ADOPTION of Resolution 1158 setting for the target issues for 1988. COUNCIL COMMITTEES President's Report. White noted that at 1 : 00 p.m. on March 11 the Council would meet at the Commons Council Retreat in the Interurban Room for a follow-up session on the Council ' s retreat discussions. White noted that at 7: 00 p.m. on March 29 the Coun- King County Council cil would meet in a workshop session with King County Council to discuss solid waste issues . White noted that in mid-March he would attend the National League of Cities meeting in Washington D. C. along with Mayor Kelleher, City Administrator McFall National League of and Councilmember Mann, and in accordance with Cities Council policy, he requested approval for the Councilmembers for this out of state trip. Mayor Kelleher requested that as a courtesy he would also request approval . JOHNSON MOVED to approve and Woods seconded. Travel for White to Boston and for two additional trips as a member of the NLC Transportation & Communication steering com.mitte was added to the motion. It was determined for Dowell that the Council budget would fund the trips, expenses for Washington D. C. approximately $1 , 976 and Boston $1200. The motion carried with Dowell voting against it. Biteman ' s attendance at a seminar on Environmental Concerns on Incineration in Seattle on March 23 and 24 was also approved. White asked that the City Clerk schedule a public hearing for the next Council meeting on clarifi- Public Hearing cation of roles in City government, at which the City Attorney would advise. The hearing will not cover the type of government, but would be an infor- mation gathering meeting. Mayor Kelleher noted that contrary to an item in today ' s paper, he would be happy to participate. - 12 - March 1 , 1988 COUNCIL COMMITTEES Public Safety. Biteman reported that the Committee would meet at 8: 00 a.m. on March 8. Public Works. Johnson noted that the next Committee meeting would be on Tuesday, March 8 at 4: 00 p.m. Public Hearing at which time recycling will be discussed. He also asked to have a public hearing scheduled for March 15th to further discuss recycling and to make a decision. Sandra Driscoll noted that about two or three weeks ago the State Supreme Court declared Seattle ' s greenbelt ordinance to be invalid because it was Greenbelt deemed to be a "taking without just compensation" . Ordinance The Court ' s decision causes concern regarding set backs, open space, etc . Seattle has requeste3 recon- sideration and clarification from the Supreme Court. She requested authorization for Kent to participate with AWC, Bellevue, Renton and Kirkland in a petition to the Court to file an amicus brief. WOODS SO MOVED. Houser seconded and the motion carried. McFall noted that the Operations Committee had not Property Acquisition come to a conclusion regarding the matter of acquir- ing the Curran building and has referred it back to Council without a recommendation. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10 : 25 p.m. Marie Jensen, CMC City Clerk - 13 - Kent City Council Meeting Date March 15, 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY ' S PARTICIPATION IN AND FUNDING FOR HUMAN SERVICES ROUNDTABLE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Resolution No. I to authorize the City of Kent to participate with other local municipal jurisdictions in a one year planning project to develop a Regional Human Services Action Plan and to authorize the Mayor to - sign an interlocal agreement after approval of the form by the City Attorney. The workplan of the roundtable will be carried out through an interlocal agreement . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo and resolution, Human Services Roundtable background information 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Human Services Commission 2/25/88 and the City Council Planning Commission 3/l/88 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $6,000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: General Fund 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember A-J0C '� moves, Councilmember seconds `�) DISCUSSION• ACTION: n �—� Council Agenda Item No. 3C KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT March 10, 1988 MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director SUBJECT: HUMAN SERVICES ROUNDTABLE PLANNING PROJECT King County, the City of Seattle, United Way and several King County suburban cities recently joined in an effort to develop a regional human services action plan. This will be accomplished through a one-year Planning Project with a proposed budget of $135, 000 to be administered by the King County Department of Human Resources. They are soliciting the City of Kent's support for this project and recently made a presentation to the City of Kent Human Services Commission. Mayor Kelleher recently _ appointed Councilman Paul Mann to represent the City of Kent on the King County Human Services Roundtable. At its February 25, 1988 meeting, the Human Services Commission recommended to the City Council the allocation of $6, 000 for the City's participation in the Human Services Roundtable Planning Project. The City Council Planning Committee considered this recommendation on March 1, 1988 and recommends the City's participation in the Roundtable and allocation of $6, 000 to the Planning Project. The work plan of the Roundtable will be carried out through an interlocal agreement. Attached is information on the Human Services Roundtable and the Planning Project. Also attached is a Resolution which would authorize the City to participate in this project. LB:JPH:ca Attachments KING COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES ROUNDTABLE BACKGROUND September 22, 1987 Introduction Recently, local governments have taken on larger roles in defining and developing solutions to human service needs affecting their communities. Elected officials in King County realize that these needs do not respect local political boundaries and that, in order to be effective, they need a way to develop common understandings of the problems they share. Taking constructive action will require working together to identify local and regional solutions. In December, 1986, elected officials throughout King County and United Way representatives met in an informal roundtable to discuss the need for regional human service coordination/cooperation. They commissioned a study to describe components of the human service delivery system, survey community leaders on human service needs, identify opportunities for improved coordination and suggest some organizational models for regionalizing human services. The study, titled "Human Services Issues and Organizational Alternatives" was prepared by Consultants Peter Moy Associates and Elway Research. The Roundtable members assigned staff representatives to a Steering Committee to porovide direction to the consultants and to analyze the implications of the report. The Steering Committee also includes community representatives for major human services councils and provider coalitions (see attached mem- bership list) . The Moy/Elway report summarizes local government involvement in human services. It documents strong support for increased cooperation and confirms the need for local and regional entities to work together. The report also describes several long range mechanisms to promote regional human service coordination. The Steering Committee reviewed these models and agreed that they describe a longer term outcome than may be achievable today. The committee's analysis shows that there are a number of steps that can be taken now to lay the foun- dation for a county-wide system to address human service needs. The committee then identified major goals and a series of activities to be undertaken in the year ahead. Roundtable Goals The Steering Committee, has identified the most critical goals for regional human service coordination. These goals are: Maximize local planning efforts by providing a clearinghouse for coor- dinating and assessments of population trends and human service needs, policy and program analysis, evaluation studies, and other community planning efforts. 3-29-12049.1 ' King County Human Services Roundtable - Background September 22, 1987 -. Page Two Identify regional human service needs through a review of existing planning data and an interactive process invalving broad based community/ citizen participation. ° Raise public awareness and support for critical human service issues and needs. ° Examine current and potential resources available for supporting human services and identify gaps in the current funding and availability of human services. Improve the impact of local funding decisions in meeting human service needs by sharing allocation information and coordinating allocation stra- tegies among planning and funding entities. ° Facilitate access to all state, federal and private resources available to meet identified needs. ° Develop a regional agenda for legislative action. 4 3-29-12049.2, VI L >- a) U -0 4- Q E 4-- U a) N O f rJ O Q) \ tf C cm fa Z +A C f- c E E W =3 L Y O a) 0 0 U W S 7 � O � K O Q. N C7 W Z rr d Q D co Z Z Q U O Ql 4- J L i N Z 4- Q. O C!3 4 u• R7 LL .N O � Lij Y r0 L pp N O IN a O V1 Y Q o 3 N W c o F a) v u cc c E O c a s na O to 4" E • Ln a) 4- 1 L • i Q. V) 4- cl Q1 O = Z Lu (0 a/ O Z Q U 4� l� 4- N O _ cc: +' �' W U C In a) Y ai N E Z O N 4" i W i m ra n = e a O a-+ C 7 O U c� C C Y O .4 ro (Li O N U N 4- i Cu 4- N u ra n L 4� _ 7 V) N Z O � Q) C to C � S cr C) O S Cl. O O O S U 0 0 P N m ' t r•y\ Y1 r-1 r-i O '-1 tT m r `O C .0 c O N X S X Q I 1 1 1 Y1 I lJ •--1 X X CC) Q N X X 1 p 1 I Z to X X X X � .•1 m 1 I O \ t _ I 1 W Z >G V X X (J Q H J >L 1 C]L X x W C to O 3 ' CD _.. Z ¢lL S m L } m m C U E u i O C C O � t m m c+� u aaL •�•� m O 3 y w a.l w •H IJ) •.� 7 y w U C m C w m w C L O'a O w m m w m ,G U., L -H C m a w m C •H+�L •"� _ C7 O C E c m E m m m m C7 m ti E m Z m m m L m L m w m C c 7 m L .. E x E C-1 m U L U MT C U m S U Y w w O a w m m m C m .- m.- 1•- 1- n-- w m O m.H++ t- O 1- r-• L C L C C C C L LO 3- mLM C UC C m I m + m L I C a w I u w C w m U -H m 7 w a m m O mil m m V U 0.- 7 a E 1 w m O m m O m 7 m 7 7 •H ••� .• m N OIL w m •H'a - - C L m m --I E'H m m .•1 -H U O1 .H w m m -0 m L U O a C L m m i x 1 m a) + C m m T 0+ C w m O U m ++ 10 w m C m O m m+ m ••+Iv -w •H I m O U w c m a a OI a m •w m m m C " Z, O m E ++ O Q w w C I w 7 L •H w U ,- a+ •.� O > 3 E •• m m w O a•H •H O E V m •^ m m E L +/ 'a m u E a U•H m m m w m V.O > a •H E O m u •• C C m•H w •H w'O m U L 0 E m E 7 7 w c ++ m w m •H 7 7 > O T L a C m w U m O U O m m••+ m O O w� c a m w ID a I Y- w E w +l w w b- V m m O a t+ a m C•H m T U Li m w m 7 •'� •H U •H C m m w L a a Ol 7 m•H C w I m a w U O C O m m • > U C m E O u a m Y O c Ol-H'a m O Y•H 3 O U L .. -1 Y O m m" w U w -u m a+ m L. m > •H w U .0 w -•H T c T a ++ m 0�. •H•-I m c m w m U O U m O M.� m m 7 L c L a PN C O Y 1-V..•H Ct, ++ 6 m = O m •--I m •+ 3 O Y m a •O 1•-• m C L m •H U m m ti C m m m a w E m V- m•H m m m m O.'a O_Y m U U C m•H C C a m C •H" O O m w 0 U U m • t- c- m m a m -•� __. O •H m > E V O E'O m > m C •H S m OI 7 L•H m m m w w a m m '•' w L > m O 'a., O-H L mti m m m O m 'O u >•H•O .-/ >•H Ol w ¢/- V) ' L a co c ++ U 'a••+ C m t/l > w m E c O•H w OI m m C m a 7 N m O m O m m-H w-C m m m C O L m 0 w U I 1 I 1 I p I•- m L 3 m+I C O U U U" I I C M N H a cl ^ C m m C cm ¢ m U C Q I t` m i ~ Ci L e 0 .n N m 1 In 1 1 I .-I 1 � 1 I 1 1 O � 1 I • I C. I x x 1 Go 1 I x x n 1 i 1 .Q I t x x y 1 C I = X • a r. N ' m • •»m 1 X v • X N T Ir L L� 0 m � O W m m c m .0 r 0 N 3 W 0 m C m m n CO C C m C E om o (D ..• u" ..• u o. c •» u = p L P L P L 0 0 0 0. O 0 0 `- L m 0 0 U C C d Y U L ••� c P 0 O L m m u v ••+ a m > 0 0 P m•» o c L.1 m m r m L.» ..+ < u++ 1.- L 0 .. •O m M S u 0 0 U 0 u m c m Lc mu Lm c > m 0 >.•. v m— 0 ++ L m 0 < ++ U m - O L 0 0 > c O 0 0 C L CL U < O m O. L u m L• 0 U m••+ O U C 0 -N 6 0 ..1 0 0 .» c .» C .»...a+ 0. < C O L P ... U U++ ¢ O >•» U O J3 m 0 0•» 0 c - C •.. .y•.. m 0 L L 0... .» T u ¢ ». E P L... 0 O u - m m• L m O ¢ o Q. u Ln > L L 0 0 m U m O_0 E L N L m 1.• m 0 u 0 0 0 0 0 tr m 4) ` I•• L W C ¢ 0 .. m L 0 E 0 2 C ]c++�U u -+ O c » 0 0 C c m u S C p •• C O 0...-.. •'• m U L C C O. L P u 0 0 0 0 0 0 .-�L U N U+� E•••• P N _. T.» •.. p p O� T m � 0 U L � � O -� ••• E 0 U v m 0 U 7 0 O rl p. > O.O O S= L ¢ 0< •-• .+ O > E > •. r•••. ¢ 0 0 10 ¢ N .. C Y 0 U L L 0 0 0 L 7 L 0 ¢¢ P C I 1 1 1 ¢ u ci S 1 1 +� O 0 s - a u s.- 0 Pm 0 m u o w < n cm P ••.a m _ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington authorizing the City's participation with other local municipal jurisdictions in carrying out the work plan of the Human Services Roundtable. WHEREAS, the City of Kent is committed to addressing the human services needs of King County on a regional basis, in cooperation with other municipal governments and United Way; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent participated in a survey to assess elected officials' perceptions of the region, and has determined that the City should proceed immediately to develop a cooperative regional human services action plan and implementation schedule; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent wishes to participate with other municipalities in reviewing all needs assessments, demographic data, and human services policies to determine the highest priority human services needs in the region and to develop strategies for addressing those needs; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent intends to seek broad-based community involvement in this effort, with the major subregions of King County - North, East, South, and Seattle - and shall participate in subregional work groups to assure the concerns of each subregion are adequately addressed; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent Human Services Commission on February 25, 1988, considered the work plan and goals of the Human Services Roundtable to develop a regional human services action plan, and recommended to the City Council the City's participation in this project, and recommended City funding support in the amount of six thousand (6,000) dollars; and WHEREAS, the City Council Planning Committee on March 1, 1988 considered the Human Services Commission's recommendation and endorsed and recommended to the Council as a whole, the City's participation in the project and funding support of six thousand (6,000) dollars; and WHEREAS, King County government will assume a leadership role in managing the Roundtable process by administering the partnership funds and supervising the ongoing work of the Roundtable staff; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council hereby authorizes the City of Kent's participation with other Human Services Roundtable partners to carry out the work plan of the Roundtable through an interlocal agreement. Section 2. The City Council hereby authorizes the allocation of six thousand (6,000) dollars as the City's share of participation in the Human Services Roundtable. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this _ day of 1988. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of , 1988. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of , 1988. (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK 5530-180 2 - 1� Kent City Council Meeting Date March 15 , 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: EAST HILL COMMUNITY WELL ANNEXATION ZONING ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Ordinance No. ,2- ! } establishing the zoning for the East Hill Community Well Annexation No. 2 areas A. B and C. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: City Council at Public Hearings (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. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, regarding land use and zoning, establishing the zoning of the East Hill Community Well Annexation Area No. 2, Areas A, B, and C; Area A being generally located west and east of 100th Avenue S.E. and north and south of S.E. 244th Street from R1-20, Single Family Residential, to R1-9.6 west of 100th Avenue S.E., and R1-7.2 east of 100th Avenue S.E. , and; Area B, generally located west and east of 100th Avenue S.E. and north and south of S.E. 244th Street, from R1-20, Single Family Residential, to 0, Professional and Office, for that portion lying south of S.E. 244th Street and CC, Community Commercial, for that portion north of S.E. 244th Street; and, for Area C, generally located north of S.E. 256th, south of S.E. 240th, east of Area B, west of 116th Avenue S.E. , from R1-20, Single Family Residential, to R1-9.6 for the area south of S.E. 252nd and R1-12 for the area north of S.E. 252nd excepting the existing development at Stratford Arms located at Tax Lot No. 202205-9022 which shall be MRM, Medium Density Multifamily. WHEREAS, the property above described, known as the East Hill Well Community Annexation Area 2, Areas A, B, and C was annexed to the City under Ordinance No. 2721 and was automatically zoned R1-20, Single Family Residential, according to Kent City Code; and WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner determined to hold public hearings and issue findings, conclusions, and recommendations on first Areas A and B, then Area C; and WHEREAS, on August 19, 1987, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing to consider the rezone of Areas A and B described in Exhibit A, incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner recommended to the City Council that the property be rezoned from R1-20, Single Family Residential, to: Area A 1. West of 100th Avenue S.E. (extended) : R1-9.6; 2. East of 100th Avenue S.E. (extended): R1-7.2; and Area B 1. 0, Professional and Office, for that portion lying south of S.E. 244th Street; 2. CC, Community Commercial, for that portion north of S.E. 244th Street; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted public hearings on Areas A and B on November 17, 1987 and January 5, 1988; and WHEREAS, on September 2, 1987, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing to consider the rezone of Area C described in Exhibit A, incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner recommended to the City Council that the property be rezoned from R1-20, Single Family Residential, to: Area C 1. For the area west of 112th Avenue S.E. extended and north of S.E. 248th Street: R1-7.2, Single Family Residential; 2. For the area south of S.E. 252nd Street extended R1-7.2, Single Family Residential, except the 4.80 acre parcel known as Stratford Arms; 3. Stratford Arms including Tax Lot 281 to the east: MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential, allowing 23 units per acre (entire Stratford Arms site, including the undeveloped portions) ; 4. H. L. Bainton properties south of S.E. 248th Street, adjacent to former city ' boundary: MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential, maximum of six dwelling units per acre; 2 - 5. Property east of 112th Avenue S.E. (extended), north of S.E. 252nd (extended) , except Bainton property: R1-9.6, Single Family Residential; and WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner also attached the following jconditions to Area C recommendations: i 1. If the H. L. Bainton property is not developed as proposed under the Walnut Park zero lot line plat, the property shall revert to R1-9.6; 2. The property will be deeded to provide the right-of-way widths for future street development prior to the issuance of a development permit; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted public hearings on Area C on January 19, 1988, and March 1, 1988; and WHEREAS, William J. Carey appealed the Hearing Examiner's recommended zoning for the property located east of 112th Avenue S.E. (extended) to 114th Avenue S.E. approximately and north of S.E. 244th (extended) ; and WHEREAS, a hearing was scheduled for January 19, 1988 to consider the Carey appeal but was continued at the request of the appellant for a hearing on March 1, 1988; and WHEREAS, Michael Bergstrom appealed the Hearing Examiner's recommended zoning for the property located at 25219 113th Avenue S.E. ; and WHEREAS, a hearing was held on January 19, 1988, was continued and again heard on March 1, 1988; and WHEREAS, considerable public testimony, and written documents were received on the appeals and the zoning designation for all areas, but particularly, Area C, calling for a single family zoning designation; and 3 _ a WHEREAS, upon consideration of all documents and public testimony and the Hearing Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations on all appeals and hearings, the Council took note of the significant amount of small lots in the area, of traffic problems, overcrowding of schools, and increased demands for fire protection and police protection; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of the Hearing Examiner set forth in the East Hill Community Well Annexation Area No. 2, Areas A and B, Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of the Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent, which is on file with the Kent City Clerk, are hereby adopted and the findings are concurred with for these areas Section 2. Zoning for these areas, generally located north and south of S.E. 244th Street and west and east of 100th Avenue S.E. (extended) and legally described in Exhibit A, incorporated herein by this reference, King County, Washington, is hereby changed from R1-20, Single Family Residential, to: Area A 1. West of 100th Avenue S.E. (extended) : R1-9.6; 2. East of 100th Avenue S.E. : R1-7.2; Area B 1. 0, Professional and Office, for that portion lying south of S.E. 244th Street; 2. CC, Community Commercial, for that portion north of S.E. 244th Street. Section 3. The Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of the Hearing Examiner set forth in the East Hill Community Well Annexation Area No. 2, Area C, Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of the Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent, which is on file with the Kent City Clerk, are hereby adopted as a part of this record and the Findings are concurred with to the extent compatible with the Council's decision herein, for Area C. The Recommendations are neither adopted nor concurred with. - _ 4 _ Section 4. After public hearing and consideration of all matters and materials before it and in accordance with the conclusions for Area C, the Bergstrom appeal is denied and the area is zoned Single Family Residential with a minimum lot size of 9,600 square feet. Section 5. After public hearing and consideration of alll matters and materials before it and in accordance with the Conclusions for Area C, the Carey appeal is denied and the area is to be zoned Single Family Residential with a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet. Section 6. Zoning for the Area C site, generally located north of S.E. 256th, south of S.E. 240th, east of Area B, west of 116th Avenue S.E. and legally described in Exhibit A, incorporated herein by this reference, King County, Washington, is hereby changed from R1-20, Single Family Residential, to: 1. North of S.E. 252nd: R1-12; 2. South of S.E. 252nd: R1-9.6; except Tax Lot 202205-9022 3. Tax Lot 202205-9022, an existing multifamily development site: MRM, Medium Density Multifamily. Section 7. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and confirmed. Section 8. 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 - 5 - yN Jv Kent City Council Meeting Date March 15, 1988 u t�l �l Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Ordinance No. amending the zoning code, setting forth multifamily development standards as adopted by the Council at its meeting on March 1, 1988 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: City Council on March 1, 1988 (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 planning and zoning, amending development standards of the MR-G, MR-M and MR-H Multifamily Residential Districts; amending Kent City Code 15.04.040, 15.04.050, 15.04.060 Multifamily Residential Districts, and adding Section 15.02.272, 15.02.344, 15.02.477 definitions, Section 15.08.215 Multifamily Transition Area -- requirements, and 15.09.045 Administrative Design Review. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Kent has recommended that multifamily development standards of the Kent Zoning Code be examined and reconsidered; and WHEREAS, the Council adopted Resolution No. 1148 expressing its concern about the impacts of multifamily development upon adjacent single family uses and impacts upon the City's Transportation Management System; and WHEREAS, recommendations of the Planning Commission have been referred to and reviewed by the Planning Committee pursuant to Council direction following public hearings by the Planning Commission on the development of multifamily development standards; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, Council Planning Committee have considered issues and input from interested parties and members of the public, and thereafter unanimously recommended action to the Council based upon such recommendations; and WHEREAS, on March 1, 1988, the City Council adopted the Planning Commission and Council Planning Committee recommendations and directing the City Attorney to prepare the following ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The following new sections are added to Chapter 15.02 definitions. 15.02.272. MULTIFAMILY TRANSITION AREA. A Multifamily Transition Area is any portion of an MR-G, MR-M or MR-H Garden Density, Medium Density or High Density Multifamily Residential District situated within 100 feet of a Single-Family District, and/or within 100 feet of a public street right-of-way. Specifically excluded from this definition is property abutting a right-of-way that will never be developed into a public street as determined by the Kent Transportation Engineer, and which does not otherwise qualify as a Multifamily Transition Area. 15.02.344. SETBACK, AVERAGE. The average setback is the mean or average depth of yard (setback) measured from the property line to the building. The average setback is computed along the full length of the property line, utilizing a designated property depth. 15.02.487. SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT. A Single Family Zoning District is a zoning district with any of the following designations: R1-20, R1-12, R1-9.6, R1-7.2, Single Family Residential, and RA, Residential Agricultural. Section 2. The following sections cross reference Garden Density Multifamily Residential District. 15.04.040 (E) (2) (j) . MULTIFAMILY TRANSITION AREAS. The requirements of Section 15.08.215 shall apply in any Multifamily Transition Area, which includes any portion of a multifamily district within 100 feet of a Single-Family District or within 100 feet of a public street right-of-way. 15.04.050(E) (2) (j) . MULTIFAMILY TRANSITION AREAS. The requirements of Section 15.08.215 shall apply in any Multifamily Transition Area, which includes any portion of a multifamily district within 100 feet of a Single-Family District or within 100 feet of a public street right-of-way. - 2 - 15.04.060(E) (2) (j) . MULTIFAMILY TRANSITION AREAS. The requirements of Section'15.08.215 shall apply in any Multifamily Transition Area, which includes any portion of a multifamily district within 100 feet of a Single-Family District or within 100 feet of a public street right-of-way. Section 3. A new section in Chapter 15.08 is created for Multifamily Transition Areas. 15.08.215. MULTIFAMILY TRANSITION AREAS. A. Purpose. The purpose of the Multifamily Transition Area requirements is to mitigate potential adverse impacts of multifamily development on adjacent uses, and to minimize impacts of abutting streets on multifamily occupants. Multifamily Transition Area requirements are designed to provide a buffer between multifamily residential districts and 'adjacent Single-Family Districts, and between multifamily districts and abutting streets. Multifamily Transition Area requirements are superimposed over development standards of the underlying zones. Multifamily buildings and other development within 100 feet of a Single-Family District or 100 feet of an abutting street are affected by the requirements of this Section. B. Development Standards. Within a Multifamily Transition Area, the following development standards shall apply, except where specifically exempted under Section 15.09.045, Administrative Design Review. These are in addition to other development standards applicable under Chapter 15 of the Code. 1. Minimum Yard Requirements (Setbacks) . a. The minimum yard requirement on any street frontage within a Multifamily Transition Area shall be related to the classification of the adjacent street. This classification shall be determined by the Kent Transportation Engineer. The setbacks are as follows: - 3 - (1) A property frontage on an arterial or collector street shall have a minimum setback of 20 feet and an average setback of 40 feet. The average setback shall be calculated along the full length of the property line, utilizing the first 60 feet of the property depth. (2) A property frontage on a local access street shall have a minimum setback of 20 feet and an average setback of 30 feet. The average setback shall be calculated along the full length of the property line, utilizing the first 40 feet of the property depth. b. The portion of a property abutting a Single-Family District shall have a minimum setback of 20 feet and an average setback of 40 feet The average setback shall be calculated along the full length of the property line, utilizing the first 60 feet of the property depth. 2. Building Offset. The horizontal dimension of any structure facing a public street or facing a Single-Family District shall be offset at intervals not to exceed 70 feet. The offset shall be no less than 20 feet in the horizontal dimension, with a minimum depth of six feet. 3. Height Limitation. The maximum height of any structure within a Multifamily Transition Area shall not exceed two stories or 25 feet at the minimum setback line. Building height may be increased one foot in height for each additional foot of horizontal setback from the minimum setback line, up to the maximum height limit for the zoning district. Exception to Height Limitation for Small Lots with Multiple Street 4 - Frontages: On lots of one acre or less and having more than one street frontage, the height limitation of this Section shall apply along the longest street frontage. On any other street frontage, the height limitation of this Section shall not apply. 4. Landscaping. a. A minimum 20 feet of perimeter landscaping shall be provided on arterial or collector streets. A minimum 15 feet of perimeter landscaping shall be provided on local access streets. b. Where a parking area abuts a public street, the " intervening landscaped area shall be bermed, unless the Planning Director finds berming to be ineffective due to topographic conditions, or where he/she determines that berming will obscure necessary sigh distance lines. Such berm shall be a minimum three feet high on an arterial or collector street, and a minimum two and one-half feet high on the frontage of a local access street. Where the Planning Director finds berming to be ineffective, an alternative screening method approved by the Planning Director shall be employed. C. A minimum six-foot high, sight-obscuring fence shall be provided where a development abuts a Single-Family District. Section 4. Section 15.07.060 is amended by adding new subsectionsproviding for landscaping standards. D. 3. The side and rear perimeters of properties shall be landscaped to a minimum depth of ten (10) feet. 5 - 4. A minimum five (5) feet of foundation landscaping shall be placed along the perimeter of any multifamily structure. Foundation landscaping consists of shrubbery or other combination of landscape materials that help to reduce the visual bulk of structures and/or buffer dwelling units from light, glare, and other environmental intrusions. E. 3. The side and rear perimeters of properties shall be landscaped to a minimum depth of ten (10) feet. 4. A minimum feet (5) feet of foundation landscaping shall be placed along the perimeter of any multifamily structure. Foundation landscaping consists of shrubbery or other combination of landscape materials that help to reduce the visual bulk of structures and/or buffer dwelling units from light, glare, and other environmental intrusions. F. 3. The side and rear perimeters of properties shall be landscaped to a minimum depth of ten (10) feet. 4 . A minimum five (5) feet of foundation landscaping shall be placed along the perimeter of any multifamily structure. Foundation landscaping consists of shrubbery or other combination of landscape materials that help to reduce the visual bulk of structures and/or buffer dwelling units from light, glare, and other environmental intrusions. Section 5. Chapter 15.09 is amended by adding a new section providing for Administrative Design Review. 6 - 15.09.045. ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW. A. Purpose and Scope. The Administrative Design Review is an administrative review, the purpose of which is to provide additional site planning flexibility in fulfilling the intent of Multifamily Transition Area requirements. Through the ' Administrative Design Review process, specific Multifamily Transition Area requirements may be waived or modified, where the applicant demonstrates an alternative site plan which fulfills an equivalent function to the Multifamily Transition Area requirements. The Administrative Design Review process shall consider the compatibility of structures, other impervious areas and landscape features within the site and their compatibility with surrounding uses. Elements which may be evalbated under this process include general site layout, building placement and orientation, parking and maneuvering arrangements, landscaping, and other screening and buffering provisions. The Administrative Design Review shall not include design elements that are not directly related to site planning and layout. Examples of excluded items are building colors and textures, siding materials and the like. B. Application and Review Process. The applicant for a multifamily development may propose to modify any of the Multifamily Transition Area requirements set forth in Section 15.08.215 of this Code. Such proposal shall be made by application to the Planning Department for Administrative Design Review on forms provided by the Planning Department. The Administrative Design Review may run concurrently with the SEPA environmental review process. To the maximum extent practicable, the Planning Department shall complete its review of an ,. Administrative Design Review application within seven working days of receiving the complete application. C. Required Findings. In order to modify or waive any Multifamily Transition Area requirement, the Planning Director must find that all of the following criteria have been met: 1. The proposal will accomplish the same or better protection of an abutting Single-Family District from impacts of noise, traffic, light and other environmental intrusions caused by the multifamily development. _ 7 _ 2. The proposal will accomplish the same or better transition between the multifamily development and abutting streets, including adequate buffering of the multifamily development from the street, and vice versa. 3. The proposal is compatible with surrounding uses. Compatibility includes but is not limited to site layout, size, scale, mass, and provisions for screening and buffering The Planning Director shall issue a report of his/her findings, conclusions, and determination for each proposal under this section. D. Appeals. The decision of the Planning Director is final unless an appeal is filed pursuant to Section 15.09.070 of this Code. Section 6. The Multifamily Transition Area requirements and Administrative Design Review process shall be reviewed by the City Council within one Year of the Council's adoption of such. The Planning Department shall maintain records on multifamily development activity, applications for Administrative Design Review, and related matters which will enable Council to assess the performance of the Administrative Design Review process. Section 7. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and confirmed. Section 8. 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 _ 8 fJ Kent City Council Meeting L� U Date March 15, 1988 1, Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: BRUTSCHE STREET VACATION PETITION - RESOLUTION 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Resolution No. " establishing the hearing date of April 19, 1988 on the application filed by Leo and Norma Brutsche for street vacations for portions of north 2nd Ave. and north 3rd Ave. and the alleys in between. 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY• " (Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: -. Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3F RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, regarding vacation of a portion of North Second Avenue and North Third Avenue and alleys in between, more particularly described in Exhibit A, setting the public hearing for April 19, 1988 on the application of Leo and Norma Brutsche. WHEREAS, a proper petition has been filed requesting vacation of certain property at North Second Avenue and North Third Avenue and alleys in between, in the City of Kent, as described in the title of this resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, . THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 . A public hearing on the aforesaid vacation petition shall be at a regular meeting of the Kent City Council to be held at 7 o'clock p.m. , April 19, 1988, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall , Kent, Washington. Section 2 . The City Clerk shall give proper notice of the hearing and cause the notice to be posted as provided by law. Section 3 . The Planning Director shall obtain the necessary approval or rejection of or other information from the Public Works Department and shall transmit information to the City Council so that the matter may be considered by the City Council at the regular meeting on April 19, 1988. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of 1988. Concurred in by the Mayor .of the City of Kent, this day of 1988. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JENSE , CITY CLERK :L r , r v 1 Tr 1 ts �r ,'VM ' a rr kfp N i � U' .. N rn .�• u, � a C oe„ 1rr 1. IV el O . ♦ _\ Ji • c arC x � t e o, N � M I. 1- 0 r y `:IHL N � v - LU to _ T N / Nn lk •Y. Dv. IN t forM 07 y' 1 =�iJi YJ ii►w:`/i'�(li' sY: ' iYI o��' •� _ m ., 1 n M J .H f=1 fit.. Kent City Council Meeting Date March 15, 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: HEHR ANNEXATION 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of the 75% petition for annexation of approximately ,5 acres in the vicinity of 116th Avenue S .E. and S.E. 228th1 and authorization for the City Engineer to file notice of intent with the Boundary Review Board . 3 . EXHIBITS: Area map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ _ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: -- ACTION• Council Agenda - Item No. 3G .26.Tb 05,0 fi 041 as X 116 226TH ST-- i. , I. k o of 9n 0900 All ile 55 T Olk I Fs., I C.1 L f it •.34 oil o a 10101 SE 226TH•PL It 1191 49 13S 77, ? 114 Llk 3"NII 3 44 It fn 12 S.PIIJ ?7 1 PL. c C L 31 n 0410 q 44 Lr)24 34 41 A CV 05 41 10 9 < Zi� te 8 • 7 2"k. "If PD f 19 ei 4 4. L 6 69) /s TW6 11�,6 Vr IC d y .4 as46 4-f ow, L'.'-' 30 rj Ill .1 t. 43 , _t ss, T.. V 3 4,1 -A CT 40 Ilk, 7 1 J., 7 -71.!, ....... HEHR ANNEXATION �1 A J Kent City Council Meeting Date March 15, 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: FORTE RENTALS 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of the bill of sale and warranty agreement for continuous operation and maintenance of approximately 271 feet of sanitary sewer extension constructed in the vicinity 18211 E. Valley Highway for 40 rentals and release of the cash bond after expiration of the maintenance warranty. 3 . EXHIBITS: Area map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No . 3H FORTE RENTALS ■ j n SE I?QTN T L3 s! "tf. ! T ut < �� S llZX0 ST . I> ST. _,.i•:u. y ._.. MCI �. _... L;... ...:.. -3•..,�pf.xlk 171TNST.... ..........:. ....: TM T i S1 . SW B Tr : OST 6 ' -fr+ER VALLEY r f _.. ROl SE 17lTll f /� �. 1 wosp. c.�Wit".sT. .t K ' . .PQ II IOtN KK T ir WA } yE x • ••;— . _., : m PROJECT32` � �'.� •,J6 : I f,. _' . ,♦ F 'SE 18ITM �. 'ST _...._..... r. .,. . _...:...:...:. _:_ LOCAT.t ON . . .SF u11tf.sT OK •,.ter_ . � . . . . . . . . (. . SE . . . S . . . . . . . SE INT M ST_• SF t4T K ST S. 19281b . T. ..dl. . ..... ...., ...... VICINITY MAP :Not to Scale J Kent City Council Meeting t l '' Date March 15, 1988 1 Category Consent Calendar l 1. SUBJECT: DECLARE AS SURPLUS 8 FOOT STRIP, VICINITY OF 520 SCENIC WAY ' 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As approved by the Public Works Committee, authorization to declare as surplus, an 8 foot strip of property, in the vicinity of 520 Scenic Way and to offer same for sale at fair market value, with direction to the City Attorney to prepare the resolution setting the public hearing date for April 19, 1988 . • 3 . EXHIBITS: Area map, excerpt from Public Works Committee meeting 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. 3I {"^ PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE (� January 26, 1988 PRESENT: Jon Johnson Tim Heydon Judy Woods Jerry McCaughan Don Wickstrom Jack Spencer Brent McFall Alice Milne -. Gary Gill Lyle Price Ken Morris Jack Bigford Sale of Surplus Police Vehicle Wickstrom explained the City of Morton has offered to purchase a police vehicle from us that we are declaring as surplus. They have offered to pay $1 , 150 which is the amount we would anticipate receiving if the vehicle were to be sold at public auction. The Committee recommended approval to sell the vehicle to the City of Morton. Establish Budget for Completion of Water Utility Telemetering r». Control System -' Wickstrom explained we have had our consultant review the status of the water utility telemetering system. There appears to be several modifications required to make the system fully operational and reliable . The consultant has estimated the cost would be approximately $150, 000 for these improvements. Wickstrom related the money could come from the unencumbered water utility funds. He requested approval to establish a budget and proceed with the work. The Committee concurred. Request for Property Purchase - Scenic Wav Mr. Bigford stated he has recently discovered that part of his driveway and his oil tank are located on property that belongs to the City of Kent immediately adjacent to his property. Mr. Bigford requested he be allowed to purchase an 8-foot strip of the City's property which abuts his . Wickstrom explained the property in question is utility property and in order to sell it it must be declared surplus and put out for bids. The costs involved in this process would exceed the value of the property. Johnson inquired if an easement would be better. Wickstrom indicated he would have concerns about the City' s liability if an easement were granted. rf 110' oozx Public Works Committee January 26, 1988 Page 2 Mr. Bigford stated he would be willing to assume the costs of appraisal and advertising involved in order for the property to be put up for bid. McCaughan indicated the cost of an appraisal could be as much as $1500. It was determined that staff should consult with the City Attorney to determine the proper procedure in order _ to sell the property. Declare as Surplus Property Vicinity of 102nd Avenue S.E. and James This is a similar situation as above. This property is a 50x50 parcel that is an old pump station that used to be the sole source of pumping water to the east hill system. An adjoining property owner has offered to purchase this property. The Committee authorized staff to proceed once the City Attorney' s determination on procedure has been received. Sale of Surplus Vehicles A list of 15 vehicles the Equipment Rental Division is suggesting the City declare surplus and sell at State auction was reviewed. The Committee concurred with the request. Request for Closure of 110th Place Alice Milne submitted a petition signed by residents of 110th Place S .E. who want 110th closed. This petition is made a part of these minutes. Ms. Milne related that the residents had been told that 110th would be closed once construction had been completed. However, it has remained opened and is being used quite heavily. Wickstrom related originally the developer was required to close 110th in conjunction with development of 109th Street . He subsequently received an amendment to the binding site plan to allow it to remain open, conditioned, however, if the City determined it to be hazardous we could order it closed. It was determined that 110th is a private street. The Committee directed staff to verify with the fire department if they would have any problem responding to the area if 110th were closed, do volume counts to determine the traffic load, research the conditions of the binding site plan and report back to the Committee. Kent City Council Meeting <� Date March 15, 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: BURLINGTON NORTHERN EASEMENT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, authorization to accept, and for the Mayor to sign an easement for sanitary sewer crossing of the Burlington Northern tracks at James Street . 3 . EXHIBITS: copy of the Public Works Committee minutes 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: _ Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No . 3J PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE March 8, 1988 PRESENT: Jon Johnson Gary Gill Berne Biteman Jim Harris Judy Woods Mike Ledbetter Don Wickstrom Jerry L. Graham Brent McFall Gary Ewing Sandra Driscoll Tom Sharp Burlington Northern Easement Wickstrom explained that Council has previous passed a resolution requiring that permanent rights be obtained when seeking utility crossings of railroad rights of way. In conjunction with our 1987 Sanitary Sewer Rebuild project, a sewer crossing of the Burlington Northern tracks at James Street is required. Burlington Northern had originally 'proposed a permit and after much negotiating they now propose an easement similar to what they have granted to Metro. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposal. Wickstrom requested authorization from the Committee to accept the easement. The Committee unanimously approved the request. Solid Waste Issues Jon Johnson stated there are two issues to be discussed under this topic. The first deals with the recycling proposals we requested. The purpose today is to discuss whether awarding the bid or to take some other action . The second item deals with making recommendation to the Council on a decision whether to commit Kent ' s waste stream to the County or to develop an alternative program. Johnson proposed that, based on the RFPs submitted, staff be directed to negotiate an agreement with Kent Disposal for curbside recycling program for a maximum of 18 months. In concurrence with that, Kent Disposal should petition the WUTC to include the cost of the recycling program into the tariff structure. That way there would be a definite period where Kent would no longer be subsidizing the recycling program. Johnson continued that if WUTC determined another carrier(s) were to be the exclusive hauler(s) we would then have to negotiate a similar type of agreement with those haulers. Johnson added the agreement should also include language to the fact that it is a voluntary program for the customers. Kent City Council Meeting Date March 15, 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE DONATIONS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acknowledgment of the following donations to the Task Force: Kent Police Guild $ 500 Meridian Kiwanis $1,000 CHEF Endowment Fund $1,000 AAL Branch #3659 $ 750 Seattle International Raceway $ 200 Dunham' s IGA Market $ 15 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. 3K Kent City Council Meeting Date March 15, 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: APPOINTMENTS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor ' s appointments : JoAnne Brady to the CBD Task Force Jack Cosby to the Board of adjustment to replace Phyllis -• Mauritsen. This term expires 2 3 . 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. 3L ` i Kent City Council Meeting Date March 15, 1988 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: MARI-PARK PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION NO. SU-87-5 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This public meeting will consider the Hearing Examiner ' s recommendation of conditional approval of the •..• 17 lot duplex multifamily residential preliminary plat. The site is located on the east side of 3rd Ave. No. and south of Bowen St. extended. The recommended conditions are outlined in the attached packet. If Council approves the Hearing Examiner ' s recommendation, that approval does not include the vacation of any streets or alleys (see memo attached) . 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo, staff report, minutes, findings and recommendation, letter from Cushman and Wakefield 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner 2/3/88 -• (Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc . ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember _ moves, Councilmember seconds t 9wdo /modify the findings of the Hearing Examiner and to th/disagree with the Hearing Examiner ' s recommendation a1 with conditions outlined in the attached packet. Uj DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No . 4A KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT March 9, 1988 MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION FROM THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE MARI- PARK SUBDIVISION #SU-87-5 On February 3 , 1988, the Hearing Examiner made a recommendation for the Mari-Park preliminary subdivision. The Hearing Examiner recommends approval with the conditions listed below. Among the conditions recommended by the Examiner is one that states, "Prior to recordation of this plat, secure the respective street and alley vacations necessary to accommodate this preliminary plat. " One _ of the streets that needs to be vacated is S. 234th Street from 3rd Avenue easterly to the Burlington Northern right of way. The reason for the street vacation is that the northern tier of lots, as shown on the accompanying map, will not meet the minimum lot size standard of the zoning code without the street vacation. mThe street vacation can only be accomplished through the filing of a street vacation application and a subsequent hearing held by the City Council. If the Council approves the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of approval for this plat, that approval does not include the vacation of any streets or alleys. RECOMMENDATION The recommendation of the Hearing Examiner to the Kent City Council on the proposed preliminary plat is conditional approval, subject to the following conditions: -- A. Developer shall comply with all SEPA requirements per the Determination of Nonsignificance issued November 20, 1987 . B. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF PLAT: 1. Water and Sanitary Sewer a. Provide gravity sanitary sewer service, water service and fire protection to all lots. Provide detailed plans to the Engineering Department for review and approval. Main line extensions from off-site will be necessary. Looping of the water system will be required to obtain adequate fire flows. 1 Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members March 9 . 1988 b. Main line storm drainage extensions shall be made from the 4th Avenue system to the plat site in conjunction with the road improvements described below. Provide on- site detention in accordance with Kent's storm drainage ordinance or provide detailed engineering analysis showing adequacy of downstream conveyance system without detention. 2 . 1st and 2nd Avenues Street i�acnions Oa( w�-ram• a. Provide necessary right of way and roadway improvements at the northerly limits of 1st and 2nd Avenue to meet emergency vehicle access and turnaround requirements. The proposed alley way connection between 1st and - 2nd Avenue is acceptable provided the pavement widths and turning radii meet Fire Department requirements. b. Construct S. 234th Street from 4th Avenue N. to 3rd Avenue N. and improve 3rd Avenue N. from S. 234th Street to the southerly limits of the site. Said improvements shall meet City of Kent standards for residential collector and access roads, respectively (curb and gutter, sidewalks, asphalt pavement, street lighting, storm drainage, underground utilities and related appurtenances) . Road A shall also be improved to residential standards per the Subdivision Code. Detailed engineering drawings of all the above improvements shall be required prior to plat approval. Bonding or construction of said improvements shall be required prior to plat approval for all improvements herein. C. Prior to recordation of this plat, secure the respective street and alley vacations necessary to accommodate this preliminary plat. D. Road A should be designated as S. 234th Place. JPH:ca 2 ._ Cushman & Wakefield of Washington, Inc. �^ 777-108th N.E., Suite 1850 G,(un Bellevue, WA 98004 �� v/�S- (206) 455-4500 C/ �� / OEM 0�n'f 9g8 /1- (L� �� Individual Member February 19, 1988 C Sodety of Industrial and Office Realtors City Cou of Kent City 220 rth Avenue South Z�ZIt, WA 98032 Dear Council Member: _. We have prepared and there is attached a print of the Preliminary Plat of Mari-Park which is now before the Kent City Council. Shown crosshatched green on the print is a 9.22 acre parcel of M-2 zoned property which is owned by our client Bumstead-Woolford Pension Plan. Also shown upon the print is an area shaded red, which indicates the southerly one-half of South 234th Street which is currently a dedicated right-of-way of the City of Kent. The applicant of Mari-Park is requesting that the area shaded red be vacated in their favor, so that they will have enough property to accommodate their development as currently conceived. Please be advised that Bumstead-Woolford strongly objects to any such vacation of S. 234th Street. The orderly development of the 8.22 acre parcel may very well require the extension of 234th Street east to the Burlington Northern right-of-way, and for your to accede to their request may seriously hamper access to their property. We are also concerned that the vacation application might be progressed without sufficient time being given to Bumstead-Woolford to prepare for any hearings that may be scheduled. Therefore, please place the undersign's name on any notification list pertaining to this matter. Sincerely, rge �l4� ice —. ent /06 cc: Mr. David Lund / Ms. Marie Jensen, City Clerk V Mr. Brent McFall, Administrator Mr. Jerry McCaughan, Property Manager No warranty or representation. express or implied. is made as to the accuracy of the information contained herein. and same is submitted subject to errors. omissions. change of price• rental or other conritions. withdrawal wehoul notice. and to any special Milling conditions. imposed by our principals. xotrxcatt NOLDNV/SVM'1N3x �� _...., unl•1»+i IL,M••Nd••/1 '0'*11Oi+P"'i .... �dva javw Zoe xoe o•d •Dui sJ3au}6u3 Su}l}nsuo)u3sne ssvz do -- �' - hie l.V1d AVVNIW113Nd ,heft e1e123 lead ultlierno{� rw — 4 8 A :} 1• ]MI.•ll• II.)Ai.O C.Aw G 0 x ji.Y.d 3az In a W Q t d I C 1. [ YZ y '.; k LJ ' ;.I... I =j Nil Y Z¢ I t i71 1 I 6 li W 1�} }�Z r$ x,?L• i Yu •a••i v uu 9 9 H1noS 3nN3AV V16L J ! •1 { -- �' IL.U a 1 �•F= cc cr 3 t <00 LL uj0 ri5 - . _ti_.._•. -- -b---- '• 1. f .. in CAI z IM uj Tr All =lC • p yy{{ {f+ LL H1no53nN3AV VIYL � 11 rit < 3 < s --------- • 1 ! f HLNON 30N3AV Vlk k • • c------------ 4 - ------- }_ } 1 S jf � rlll �'!1 led } } j t } e ! ! e : ... 17 ba � 0� 9 � 7 � ` � - i i Y � `• S � } i � L S Y a s i 11 J • 3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT FILE NO: #SU-87-5 MARI-PARK SUBDIVISION APPLICANT: SOUTHFIELD COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES REOUEST: A request for a 17-lot duplex multifamily residential preliminary plat. LOCATION: The property is situated on the east side of Third Avenue N. , and south of Bowen Street extended. APPLICATION FILED: October 27, 1987 DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE: November 20, 1987 HEARING DATE: January 20, 1988 RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: February 3 , 1988 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL with conditions STAFF REPRESENTATIVES: Jim Hansen, Planning Department Kathy McClung, Planning Department Greg McCormick, Planning Department Gary Gill, Public Works Department PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Jeff Moeding, applicant Dana Mower, applicant Public Comment George Weinert Sonny Sipes Keith Kepler June McClure Marla Kepler WRITTEN TESTIMONY: None INTRODUCTION After due consideration of the evidence presented by the applicant, all evidence elicited during the public hearing, and as a result of the personal inspection of the subject property by the Hearing Examiner, the following findings of fact and conclusions shall constitute the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner on this application. 1 Findings and Recommendation Mari-Park Subdivision - #SU-87-5 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant, Southfield Commercial Real Estate Service, f/k/a Llewelln Real Estate service applies for preliminary plat approval for a 17-lot duplex multifamily residential development. 2 . The subject site is 4 . 6 acres in size and situated on the east side of Third Avenue N. , and south of Bowen Street extended. 3 . The site is currently zoned MRD, -Duplex Multifamily Residential, and is designated for multifamily residential in both the City- Wide Comprehensive Plan and the Valley Floor Plan. 4 . The evidence establishes that the subject site is in two parcels. There is currently a dedicated right of way for 2nd Avenue N. which bisects the site. The evidence establishes that right-of- way vacation requests have been submitted by the applicant for portions of 2nd Avenue N. , 1st Avenue N. , and Bowen Street in order to accommodate the design of the proposed preliminary plat. 5. The site is currently in transition between single and multifamily residential to the south and industrial to the north. To the south, the development is predominately single family residential with some duplex and fourplex development. This neighborhood is known as the North Park Neighborhood. At the time of the public hearing hereon, residents of this neighborhood testified in support of the applicant's proposal. To the north, there is a vacant parcel zoned M2 , Limited Industrial . To the east the Burlington-Northern Railroad right of way borders this site. Located immediately to the west of the subject site there are single and multiple family duplex residences. 6. The subject property has access to 4th Avenue N. The street is classified as a minor arterial with actual right-of-way width of 60 feet and current paving width of 44 feet. The evidence establishes that the street has two-lanes in each direction with related appurtenances and has an average daily traffic count of 9, 500 vehicles trips per day. 7 . There are existing water and sanitary sewer lines available to serve the subject property. The developer will be required to improve the water system in order to extend adequate fire flow to the development. Further, the applicant must provide gravity sanitary sewer service to all lots. 8 . At the time of the public hearing hereon, the applicant' s representative objected to Condition 2 of the Determination of Nonsignificance which requires the applicant to do a full street improvement for S. 234th Street to include curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, drainage, and all other necessary 2 Findings and Recommendation Mari-Park Subdivision #SU-87-5 appurtenances. The evidence establishes that no timely appeal has been processed to the SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance. Accordingly, any objection which the applicant may have to the SEPA conditions is waived. 9 . At the time of the public hearing, George Weinert spoke representing the property owner to the north. Mr. Weinert indicated that his principal may object to the vacation of the streets as proposed to accommodate the development due to the fact that future industrial uses may need the existing street right of way for ingress and egress. However, the street vacation is not before the undersigned at the time of the preliminary plat hearing. 10. The evidence establishes that the proposed preliminary plat will generate approximately six vehicle trips per day per unit. The testimony of the City Engineer indicates that no additional traffic mitigation measures are necessary beyond those previously imposed in the mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance. 11. The staff report, with its recommendation of conditional approval, is incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. CONCLUSIONS 1. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan and the Valley Floor Plan contain goals and policies to be considered when reviewing preliminary plat applications. Specifically, the Housing Element seeks to increase the residential population in Kent while assuring a decent home and living environment for families desiring to live in Kent. Further, the plan encourages the development of new residential uses on suitable areas of the valley floor. In this instance, the subject property is located next to an already established residential area near shopping, recreation, the central business district, City Hall and the public library. Although the street system is substandard in some places with the required street improvements the street system will be adequate to serve the additional traffic generated by the proposed development. 2 . The preliminary plat as proposed appears to promote the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. - RECOMMENDATION For each of the above reasons, the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner to the Kent City Council on the proposed preliminary plat is conditional approval, subject to the following conditions: 3 Findings and Recommendation Mari-Park Subdivision #kSU-87-5 A. Developer shall comply with all SEPA requirements per the Determination of Nonsignificance issued November 20, 1987. B. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF PLAT: 1. Water and Sanitary Sewer a. Provide gravity sanitary sewer service, water service and fire protection to all lots. Provide detailed plans to the Engineering Department for review and approval. Main line extensions from off-site will be necessary. Looping of the water system will be required to obtain adequate fire flows. b. Main line storm drainage extensions shall be made from the . 4th Avenue system to the plat site in conjunction with the road improvements described below. Provide on-site detention in accordance with Kent's storm drainage ordinance or provide detailed engineering analysis showing adequacy of downstream conveyance system without detention. 2 . 1st and 2nd Avenues Street Vacations a. Provide necessary right of way and roadway improvements at the northerly limits of 1st and 2nd Avenue to meet emergency vehicle access and turnaround requirements. The proposed alley way connection between 1st and 2nd Avenue is acceptable provided the pavement widths and turning radii meet Fire Department requirements. b. Construct S. 234th Street from 4th Avenue N. to 3rd Avenue N. and improve 3rd Avenue N. from S. 234th Street to the southerly limits of the site. Said improvements shall meet City of Kent standards for residential collector and access roads, respectively (curb and gutter, sidewalks, asphalt pavement, street lighting, storm drainage, underground utilities and related appurtenances) . Road a shall also be improved to residential standards per the Subdivision Code. Detailed engineering drawings of all the above improvements shall be required prior to plat approval. _ Bonding or construction of said improvements shall be required prior to plat approval for all improvements herein. C. Prior to recordation of this plat, secure the respective street and alley vacations necessary to accommodate this preliminary plat. - 4 Findings and Recommendation '- Mari-Park Subdivision #SU-87-5 D. Road A should be designated as S. 234th Place. Dated this 3rd day of February, 1988 . D E -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 l CITY OF KCNT planning . a } 3illrI •11i:{ 114 1 �I 1 Il t I----------- -------- --- 3. 1 ( 11 1 l El I> ' O Ill_ _. � rlin AvlNN EOVTN� ••� 1 -i` 111 -till11' � 9m pTD. 1 t l' � � �-31m AYENUI EOUi 7 !IY,•! N�•a.�.�.. _-_-_ (( F �- � %i • 1 r > Y 5 N ' ps 3{ 1� w w 1 , .•� NS om .. • i IoinwENuuouiH �•.•+ i IL nmz -- ar--- r ax lilt—, 3460 Barghau3¢n �, •"' UEwellyn HuI EEIEtE 1pM' rnnuuHAnr ner - .... Consulting Engln¢¢rs Inc. r.o.EOE EEE or 4 1 '�r6^Y7.1^,E IMwrW IrwMIItl. r, NEK,WAEHWOTON nev n.a MART-PARK _. APPLICATION Name MART-PORK LEGEND Number #SU-87-5 Dale January 20, 19RR application site — Request Preliminary Plat zoning boundary city limits SITE Plan SCALE _. No Scale CITY OF KCNT planning . . ;. ar i O +32.3 . � I +32.3 I rt � +31.7 +32,6 x 5 / 0 00 '.. / +36.7 i° / 'Yy.' / +32.3 i a —_ I •'' M — rl \ \\\\\g\\ I \\\\ \\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\ _—/ ,��•9 .. l 0��ti�� N••••••N••Mi•r}•N•NNN••••ISE�% O +32.0 Ep 1 a u Q p N•'•�}�j� yyNM•NNu ... +3°13 � � °�••b __.�lam_ —'^ ---.� I o d J , v a 4J�I Q a�°f° N COLE +3 ST 4j — t . OFS_ I ^ p � ' a s J a 2. ��- ° 9 19 I _ �'7� / �_ I ❑_I APPLICATION Name MARL-PARK LEGEND : Number #tll-A7-5 Date January 20. 1987 application site •••�•- RequeSt Preliminary Plat zoning boundary city limits -• ZONONG/TOPO SCALE = 1.,:200' -� r fi CITY OF KENT -planning . -- . n. 01 : • 2 a S 228TH ST S e 22ST � 4 rt G e r'`�' INDUSTRIAL AREA i a a 167 < N NOYAK L z < 167 j F• NJJ 2347H F 6 ► J x i w K i - .C. COLE ST W Y > _ ' clouor sT � � � > WAY 23BTX S > W CLOD Y ST z W < > O Q ,/ S i• E OE ROE 0 < G-•`I•Ly\`rIF1,11:. < KENAT JH1 2 4 W< O CS1NOLi E SAM ST i O aQ lllChC . _. Fld CED LIST z < It O PIONEER 1 Q O = • larll U x O Me ILLAN Z Z MILWAIIKEr. r• 1• Q W y01 � 1•LAYFIt.1.0 v n � > 5T < < z z I SMITH ST 7!� > ly Q SM 1T ST Z SMITH ST 4 y ENTa r z :i\�. Z O 2 2 t< + MEDICAL U W HARRISO y ST'4' Z < F WARD ACENTE ' ;;'1= W HARRISON ST n < N ST 2 AAi 'r AI z 1 `IW• MEEKER a 2 ST z E ME KERz ST o Jq rO 2 i a < = 1'ns E.< l W i OOWE-- ST E 00 b r" i ST O1A1 t�2y Off/ < WILLIS'STREET z S'a = (ENT *POI aSt n i • 'N z NTCHG o �'r I` > •LEM MCI H I poept I 5I6 N 6 FhD9\r TACDM_ .. 181 o i < SOON PU a7 OHIc fy 4yF • 1 = yl W x TITU $F t67 4^ DEANL\ E DEANi Slfi z ` N F< W .N., T P >m ST = W $T• N • \ W N < SMR < ST 1 E "Ax •> �t £ > i 3_S!d _ 3 $AAA O < �= O E < OUI :• 1•Al1A•. N ; » ST ALPIN a s 4 WILLIS 4 ST N WAT U W H = > Q . / x W W NRO> Z 516 I U W:\Ir: l r• OHEi < SEA W ST a RU ELL W Q <H Fire N 1'.\I'I, >> W _ O E > Station t << Q " z o CHICo0 N Q MO fON RO z ST .ST Z Y Y N V1 <m < Gii I Q MARION �Z N » N N ST /O Q 23124 M >< 24 1 9 I25 ° x I W 25�30 J: n H U APPLICATION Name MART-PARK LEGEND Number #Cfl-A7_5 Date January 20, 1987 application site •••••• Request Preliminary Plat toning boundary city limits VICINTIY MAP SCALE — 111:10001 '� HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES January 20, 1988 The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to order by the presiding officer, Diane L. VanDerbeek,. Hearing Examiner, on Wednesday, January 20, 1988 at 3 : 00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, Council Chambers. Ms. VanDerbeek requested all those intending to speak at the hearing and those wishing to receive information concerning the hearing, to sign in at the sign up sheet by the door. Staff reports, agendas, and the description of procedure of the hearing were available by the door. Ms. VanDerbeek briefly described the sequence and procedure of the hearing. All those who intended to speak were sworn in. MARI-PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT #SU-87-5 The first item on the agenda was a public hearing to consider the request submitted by Llewellyn Real Estate Services, 215 West Titus, Kent, WA 98032 , for a 17-lot residential subdivision in the MRD, Duplex Multifamily Residential, zoning district. The subject property is located on the east side of Third Avenue N. , just south of SR-167 . (1-88) Grect McCormick, Kent Planning Department, *presented the staff report. View graphs depicting the following were shown: 1) location of the property, 2) zoning and land uses in the area near the subject site and 3) site plan. A video was shown. The site consists of two parcels with a dedicated right of way at Second Avenue North bisecting the site. The applicants have requested that portions of Second Avenue North, First Avenue North and Bowen Street be vacated. Staff feels the plat request should not be reviewed prior to City Council 's review of the street vacation request. The neighboring industrial property owner to the north is protesting the vacation of Bowen Street. This is a transition area from single family and multifamily to industrial. The single family area is generally referred to as the North Park neighborhood and is mainly older single family residences with some duplexes. Both the City-wide Comprehensive Plan and the Valley Floor Subarea Plan contain goals and policies relating to the development of the subject property. Water and sewer services are available to serve the subject property. The streets in the area are generally substandard. The developer will be required to improve substandard areas and build Bowen Street for access from the site to Fourth Avenue North. Third Avenue North abuts the site on the west. 1 Hearing Examiner Minutes January 20, 1988 Mr. McCormick reviewed the findings of the City staff. The staff recommends the plat be approved with conditions. Under Condition 2 B, last sentence, which reads, ". . . Bonding or construction of said improvements shall be required prior to plat approval. " that is to apply to all the street and utility improvements that are required. An additional condition should be: the street vacation requests should be addressed prior to City Councils' review of the preliminary plat. Ms. VanDerbeek stated that there would be 34 units on the site. The standard ITT trip generation figures used are 10 trips per day for single family; how is the multifamily figured? (1-439) Gary Gill, City Engineer, commented it is six trips per day for any type of multifamily use. Peak hour trips are one per single family unit and .63 per multifamily unit. Thus, it would be 60 percent of what would be generated under a single family residential plat. No further mitigating measures need be taken on this request other than those required by the Declaration of Nonsignificance (DNS) . Mr. Gill explained a looped water system provides better water flow to an area by making sure there are no dead end lines . Ms. VanDerbeek asked if the applicant would like to comment. (1-520) Jeff Moeding, Southfield Commercial Real Estate, representing the owner (formerly Llewellyn Real Estate Services) , explained the project. This will fulfill a need for residential housing in this area. Because this is a transitional neighborhood, the plans are to make this a unified community, thus the request for the street vacations. The intent is to create cul-de-sacs with the front door facing the street and the back yards facing the railroad tracks and industrial area. The access would be via S. 234th to Fourth Avenue N. Mr. Moeding had talked about the street vacation to Mr. Weinert who represents the industrial property owner to the north. It was understood that the property owner didn't categorically oppose the vacation but didn't want the vacation to hamper the development of his property. Further, it was felt the traffic flow would be out to 234th Street rather than down Third Street. Since 234th Street would be shorter than Third, most everyone would drive on 234th Street. In addition, Third Street could be posted with local access only signs or other mitigating features. There are some cottonwood trees on the site which would remain under the configuration of the current site plan. (1-791) Dana Mower, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, 18215 72nd Avenue S. , Kent, WA 98032 , agent for the applicant. On page 4 of the staff report, item 2, it states that full street improvements for S. 234th Street are required. In June 1987 a predesign meeting was held on this project and Don Wickstrom had agreed that what that meant is full half-street improvements. Mr. Mower asked for clarification on that condition to state full half-street improvements. Under Item B, Prior Recordation of Plat (page 7) , I. 2 Hearing Examiner Minutes January 20, 1988 A. , Mr. Mower requested verbiage be added to either build or bond the sanitary sewer and water service similar to Condition 2 B. This would allow the property owner to come in and bond the required improvements and then begin to sell the lots because the plat would be recorded. Finally, Item I B. , regarding providing on-site storm drainage, there again, at the pre-development meeting, the City Engineering Department decided on-site detention was not necessary because of the size of the pipes. Therefore, Mr. Mower requested that the statement be changed to require on-site conveyance in accordance with Kent Storm Drainage Ordinance rather than detention. Mr. Mower submitted to the record the minutes of the pre-development meeting. Ms. VanDerbeek stated, in regard to Condition I B. , would it clarify the condition if it stated that that the applicant will either provide on-site detention or provide detail engineering analysis showing adequacy of downstream conveyance without detention. Mr. Mower stated the calculations have been submitted and since that has been done, he would like that condition removed. Ms. VanDerbeek asked for public testimony. (1-973) George Weinert, Suite 2600 First Interstate Center, Seattle, WA 98104, representing owners of the 8. 22 acre parcel immediately north of the applicant's property. He commented the subject site does not border SR 167, the site that does is the 8. 22 acre industrial site. On page 5, paragraph 2s and 4, the extensions should be oversized to accommodate industrial development. Otherwise, if smaller extensions are put in, they would just have to be taken out when the industrial property develops. Further, the owner he represents does not wish to have the south half of N. Second Street vacated. South 234th Street is the access to that property. Mr. Weinert had concerns about industrial traffic on Third Street. Further, S. 234th Street should be constructed to full street improvements either with an LID or with latecomer agreements. (1-1306) Sonny Sipes, 913 First North, Kent, WA 98032, commented they want a buffer zone. However, they do not want the street improved. They like it just as it is. (1-1350) Keith Kepler, 904 Second North, Kent, WA 98032 , stated he was glad to see the housing going in, especially since it is not subsidized housing. He also felt that the water line going in should be industrial sized. Also, trucks traveling on James would turn north onto Third Avenue to use it as an access because it would be too difficult to merge onto James. (1-1438) June McClure, 943 North Third, Kent, WA 98032 , was concerned about the traffic. Third Avenue has been closed and there is quite a bit of traffic coming through especially in the mornings when James has excess traffic; with this increase in homes and development, Third Avenue could have an increase in traffic. Further, 3 Hearing Examiner Minutes January 20, 1988 Third Avenue is in poor shape. (1-1492) Marla Kevler, 904 Second North, Kent, WA 98032, stated there were concerns about drainage. It was felt that any development built in that area should take into consideration on-site storm water detention. There is quite a bit of flooding in the area already. Ms. VanDerbeek asked for rebuttal comments. (1-1510) Mr. McCormick commented that if a street is vacated the adjoining property owners have the option to buy half of the vacated right of way. (1-1560) Mr. Gill stated the Public Works Director has indicated that full street improvements would be required on S. 234th. Further, a latecomer' s agreement would be allowed for a portion of the improvements. In addition the storm drainage condition should remain as stated. This project should not adversely affect adjacent sites upon development. In regard to traffic , the intent is to have the industrial/manufacturing traffic use S. 234th Street and discourage traffic from using Third Avenue as an access point. Any type of truck traffic or access points will be restricted onto the residential streets. (1-1777) Mr. Moeding commented that in the conversation with Mr. Weinert, it was his impression that the property was going to be used by a client who did not need access to S. 234th. If he was wrong, he apologizes. Further, should S. 234th be required to be installed from Third to the railroad, it would not service the subdivision; there would be no benefit to the subject property from the street improvements from Third on to the railroad. Therefore, the applicant should not have to share in the cost of the street improvements from Third. There was no further public testimony. The hearing closed at 4 p.m. 4 Hearing Examiner Minutes January 20, 1988 LITTLE DELI MART Conditional Use Permit #CE-87-8 The last item on the agenda is a public hearing to consider the request submitted by Little Deli Mart, 500 S. Lander, Seattle, WA 98134, for a conditional use permit to allow 6, 000 square feet, 51- percent, of an 11, 800 square foot building to be used for commercial and office uses in a M2, Limited Industrial, zoning district. The subject property is 1.2 acres in size and is located on the southwest corner of 192nd Street and East Valley Highway. (1-1926) Kathy McClung, Kent Planning Department, presented the staff report. The development was built last spring and is partially occupied by the deli mart. The request is not to allow the deli mart square footage to be increased but to allow another retail, office or service use to locate in this development. View foils were shown depicting: 1) location of the site, 2) zoning of the property and surrounding uses, and 3) site plan of the project. A video was shown. A Declaration of Nonsignificance was issued for this project with three conditions. The traffic impacts would be minimal. The site is adequate to support this request. The staff is recommending approval. The applicant had no comments. Ms. VanDerbeek asked if the public would like to comment. -• (1-2350) Harlan Bull, 20601 100th SE, Kent, WA 98031, owns property at 19222 84th Avenue S. and 19414 84th Avenue S. He had a concern about sufficient parking on the site. He felt the applicant should have enough parking that people wouldn't be parking on his property or elsewhere. Mr. Bull was in favor of the request. (1-2433) Ms. McClung commented there is adequate room on the site to add more parking if necessary. If there was a need for additional parking, the applicant would be required to expand the existing parking area. There was no further public testimony. Hearing was closed at 4 : 15 p.m. L- Walf D ANE L. VANDERBEEK Hearing Examiner 5 f KENT PLANNING AGENCY STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF JANUARY 20, 1988 FILE NO: MARI-PARK SUBDIVISION #SU-87-5 APPLICANT: LLEWELLYN REAL ESTATE SERVICES REQUEST: Preliminary plat approval for a 17 lot duplex multifamily residential development. STAFF REPRESE14TATIVE: Greg McCormick _. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS I . GENERAL INFORMATION A. Location The property is situated on the east side of Third Avenue N. , „• and south of Bowen Street extended. B. Size of Property The property is 4.6 acres in size. C. Zoning The property is zoned MRD, Duplex Multifamily Residential . D. Comprehensive Plan The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 1969. The goals , objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan represent an expression of community intentions and aspirations concerning the future of Kent and the area within the Sphere of Interest. The Comprehensive .. Plan is used by the Mayor, City Council , City Administrator, Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner and City departments to guide growth, development, and spending decisions. Residents, land developers, business representatives and others may refer to the plan as a statement of the City' s intentions concerning future development. The City of Kent has also adopted a number of subarea plans that address specific concerns of certain areas of the City. Like the City-wide Plan , the subarea plans serve Staff Report Mari-Park Subdivision #SU-87-5 as policy guides for future land use in the City of Kent. This area is served by the Valley Floor Subarea Plan. The following is a review of these plans as they relate to the subject property. CITY-WIDE/VALLEY FLOOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map and the Valley Floor Plan Map designate the property as MF, Multifamily Residential . HOUSING ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL POPULATION IN KENT, ASSURING A DECENT HOME AND SUITABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT FOR FAMILIES DESIRING TO LIVE IN KENT. Goal 2: Guide new residential development into areas where the needed services and facilities are available. Objective 1: Encourage new residential development on suitable areas of the Valley Floor. Planning Department Comment The subject property is located adjacent to the established residential neighborhood of North Park. This area is near shopping, recreation, the central business district, City Hall , and the Public Library. Police, fire and emergency medical services are located nearby as well . In terms of water and sewer service, both are available to the site, however, some main extensions will be necessary to provide site with adequate water, fire flow, etc. The street system in the area is substandard in a few instances. The developer will be required to improve substandard areas and to build Bowen Street which will allow access from the site to 4th Avenue N. which is classified as a minor arterial . This area is also near the large industrial area of the valley. This development would provide housing near a large employment area of the City which would provide easy access to places of work for persons employed in the valley. II. HISTORY A. Site History The subject site is in two parcels. The dedicated right-of-way for Second Avenue N. bisects the site. Right of way vacation 2 f KENT PLANNING AGENCY STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF JANUARY 20, 1988 FILE NO: MARI-PARK SUBDIVISION #SU-87-5 APPLICANT: LLEWELLYN REAL ESTATE SERVICES REQUEST: Preliminary plat approval for a 17 lot duplex multifamily residential development. STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Greg McCormick STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS I . GENERAL INFORMATION A. Location The property is situated on the east side of Third Avenue N. , and south of Bowen Street extended. B. Size of Property The property is 4.6 acres in size. C. Zoning The property is zoned MRD, Duplex Multifamily Residential . D. Comprehensive Plan The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 1969. The goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan represent an expression of community intentions and aspirations concerning the future of Kent and the area within the Sphere of Interest. The Comprehensive Plan is used by the Mayor, City Council , City Administrator, Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner and City departments to guide growth, development, and spending decisions. Residents, land developers, business representatives and others may refer to the plan as a statement of the City' s intentions concerning future development. The City of Kent has also adopted a number of subarea plans that address specific concerns of certain areas of the City. Like the City-wide Plan , the subarea plans serve Staff Report Mari-Park Subdivision #SU-87-5 requests have been submitted by the applicant for portions of Second Avenue N. , First Avenue N. , and Bowen Street. The site was annexed into the City in 1959 under Ordinance #1013 as part of a 2990 acre annexation. B. Area History This site is in a transition area between single and multifamily residential to the south and industrial to the north. The single family area to the south is referred to as the North Park Neighborhood and is mainly older single family residences with some duplexes. This site is bordered to the north by State Route 167 and a vacant parcel of land zoned M.2, Limited Industrial . The owner of the industrially zoned parcel north of the subject site is protesting the right-of-way vacation for S. 234th Street (Bowen Street) . The property owner feels that vacating S. 234th Street will hinder the development of the industrial parcel . III. LAND USE Land uses in the area include: 1. South - predominately single family residential with some duplex and four-plex development. 2. North - a vacant parcel zoned M.2, Limited Industrial . State Route 167 also borders a portion of the site to the north. 3. East - bordering the' site to the east is the Burlington Northern railroad right of way. 4. West - located immediately west of the site are single family and duplex residences. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS A. Environmental Assessment A Final Declaration of Non-Significance was issued on November 20, 1987. The DNS was issued with the following conditions: 1. The developer of the Mari-Park Subdivision shall do a traffic study to identify all traffic impacts upon the City of Kent 3 Staff Report Mari-Park Subdivision #SU-87-5 road network and traffic signal system. The study shall identify all intersections at level of service "E" or "F" or which will be at level of service "E" .and "F" due to increased traffic volumes from the development. These intersections are at a threshold level for traffic mitigation. The study shall then identify what improvements are necessary to mitigate the development impacts thereon. Upon agreement by the City with the findings of the study and mitigation measures outlined in the study, implementation and/or construction of said mitigation measures shall be the conditional requirement of the issuance of the respective development permits. In lieu of conducting the above traffic study, constructing --. and/or implementing the respective mitigation measures hereby, the developer may agree to the following conditions to mitigate the traffic impacts due to the Mari-Park Subdivision development. a. The developer shall execute an environmental mitigation agreement (in the form of a no-protest LID agreement) to participate in the formation of an LID to construct the South 224th/228th Street corridor project. Said agreement shall recognize approximate assessment and the minimum special benefit to the above development, due to the construction of the improvements, is estimated at $21,520 based upon 20 p.m. peak hour trips entering and leaving the site and the capacity of the South 224th/228th Street corridor. The execution of this agreement will serve to mitigate traffic impacts to the above-mentioned intersections and road system by committing funding for the South 224th /228th Street corridor which will provide additional capacity for traffic volumes within the area of the above-mentioned development. 2. The developer shall do a full street improvement for South 234th Street (Bowen Street) to include curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, drainage, and all other necessary appurtenances. B. Significant Physical Features 1. Topography and Hydrology The site is flat with a slope of less than three percent. The site has no apparent surface water located on it and there are no creeks or drainage ditches adjacent to the site. 4 Staff Report Mari-Park Subdivision #SU-87-5 2. Vegetation The site is covered with native grasses and shrubs. There are some large deciduous trees located along the northern and eastern portions of the site. C. Significant Social Features 1. Street System The subject property has access to 4th Avenue South which is classified as a minor arterial . The street has a public right-of-way width of 60 feet while the actual width of paving is 44 feet. The street is improved with 4 lanes of asphalt paving, curb and gutter, storm water drainage, and street lights. The average daily traffic count on 4th Avenue is 9,500 vehicle trips per day. 2. Water System Existing 4 and 6 inch water main lines are available to serve the subject property. The following improvements will be necessary to accommodate development on the property. . There is an existing 6 inch water line south of the property in Second Avenue N. There is also a 4 inch line in Third Avenue N. ; both tie into a 4 inch line in Cole Street. Main line extensions from off-site will be necessary to provide adequate fire flow to the development. 3. Sanitary Sewer System An existing 8 inch sanitary sewer is available to serve the subject property. The sewer is located south of the property in the alley between Third Avenue N. and Second Avenue N. The developer must provide gravity sanitary sewer service to all lots. 4. Storm Water System A storm water system is necessary to accommodate the proposed development. The following is a description of these improve- ments: Main line storm drainage extensions shall be made from the Fourth Avenue N. system to the plat site in conjunction with the required road improvements . 5 Staff Report Mari-Park Subdivision #SU-87-5 Provide on-site detention in accordance with Kent's storm drainage ordinance or provide detailed engineering analysis showing adequacy of downstream conveyance system without detention. 5. LID's None at this time. V. MEETINGS, CORRESPONDENCE, AND LEGAL NOTICES A tenative flat meeting was held on this proposal on June 6, 1987. City of Kent representatives at this meeting included James Harris , Planning Director; Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director; Larry Webb, Fire Marshal ; and Bill Williamson, Assistant City Attorney. VI. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES The following departments and persons were advised of this preliminary plat application: City Administrator City Attorney Chief of Police Fire Chief Director of Public Works Parks and Recreation Director City Clerk Building Official In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies within 300 feet of the site were notified of the application and of the January 20, 1988 public hearing VII. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW The Planning Department has reviewed this application in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, present zoning, land use, street system, flood control problems and comments from other departments and finds that: 1. The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this property as MF, Multifamily Residential . 2. The property is zoned MRD, Duplex Multifamily Residential . 6 Staff Report Mari-Park Subdivision #SU-87-5 3. Current land uses in the area are predominately residential An 8.22 acre parcel of vacant land zoned M.2, Limited Industrial , borders the subject property on the north. 4. The subject property will have access to Third Avenue N. by means of a local access cul-de-sac. The proposed plat will generate an additional 224 daily trips which will impact Third and Fourth Avenues N. The adverse impacts on these streets can be mitigated through appropriate conditions. - 5. There are no flood control problems on the site. 6. In order to plat the property as proposed, 80th Avenue S. will have to be vacated. Should the neighboring vacant property be developed with an industrial use, the traffic will be routed on 78th Avenue S. This will put a large amount of traffic through a residential neighborhood. VII. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Upon review of the merits of this request and the code criteria for granting 'a"preliminary plat, the city staff recommends approval with the following conditions : A. Developer shall comply with all SEPA requirements per the determination of Nonsignificance issued November 20, 1987. These conditions are noted in section 4A of this report. B. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF PLAT: 1. Water and Sanitary Sewer a) Provide gravity sanitary sewer service, water service and fire protection to all lots. Provide detailed plans to the Engineering Division for review and approval . .14ain line extensions from off-site will be necessary. Looping of the water system will be required to obtain adequate fire flows. b) Main line storm drainage extensions shall be made from the 4th Avenue system to the plat site in conjunction with the road improvements described below. Provide on-site detention in accordance with Kent's storm drainage ordinance or provide detailed engineering analysis showing adequacy of downstream conveyance system without detention. 7 Staff Report Mari-Park Subdivision #SU-87-5 2. 1st and 2nd Avenue Street Vacations a) Provide necessary right-of-way and roadway improvements at the northerly limits of 1st and 2nd Avenue to meet emergency vehicle access and turnaround requirements. The proposed alley way connection between 1st and 2nd Avenue is acceptable provided the pavement widths and turning radii meet fire department requirements. b) Construct S. 234th Street from 4th Avenue S. to 3rd Avenue S. , and improve 3rd Avenue S. from S. 234th Street to the southerly limits of the site. Said improvements shall meet City of Kent standards for residential collector and access roads, respectively (curb and gutter, sidewalks , asphalt pavement, street lighting, storm drainage, underground utilities and related appurtenances) . Road A shall also be improved to residential standards per subdivision code. Detailed engineering drawings of all the above improvements shall be required prior to plat approval . Bonding or construction of said improvements shall be required prior to plat approval . C. Prior to recordation of this plat, secure the respective street and alley vacations necessary to accommodate this preliminary plat. D. Road "A" should be designated as S. 234th Place. KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT January 6, 1988 8 i i CITY OF KENT i planning li All I WHIP .._ .AITf k { I ( ff:'( !" fi:' ftr• I:I { •s�°rF \� � .�3.r N . f E j Il r __ II tl 1 f 1 l I 1 fl --------•---..n AV ENUE NORTH rn g 7Cm2 E ffl_ I , nin AruwE sourH( a R -a 5 II .. °o E w _....Y .., • fie_� V 1 V _ X 0 ISS s---' t sic-- ; •"—i jl d -°-.'M T> V� V� >sin AVENUE SOUTH a I+ A lii a e _I—n__ •• �:; Y 2.� fL °E L '=x' z>rn f� f r-1 [...� 1 ' 0t o 02 o j eein AJ..M"OU'M �— yI �YY�isr:TY.n.. I 2450 Barghausen �, '-� Llewellyn Reel Estate 1°�" PRft""Anr nAT ConkultIng Englneerc Inc.--- cr �� wn.wM.s..«Ts r«�«nee M«wie.. —••1�'L - r.a sox ses nENT,WALwwTCU1 a, MARI-PARK APPLICATION Name_ MaRT_PARK LEGEND --. Number #Su-87-5 Date ,anlla �� ,qAR application site Request Preliminary Plat zoning boundary city limits SITE Plan SCALE = No Sale { i j CITY OF KENT planning a 0 2 I S 210TH ST�0 o d 11eT 1 ry 9 * Z W INDUSTRIAL AREA > a < 1 i 167 < < Z TEAR 1 l � e NOVAK L. w 167 z < N y a p�� ST z x i i <C oLE srLD CLOUDY ST m n ///gyp WAY >23STH S j W CLOU Y ST x < z 2 a AMES ST = < _ 23 24 :y'huw ns." 4. "ENT w n JR.HI. 24 W > 0 SAM ST < W "- -�"--�-- i SCHOOL < E < C i w < 1AthlehC FIJ CEO a. ST < PIONEER®®S C 0 < 3 v' x Iov11 x t Mu.W AUKta: f F Me ILUN ° E TEM ER, • O J I'LAYFIXI.II < A _J y W w < < ST _ _ I SMITH ST I> = i W SMITH M SM ST ST n IT KENT4 W --IAl x MEDICAL "•.i'L W HARRISO y ST.�•�= x F WARD xCENTE Z < = W HARRISON ST = < v = ST 2 f ;`IW' MEEKER _ ST E ME KER ST m g p w 4 j = too." t Aj 2 H > !71\4, y W O i < Suh i Z W < OOWE ST E GO E- < ST Wr Tl WILLIS Ste -STREET z .I.x ENT *Pol e S < - 2 INTCHG p b t LEM W Hal Post I 516 w E FNos\r rACOMA 181 0 Z SCH D I rary O= a W TITU S7- 167 £� OEANO E OEANi T P. ST T W ST- < 7 W w ST > I. - "sed 3 °AA STR ALPIN 2 O E out WILLIS 4 1 ST D WAY U w SEA ... W ROV ST 'I RU ELL < Y j 0 D r un Fire >> 0 < „ Station n j < < = I 24 19 A I25 ° x W 25�30 � n u APPLICATION Name MART-PARK LEGEND Number vw-R7-S Dale January 20. 1987 application site •••••• Request Preliminary Plat toning boundary city limits VICINTIY MAP SCALE = 1-,:l000l .i. CITY OF KENT 01 I planning rb O +32. --- I +32� +32.3 N +31.7 n ♦ / (9 I / +36.7 / +32.3 o4 o i +32. _ / a / Vie. / / M-2 r X♦ CI � t t Cl • .3jr^�1� pm na'n ✓� 00 ILJY1_El �1 •'/� > 14: 0, W/,1.n�I �••ary�•y�•{I••••••••••••• jrf a Cfl:.Lf p �al4 +3. r .� �p R N i L M COLE T —S Ci (('�� r� +32j9 +�1 g�j O 2.9rr---�-� APPLICATION Name. maRl-PARK LEGEND : Number #[il-R7-5 Dale ,January 20. 1987 application site •••••• Request_—Preliminary Plat zoning boundary��\��\�� city limits ZONONG/TOPO SCALE = 1°:200 .! n !� Kent City Council Meeting Date March 15, 1988 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING HUMAN SERVICES FUND 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The adoption of this ordinance will add a section to the ordinance which established the City of Kent Human Services Commission. This new section will establish a Human Services Fund giving the Commission the authority to accept gifts, donations , etc. to be distributed by the City for Human -- Services . j 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo and ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Human Services Commission 2/25/88 and the City Council Planning Commission 3/15/88 (Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: ,_. Councilmember &0 _ moves, Councilmember 6 seconds to adopt Ordinance 3 establishing a Human Services Fund DISCUSSION• �u q ..., ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 4B KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT March 10, 1988 MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director SUBJECT: ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH HUMAN SERVICES FUND The Human Services Commission desires to establish a City fund giving the Commission the authority to accept gifts, donations, etc. , to be distributed by the City for human services. As with any gift to a particular City commission, a gift/donation would not go directly to the Human Services Commission. It would go to the City Council to be presented and accepted by the City Council for deposit in the City's Human Services Fund. ._. At -its February 25, 1988 meeting, the Human Services Commission voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council the creation of such a fund by amending Ordinance #2740 which created the Commission. The recommendation of the Commission is to add Section 2 . 39. 050 to this ordinance. The City Council Planning Committee will also review this proposal at its March 15th meeting. A copy of the draft ordinance establishing a Human Services Fund is enclosed. LB:JPH:ca Attachment ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington relating to Human Services; adding Section 2.39.050 to the Kent City Code, establishing the Human Services Fund. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 2.39.050 is added to the Kent City Code as follows: 2.39.050 Human Services Funds There is hereby established a Citv of Kent Human Services Fund. Monies for the fund shall be received from: A. Annual Budget: General Fund dollars allocated annually by the City Council for funding of human service agencies. B. Gifts, Donations and Grants: Private or public Sifts, endowments, donations, bequests or other grants. C. Other: Such other sources as may be available. Expenditures from this fund shall be for support of human service needs within the City of Kent. Recommendations for expenditures shall be made by the Human Services Commission for approval by the City Council. Section 2. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and confirmed. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR Kent City Council Meeting Date March 15, 1988 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: KENT CENTENNIAL MEDALLION - RESOLUTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Kent Centennial Committee has recommended that the City Council direct the design and establishment of an exclusive Kent Centennial Commemorative Medallion. A resolution has been prepared to establish an ,... official commemorative medallion for the 1990 Kent Centennial and establishing the procedure for its development and distribution 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Kent Centennial Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc . ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: - 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: . Councilmember moves, Councilmember secondej 1.o adopt Res tion 1llg2l establishing an official commemorative medallion for the 1990 Kent Centennial . ® � f cLCLr ��si:s DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 4C RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent, Washington, establishing an official commemorative medallion for the 1990 Kent Centennial. WHEREAS, on September 15, 1987, the City Council of the City of Kent declared the year 1990 to be the year of the Kent Centennial celebration; and WHEREAS, the Kent Centennial Committee was formed by _., Resolution 1144, on September 15, 1987; and WHEREAS, among many items, the Committee has determined that an official Kent Centennial Commemorative Medallion would be instrumental in promoting the Kent Centennial; and WHEREAS, certain organizations agree to spearhead the project of the development and sale of the medallion without cost to the City; and WHEREAS, the proceeds from the direct cost of preparation of this souvenir commemorative medallion may serve to promote civic, cultural, social, and educational services through meeting human services needs in the City; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A Kent Centennial Commemorative Medallion shall be designed and established as the official medallion for the Kent Centennial Celebration. Section 2. The medallion shall be designed through the direction of a selection committee from the Centennial Committee and by a process determined by the Centennial Committee. Section 3. No City funds, other than the time of City officials for determining the process and making design selections, shall be expended for the development or sale of the medallion. Section 4. The Commission shall serve in an advisory capacity to the South King Civitan Club which will serve as the conduit for the sale of this medallion. Section 5. The medallion shall be sold as the official Kent Centennial Commemorative Medallion. The actual cost directly related to the development and sale of this medallion shall be recovered from the proceeds of the sale. All other and remaining proceeds shall go to the benefit of the public through the South King Civitan Club, a private, non-profit organization in Kent, for the purpose of meeting human services needs in the City of Kent. Section 6. All responsibility for activities set forth in this resolution and liabilities arising out of or relating to such activities shall be borne by the South King Civitan Club. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this _ day of 1988. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this _ day of 1988. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of , 1988. (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK 5520-180 2 _ Kent City Council Meeting Date March 15, 1988 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 20% MULTIFAMILY REDUCTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Planning Commission has recommended that the City' s multifamily residential densities be reduced on a graduated scale as outlined in the attached November 1987 staff report. The recommendation also includes maintaining single family residential guidelines in new annexations, reviewing the CBD to consider increasing densities in that area and reviewing "over zoned" areas in the City to examine whether those areas should be reconsidered . - 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memoranda (6) , option B of the reports on multifamily density, Resolutions No. 1123 and 1145 , minutes of Planning Committee meetings (6) , staff reports, minutes of Planning Commission meetings (3 ) , minutes of City Council meetings (2) , executive summary report on multifamily density, letters from Seattle Master Builders, Kent Chamber of Commerce, Seattle-King County Board of Realtors and petition from concerned citizens 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission 2/29/88 (Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc. ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember 49 moves, Councilmember Pi seconds to reduce multifamily densities of the Kent Zoning Code per the -- Planning Commission' s recommendation and to instruct the City Attorney to prepare the amending ordinance . DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No . 4D KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT March 9, 1988 MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director SUBJECT: 20% MULTIFAMILY REDUCTION RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION On February 29, 1988, the Planning Commission held their final public hearing on the 20% multifamily density reduction issue. The Commission recommends to the Council that all of the City' s multifamily residential densities be reduced on a graduated scale as indicated in the document titled, Kent Planning Agency Staff Report For the Planning Commission Meeting of November 16 1987 Amendments to Multifamily Density Limitations (part of the Council 's packet) . That same staff report contains a listing of benchmark actions from the spring of 1987 to October 19, 1987 . Since the October date, the Planning Commission has done the following concerning the multifamily density reduction issue: November 16, 1987 Workshop November 23 , 1987 Hearing January 11, 1988 Workshop January 24, 1988 Hearing February 22 , 1988 Workshop February 29, 1988 Hearing The multifamily density reduction proposal stems from an action taken by the Council in December 1986 when Resolution 1123 was adopted (attached to the Council packets) . The Planning Commission's recommendation also includes the following: 1. Alternate B, from the report title REPORT ON MULTIFAMILY DENSITY, which sets out the 20% density proposal ; 2 . Maintain single family residential guidelines in new annexations; 3 . Review the Central Business District with the idea that densities might be increased there either through rezoning or other density increase mechanism; 4 . Review the overzoned areas in the City to examine whether in fact some of those areas should be reconsidered (South of Willis Street and North Park are examples) . JPH:ca Attachments ...... r+ w hl 3 -5 f -i -+. £ 3 N o -1 0 -+. J• w rD D '1 -h --i - 3 (o rt (n n = 0-= w00m3 3oCo -03 nna rpos o (D -1 3- U,370 (D (n J.t< r+ a m C 3 r+ r+ (D 'T n a n -S rD rD (D O O N J. C 0 O a . r+ J. J.1n J. -0 3 fD 3' rD C tow �- -s (S w n M 1-I a -+• O O -S rt w n n w -s 0 3'r+ m m 0 (D J. (J J. (D (o r+ J. a -hto 3 J• O O -•'(O O 3" r+ n rD (< cr rD w O) 'T to w 3 w C fD Cr- w to (n < --h (D -0 w n 'D O (n to w (n 3' r+ v owon 3n (D30 • D J• r+ 3 o 0 0 0 -S r+ r+ Z3 rD =r rr (D 'Z Cam. 3 n w 0 'D n rD w -+. J. 3 > -s S rD O 'S (D (D -S n O O r+ rD -S n (D (D n 3 O (n -0 C+ r+ O -+. S to w 3 I o n -�' -1 -. 3 (n (n w (D (< (D --i -5 Cl a 3 3 -0 J• O 3 J. J. a. n (n w (D 3 3 'D C+ to n I . 3" =r - -S (n O n n n n O CD w C J. w n - •5 (D C N -T w D -h 3 • J• (D to (D 3 -S (D -+'-tf 3 3 to < 3 (D n -+•w N a n 0 r+ 0-0 n O 'rl C (n (n =7 r+ In n (D 3 r+ to (D rD (D n 'O (D 0 J. (D 3 S C (n 'T Z J. 3 '-{ rD J. (n J w N r+ J' - J. a (D w < 3-tn n n (D (D to 0 3 c- 3" n 3 3 -h o (n c (n o C r+-0 r+ "S (D J. = (D • n 3'r+ (n rD w fD (D J. r+to -h O to (D cr • 3 3 rD 3' w r+ 3 rt < n to w -5 0 (D 0 Z rD - Cu a a. 'S (D (n c O to -h (D 'D fD w fD n w n n C+ -5 -T - (D ---I n S "5 'D O •--• C 'S 3 r+ =(< 0 3 C = r t C 7 D'£ rD C D 3-rD •J 0 rD 3 a -1 O 'D 0 N C+ (n 3' -t; O (n J. (D 3- O fD J. w 3 OD a 7c 3 rD rD £ (D £ -a r+-0 (D J. rD 0 C In 3 3 3-r+ n- (D m (a r+ to (n rD -h 3 to a -+2 ' (D r+ X 3 -0 a 3 V7 N 3-U (D 3 J. (D fD (_n< Z = w (n (n < 'S r+ C "1 rD O 'S (< r+-0 co r+ O r+ a .'O C J. J• 3 X -1 to fD rD (o I rD O G n 3 3 r+ O J. IJ r+ rD - X n n r+00 N- -s 0 n r+ -1 3 v (n rr t< n w (D a 0 -1 CD O -h (n r+ (D 3' rD cr0 z 1 (D =-- 0 r+ a D (D 3 (n Z 3 J. 3 -h o 0 J.oa -s fD -S 0 c'D p _.. 3 a r+ r+ a v _0 (D C+ a rD r+ -s -.. 0 a r+ 3 (D 3 3 rD 0 3 r+ =r (D 3 -D o £ 3 3 = -t, a c a r+ c (D 3 n n(D 3 (D 3 ri � r+ 0 0- o a n r+ 3 3 fi = m w e rD c* ;ow n N O rD C r+ 3 a -h fD -h n o J (n n n N -0 to (D a w 3 Sto (D (D < (D "S O (< 3 (D n o r+ r+ O c X a n r+ Cl (D 3 r* n w c n -S 3 (< m to (D w a J.3 J. O J. .J 3 J. -y, r+ = C J 3 rt(< 0 t< 3 3 3 ;a N 0 rD r+-0 (n .. w -5 n 0 (D n c -+. (D J. a.V r+ w a a --4 O 3 (n w r+ r+ (D -5 O r+ w r+ o. 3 (D r+ -r7 = -5 - 3 tS J. J. J. (n r+ --h --,. r+ (n to J 3 J. _. CD J. Cl (D w O 3 C+ O C (< (D O J. N(n O O O Z (n (n (D 3 to -h -J a r+ 3 O w O w J. 3 0 (n J, r+ n 3 -S c r+ (n -5 (n 3' fD (D r+ (< C r T D 3 r m m z r+ Z r+ a w -i t7 £ w *1 (7 o rt a 3 Q -h-o n -+ r+ -5 --5 a -5-D N a -.-a n C O ..-. = rD £ n - 0 (D -. -5 rD n 70 0 =r -5 C -1 C -$ o a 3' w S (D (D -5 O n 3 (D (D 3 � (D a 0 'S • (o < r+ (D N (D r+ 3 w CD J. -+O 3 Z fD - . -,. n a O 3 n 'S 3 n r'+ < C: (D Cr (D (D =r w 0 3 c-t J. 'a r+ w r+ 3 - -o -a co to (n -S c 'a -+. O O n (n (D -•�. n n a (n r+ J 0 3 r+ 3 O J.to (D -1 (D tC rD (D n (D 3 3 '0 (D '5 O ..• -+'rt Z w = O 3 rD -+• J• 3 rD r+ -+-h N 'S fD 0 -5 a a w r+ -5 to _0 r+ 3 r+ 3 rt -+• (D 0 n (D -0 =r a -+ (n X = O w 7C C r+ = r+ (D 'D to J. r+ - J.r-+(< r+ O a -h-5 -5 3 rt a J. (7 (D n 3 (D w 0-0 (D 0 J.n J. o w 3' w 3 (n (D - rD 3" < r+ rD (n r+ a J. 3 3 U r+(< -S 3 (D O (n 3(o n J. J. < (n 3 rD rD O a 3" w -J r+ -5 (n rD (D O 0 N n 3" (D (D A a O r+ Z r+ rt r+ w'D (D 3 "5 (n C w fi (D (D D (D -h O m O 3' n c w (D ;)o 3'D rt n o < n rt-0 n to £ .. n -5 w C 1 -h (D -+. rD O Vl I rD "S -+. a C r+ (D (D r+ 3' N O (D -+•'D -S "D ? 3 N (< fD rt (D £ to N C O (D rD O n =r 3 'D J. C C w tS r+ d 3 '0 a O Oc .'a O 3 J.(< 3 rD ="O O 'D w 0 3 w r+ (D r+ O O w - = (< =c to -7 a r+ N c 3 ;a n to -5 O (D 3 r+ n - to fD -•• a w r+ 3 n N:V a n n (n O C (D (D 3 O =r (n r+ < n rD -. =r J. -S O n -h to fD a S(' 4-� w (n r+ w w f 3-0 £ n I 3 Cr (D Cl (D O r+ 3 J. -h (D 3 D 'S C Cr a J. -S n r+ r+ O O N 'D O S 3 (D 'S -h O 3 J. O(< J. r+ (D r+ - (D (D - C+ w 0 rD 3' rD J. J.C+ C . O -S -S O r+ 3 N -+. -h (n 3 3 a(< n n -+. (n _0 • (D -0 3 n a -�. w rD w 3 J. = C w to O n D rD n r+ rD rt C a r+ (n O w X -o - (D J• -+3 Cl 3 rD N O (n rt J. 3 - • to (D 0 to w J. r+ -+ w rD r+ '-h 3 r+ -1 -+. C+ CA • r+ a a rD O J. J. r+ rD a C O 3 3 3 (S -S (n rD -h c 0 w < ? n 1 J. -S . n 3 < J. a-0 < 3 (D 'S a(O w a(0 3 (D -w w 3 (D cD w w (D a (o (D rD ='O (D rD to (D n fD (D r+ r+ n r+ 3 n CL - (n a -0 fn (n -S -S £ w 3 3 a a w 2cm 3 r+ 3- r+ rD 3 r+ 3- (D C ."C 3 "D r+ a (< • £ O N 3' r+to (D n -+ (n (n J. rD w (D �.3 < 3" J. C - rD a •S -S 3 0 w O w - m (n . J. 3 -.Cl w a :cJ. (D to m r-t N O 3 w Cl J. C n 3 C+ < f .,. J r+(o (D 3 3 0 n S (D J• o a n `X r+ 3" (D (D O J. HI rD 3 (< l c • J.(D C (D to (D n rt J. 3 3 J. (D C7 rD :Z a- a 3 -h r+ r+ < C .-+ C 3 -+3 -S -1 c (n 3 J, o to 0 3 0 = 0 -0 3' -+• - r+ -h w -+. J. ---i t< rt a< (D n 3 A+ (< El r+ cr -s 0 0 £ 3 r+ 0 3 r+ C+ S I fD a (D r+ w (a w r+ 3 J. (n (D w D (D -+ r+ rt O to J. J, -S a(< N (D N O Q -5 rt X +• (P • (D D c C 3 'S 3 3" 3" c -h (n O -I: (D In (D -+. 0 fi O: •J Z 3 -+. n a rD rt (D (D •--• r+ w r+ £ -�' 3 3 w -5 (n 3 Ql 3'- (< (D rD 3' (n w -S a =r3 S -+. (n w (D (D r+ w r'+ 3E rD w C+ a (n -+ rD J. (D r+ (n rt n S J• (� (n c (D 3 O (c (D D to i, N March 9, 1988 TO: MAYOR KELLEHER and CITY COUNCIL FROM: Ron Ricketts, President Suzette A. Cooke, Executive Director l�C� - Kent Chamber of Commerce KENT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SUBJECT: Multi-family Density The Kent Chamber of Commerce submitted the following testimony to the Planning Commission at its February 29 public hearing. POSITION: The Kent Chamber of Commerce does not support the proposed 20% reduction in multifamily units for undeveloped properties. The City would complement its future plans for commuter rail and an economically stronger downtown through increasing multifamily density in the central business district. SUPPORTING STATEMENTS: The public's request for fewer multifamily units appears to stem from two concerns: appearance and traffic congestion. Appearance is the major element of discussion in multifamily development standards. While Dan Stroh stated on January 25, 1988, that "it was not staff's intention to reduce density through the proposed amendments to multifamily development standards," several developers of small to mid-size projects claim it will reduce density. The city should take the lead in improving existing areas of the city with sidewalks, curbs, etc. , and offer positive incentives for residential developments that exceed current standards. This will attract better quality single and multifamily developments, and encourage a feeling of community and pride of ownership. Decreasing density in the city increases the liklihood of density around the city limits. This reaction simply spreads out the congestion problem, exacerbating any traffic mitigation efforts. Residents in and east of the city typically must pass through Kent for any destination. By increasing the density around major corridors, public transportation services (e.g. Metro) can operate more efficiently. An increase in allowable density in downtown Kent would facilitate the potential ridership for commuter rail. The ideal mass transportation system would allow an individual to travel without ever driving a vehicle. An increase in downtown residents provides a greater number of potential shoppers for downtown businesses, and increases the opportunity for residents to use core city services (e.g. library, senior center, Kent -•- Commons, parks) . over - 608 W.GOWE .P.O.Box 65 KENT,WASHINGTON 98032 (206)854.1770 wi= Kent's ratio of multifamily to single family units will change substantially with implementation of Kent's annexation plans. A reduction of housing units would result in increased rents (supply and demand) , thereby creating an even greater burden on human service agencies already overtaxed. There is currently a two year waiting list for subsidized public housing in King County. Seattle Master BulldersN ECHVE. 'a MAR 7 1988 Association CITY OF CITY CLERK T 2455 - 112th Avenue N.E., Suite 100•Bellevue, Washington 98004•Telephone(206)451-7920 March 4, 1988 Mayor Dan Kelleher Re: Multifamily Density City of Kent (March 15, 1988 220 Fourth Ave. S. Council Meeting) Kent, Washington 98032 Dear Mayor Kelleher and City Council: This is a letter for the record, as it relates to the proposed multifamily " • density reduction recommended by the staff and Planning Commission. As you know, the Seattle Master Builders Association has a major concern about reducing all multifamily density in the City of Kent by 20 percent. Since our involvement with the reduction process, we have voiced concerns in'a number of areas. Please allow me to summarize them for you. 1) We believe that the splitting of the multifamily development standards from the overall density question is a mistake and flaw In your planning process. 2) The consequences of splitting the density standards from the overall density question is a noncomprehensive approach to the problem. 3) The 20 percent reduction in multifamily zoning can't be rationally justified. In fact, your staff and Planning Commission couldn't produce the logic of why the 20 percent reduction figure. One of the explanations was that the Council by Resolution 1123 directed that it be done. 4) The 20 percent reduction is a major departure from the long standing policies of your Comprehensive plan. For years the City of Kent has encouraged multifamily living. 5) Based upon the City of Kent's Comprehensive Plan and related zoning, people have purchased multifamily property for development. Now the City is penalizing those property owners who have relied upon the City's land use policies in making their property purchases. � s �J'O""10" Seattle Master Builders Association is affiliated with the National Assocication of Home Builders Mayor Dan Kelleher March 4, 1988 Page Two 6) The Association believes that the City has no idea of the economic impact of reducing multifamily property values by 20 percent, and this factor should be considered before acting on any Planning Commission recommendation. 7) It appears that multifamily zoning has been singled out as the only type of land use contributing to Kent's problems, as it relates to maintaining transportation systems and other public facilities. We would suggest that other types of zones such as industrial and commercial are part and partial to Kent's urban problems. The above mentioned concerns, we believe, should be addressed by the Council before taking any action on the multifamily density question. In particular, the Seattle Master Builders Association would recommend the following: 1) We suggest that in reviewing the Planning Commission's recommendation that the Council redirect the review and planning process on this matter. It appears that more emphasis should be placed on a comprehensive update of the Kent City Plan. The Association would support an area by area review and so recommended it to the Planning Commission at its February 25, 1988 public hearing. 2) After appropriate comprehensive land use reviews of geographical areas has been completed, the underlying multifamily zoning adjustments should be undertaken. We don't support the staff's and Planning Commission's recommendation of Graduated Scale Reductions (Option B of the Red Book) as recommended to the City Council. 3) The Association recommends that the City Council , tonight, refer the Planning Commission's density recommendation to the Council 's Planning Committee for review. d'r rerv,--Q ,C {oc-cx hO The Seattle Master Builders Association looks forward to working with the City on this important policy matter. Sincerely yours, oQ Larry K. Frazier, AICP, APA Director, Local Governmental Affairs LKF:ab KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 29, 1988 The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Robert Badger at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, February 29, 1988, in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Badger, Chairman Linda Martinez, Vice Chairwoman Anne Biteman Russell E. Dunham Elmira Forner Greg Greenstreet Nancy Rudy Carol Stoner Raymond Ward PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Stephen Clifton, Assistant Planner Fred Satterstrom, Associate Planner Dan Stroh, Assistant Planner Charlene Anderson, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Stoner MOVED and MINUTES FOR JANUARY 25 , 1988 Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion to approve the minutes of the January 25 , 1988 Planning Commission public hearing as presented. Motion carried. Jim Harris informed the Commissioners that a Planning Commission task force meeting is scheduled for March 21 at 6 : 30 PM to be followed by a regular workshop session at 7 : 30 PM. On the agenda for the task force meeting is a presentation by staff of all City of Kent comprehensive plans, including Fire, Transportation, Land Use, etc. The regularly- scheduled Planning Commission public hearing date will be March 28th, provided there is an item to be heard. RIVERBEND GOLF COURSE BRIDGE Chairman Badger opened the VARIANCE #SMV-88-1 public hearing on a request by the City of Kent Parks & 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 29 , 1988 Recreation Department for a variance from the Kent Shoreline Master Program to allow the construction of a bridge and impervious surface within 200 feet of the Green River Shoreline Corridor and 75 foot setback line from the centerline of the dike. These improvements are part of the proposed Riverbend Golf Course. Stephen Clifton presented the staff report. View foils were shown depicting the location of the site, zoning of •the site and surrounding land uses. Mr. Clifton reviewed the designations for this site from the City-wide Comprehensive Plan, Valley Floor Plan and Shoreline Master Plan; he also reviewed the goals and policies of those plans relevant to the site and discussed how the proposed variance promotes those goals and policies. A Determination of Nonsignificance with mitigating conditions was issued for this project on January 7 , 1988 . The bridge will have no impact on the wetland and landscaping will be provided to soften the impacts of the bridge. Mr. Clifton described the conditions under which a variance from the Kent Shoreline Master Program can be granted and the Findings of the Planning Department concerning those conditions. Staff recommends approval with conditions. In response to Commissioners Rudy and Forner, Mr. Clifton stated the bridge is for pedestrians and bicyclists and there is no separation provided between the two uses. Commissioner Ward questioned whether the purpose of the bridge was to separate golf traffic from other traffic. Mr. Clifton responded that was correct and that the Meeker Bridge did not provide safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Further, adequate signage will be provided to notify motor vehicle traffic to slow down. Motorcycle access to the golf course was discussed. Commissioner Biteman questioned whether there were provisions for preventing vandalism. Neil Sullivan of the City of Kent Parks & Recreation Department stated the west side of the golf course would be fenced along Frager Road and gates would be locked at night. In response to Commissioner Dunham, Mr. Sullivan confirmed that pedestrians and bicyclists who are not golfers could gain access from the east side. Commissioner Martinez MOVED and Commissioner Rudy SECONDED the motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Commissioner Rudy MOVED and Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion to accept the City of Kent Parks and Recreation Department' s request for variance. Motion carried. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 29 1988 MULTIFAMILY DENSITY (Cont'd) Chairman Badger opened the public hearing. Commissioners were allowed several minutes to read letters submitted to the record by Seattle Master Builders Association and the Kent Chamber of Commerce. Dan Stroh commented that the "Red Book" on multifamily density had been submitted for award to the American Planning Association/Planning Association of Washington. Mr. Stroh provided a synopsis of the history of this issue and stated that it had received a great deal of public exposure, via newspaper editorials, as an issue in the recent election, at several public hearings and work sessions, at the Town Hall meetings and through Planning Department staff discussion with developers. The graduated scale reduction option was recommended for several reasons: 1) it accomplishes the 20% reduction that the Council requested, 2) it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Map, 3) it is equitable because all properties are affected, 4) plenty of research has been done. on this option, and 5) it. furthers the intended public purposes stated in Resolution No. 1123 of a) neighborhood preservation, b) environmental suitability, c) reduction of impacts on infrastructure and public services and d) helping to provide a balance of housing opportunities. In response to Commissioner Martinez ' question, Mr. Stroh stated that although the graduated scale reduction does not address all the issues of Resolution #1123 , it needs to be done as one measure of the solution; others things need to be done also, e.g. , developers need to help out with the infrastructure problem. Commissioner Ward asked why the figure of a 1120%" reduction and what was the rationale of its application. Mr. Stroh stated that Council wanted the reduction impact to be significant but not too much as to preclude a reasonable and economic use of property. Fred Satterstrom added that 20% is the amount a developer could earn back through a P.U.D. , not that that was the reason behind the 20% figure, however. Mr. Stroh stated further that the graduated scale reduction puts the most reduction where the problem is the greatest. Commissioner Forner added it had previously been stated that this 20% reduction would bring Kent's density more in line with other cities of comparable growth. In response to Commissioner Ward, Mr. Stroh stated that results of early work on growth rate showed Kent was absorbing a higher share of residential growth than its growth in population; graphs show Kent was getting more than its "share" of multifamily. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 29 1988 Larry Frazier, Seattle Master Builders Association, 2155 - 112th Avenue NE, Suite 100, Bellevue stated he has been against separating the issues of reduction in multifamily density and multifamily development standards. He further does not understand where the 20% figure came from and stated that a 20% reduction in the commercial and industrial areas, as in multifamily, would help reduce transportation impacts also. The City of Kent has encouraged commercial, industrial and multifamily development for years. Mr. Frazier questioned how to change a policy in a reasonable, measured fashion. He stated the 20% reduction cannot justify it. Mr. Frazier read into the record a letter to the- Commission dated February 23 , 1988 in which the Association objects to the process used in considering this issue and is concerned the City is not taking into consideration fiscal and other impacts to property owners. The Association supports an evaluation of individual areas whereby impacts of this density reduction on transportation, neighborhoods, etc would be considered. He further states the current process is "open for legal litigation. " Mr. Frazier urged the Commission to question this legislative policy change that does not have supporting documentation. In response to Commissioner Biteman, Mr. Frazier stated that even though land might not be developed, - it was purchased according to policies in effect at the time and so there would be a financial impact. Commissioner Forner asked if the Seattle Master Builders were considering the impact on other property owners and the City if multifamily density were not reduced. Mr. Frazier stated developers were paying exactions up front as a "fair share" of expenditures to the community. He added that if the City is looking for tax support, it needs to look at commercial and industrial areas as well because they provide impacts. The Association would like to be helpful but finds it difficult because of the process used in considering this issue. Commissioner Martinez expressed concern that if the City re-evaluates the Comprehensive Plan, it would take at least a year and a half and the development impacts would be worse, beyond control. Mr. Frazier does not consider a year and a half to be long and stated the alternative to re-evaluating the Comprehensive Plan is to do "radical surgery. " He added that the industrial growth beginning in 1963 encouraged multifamily and the across-the-board reduction in multifamily density, which is a political reaction to citizen response, is not "planning. " Commissioner Forner restated that the 20% reduction brings the City of Kent in line with other communities. Mr. Frazier responded that each community is unique; if all communities were the same, a regional agency could do the planning for all areas. Dee Moschel, 448 Alpine Way, Kent, Chairwoman of the Local Government Committee, represented the Kent Chamber of Commerce. Ms. Moschel read into the record the Position statement from the Chamber' s letter to the 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 29 , 1988 Commission dated February 29, 1988. The Chamber does not support the 20% reduction in multifamily units and suggests increasing multifamily density in the CBD to complement commuter rail and an "economically stronger downtown. " Commissioner Forner questioned whether the Chamber is proposing an increase of actual units per acre or an increase in multifamily zoning. Suzette Cooke, Executive Director of the Kent Chamber of Commerce, believes the Commission needs to look at transportation issues, commuter rail and other communities. The Chamber suggests increasing density along corridors and where transportation is heaviest. Congestion and appearance (e.g. , elimination of view) appear to be the major concerns regarding multifamily density. It makes sense to increase the convenience by which people receive services and have an option to not have to drive. Ms. Cooke suggests looking at opportunities within the core area to provide increased variety of options. Commissioner Ward stated placing people closer to multi-transit opportunities, combining the multi-transit system of buses and trains, and increasing density within corridors solves transportation and quality of life problems. One could increase density in corridors and decrease density in the hills. Ms. Cooke added that if the percentage of multifamily to single family is scary, one needs to look ahead to future annexations. More single family residences will be annexed and the percentages will change. Ms. Cooke confirmed for Commissioner Martinez that the only guideline provided by the Chamber is a request to increase density in the CBD; the Chamber did not discuss increasing densities in other areas. Commissioner Dunham stated the Chamber can address its desire for such increased densities via a zoning change and added that people will still go where transit doesn't so increasing densities in the corridors does not necessarily solve the transportation problem. Ms. Cooke stated transportation impacts are easier to control if they are confined to a particular area or corridor rather than if they are ,. created by people going to the county for multifamily, then driving through Kent for services. Commissioner Forner stated downtown currently has the greatest potential for multifamily, according to the research outlined in the "Red Book. " Leona Orr, 24909 - 114th Avenue SE, Kent responded to Commissioner Ward's concern about lack of citizen input by presenting a petition brought against multifamily. The lack of police and fire protection is a concern; she doesn't want any more multifamily development and doesn't believe the City can wait one-and-a-half years for a solution. Mr. Stroh restated the sources of the 20% reduction figure, the 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 29 1988 multifamily potential in the downtown core, and the amount of study that has gone into this issue. In response to Chairman Badger, Mr. Stroh stated that during the past year, it varies whether developers have built out to full potential or not. MR-M zones have been close to maximum potential, MR-H zones are farther away. Staff believes the proposed 20% reduction will have an impact but perhaps not as much as if developers were currently all building to full potential. Commissioner Martinez MOVED and Commissioner Dunham SECONDED the motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried. The Commission took a short recess. Commissioner Dunham stated he is for the 20% reduction in multifamily density. Regarding the Seattle Master Builders Association statement that the proposal shows a lack of concern for property owners, Commissioner Dunham stated any investment is a gamble. He added a 20% reduction in density will hardly affect anything since MR-H zones are not being built out to full potential. Regarding the Chamber's suggestion, he supports the work the Chamber is doing in the CBD but believes the request for an increase in multifamily density in the downtown core can be achieved through a rezone and does not have to preclude adoption of the proposal before the Commission. Commissioner Martinez MOVED to accept staff' s recommendation for Alternate B for an aim of 20% reduction and to attach to that recommendation language to do the following: a) Direct annexation so that we insure there is indeed single family guidelines and insure that single family has a significant part in our community, b) Look at the CBD including perhaps increasing densities in that zone either through rezoning or upgrading and adding more density, and c) Direct that we will look at the overzoned areas in the City to examine whether in fact some of those should be reconsidered. Commissioner Stoner SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Ward asked for an explanation of "overzoned. " Commissioner Martinez responded that the Commission has discussed and it states in the Red Book that there are areas that are inappropriately zoned for multifamily, e.g, South of Willis. She added the City will probably have to look at the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Ward stated he was hoping to attach to the motion language that stated we would look at the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Stoner responded that the additional language is really an extension of things the Commission has looked at and focusses on things it has studied; the guideline for single family in annexation areas is there. The CBD is currently being studied and regarding mass transit, there is tremendous competition for transportation dollars; the City has existing rail but not enough bodies in terms of filling seats. Overzoned areas were addressed in the "Red Book. " Commissioner Forner stated the 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES " February 29 , 1988 Comprehensive Plan is a separate issue and the Planning Commission task force will be discussing redoing the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Rudy stated the issue of multifamily density in any area, e.g. , CBD, needs to be addressed within a study of that particular area. One cannot now consider density affecting rail or mass transit until something is done about rail or mass transit; then one can address housing to match it. Commissioner Ward disagreed and stated Kent needs to look ahead, to plan for mass transit and related housing opportunities. Commissioner Ward is against an across-the-board 20% reduction in density; it will have nil affect on transportation impacts in the area so there has to be another solution. If the true aim is to reduce the number of people, one needs to look at the overall issue considering commercial and industrial development as well. He would like to look at the Comprehensive Plan. In response to Commissioner Martinez, Commissioner Ward stated that he is not suggesting that the Commission delay the 20% reduction and redo the Comprehensive Plan; he is stating the Comprehensive Plan has parameters and he is not sure the proposal is complying with those parameters. Commissioner Ward would agree to reduction by a higher percentage on the East and West Hills and reduction on annexed properties by 20% to encourage single family, but nothing will mitigate the number of people. Multifamily will go to the outskirts and travel through Kent. Commissioner Stoner stated the graduated reduction of 20% is equitable. It does not negate a particular zoning designation; it keeps the same zoning designation but the maximum density is lower. Commissioner Ward stated there would be no effect anyway since developers haven't been building to maximum density and he is concerned about investors and lawsuits. Commissioner Forner agrees with Commissioner Dunham and supports the statement of the Chamber to provide high density in the CBD; however, that density can be accomplished through other means, e.g. , a CBD Plan that specifies higher density for that area. Commissioner Forner agrees that one must plan for rail before it comes in; the number of people must be there before transportation will come in. She supports the 20% reduction in multifamily density because it provides a way to direct quality density in downtown while preserving quality in rural neighborhoods. Through this recommendation, the Commission is making a statement to say the City will take control of this rapid growth. Commissioner Greenstreet supports the motion of Commissioner Martinez including a review of overzoned areas. He believes it is important to review the CBD area and density based on fact and not speculation, based on a plan and input from the Chamber. The City can offset density with more open space and plan a more livable community before rail comes in. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 29 , 1988 Commissioner Biteman is concerned about the percentage growth in multifamily as presented in the graphs comparing 1970 and 1987 . She likes Kent as a community. Commissioner Martinez stated it is important to send the additional language to the Council and Planning Department. The 20% reduction in multifamily density buys time and will send a message that we have an intent in the community to take control and the Planning Commission wants a serious part in this effort. The vote on the motion was 7 for, 1 against (Ward) , 1 abstention (Dunham) . Motion carried. Commissioner Rudy MOVED and Commissioner Dunham SECONDED the motion to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at approximately 9: 30 PM. Respectfully submitted, James P. arris, becretary 8 VERBATIM MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 29 , 1988 EXCERPT FROM AGENDA ITEM FOR MULTIFAMILY DENSITY Chairman Badger: I would like to call the meeting back to order after the recess we had here and I would like to ask (unclear) the Commission _.. members to begin the discussion on this issue. Commissioner Dunham: Ok, I 'm going to go with (unclear) . Personally I am for the 20% reduction (unclear) . Going along with the Seattle Master Builders letter about our lack of concern for the fiscal impact of property owners, we have discussed that. Any investment is a gamble. I 've lost money on real estate (unclear) . As of right now, the Chamber (unclear) MR-M zone. They are not being built to their full potential (unclear) right now being built (unclear) to their maximum because of the streets (unclear) . I 've lived in Kent for 24 years and I 've seen (unclear) go from a halfway rural town to (unclear) we' re getting to gridlock right now. And like I said anybody who does invest in, any investment is going to have (unclear) . (unclear) and the Chamber, I believe that what you're (unclear) , I support what you were doing with the Central Business District. I believe that can be done with rezoning and not by cutting away 20% (unclear) . As of right now the 20% is not as, is hardly, at the present time impact the development. And the increase in the multifamily down here would be a zoning change. and not a, not a density reduction change. And I 'd like to go on record that I fully (unclear) . Commissioner Martinez: Mr. Chair? Chairman Badger: Yes. Commissioner Martinez : I would like to make a motion. I would like to move that we accept the staff's recommendation for alternate B, for the 20% reduction, for an aim of 20% reduction. However, I would also like to attach to that some language to do the following. I would like to have language that would direct annexation so that we insure that there is indeed single family guidelines and that we insure that single family has a significant part in our community. I would like to have language attached to my motion, or to the proposal, that we look at the Central Business District, including perhaps increasing densities in, in that, in that zone either through rezoning or through upgrading and adding more density, and I would also like to propose that we direct that we will look at the overzoned areas in the city to examine whether in fact some of those should be reconsidered. 1 VERBATIM MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 29, 1988 EXCERPT FROM MULTIFAMILY DENSITY Commissioner Stoner: I ' ll second that motion. Chairman Badger: I would love to be able to repeat it. Commissioner Martinez: I have notes. Chairman Badger: Let me ask if there is, there's a second to that motion? Commissioner Stoner: There is a second. Chairman Badger: Charlotte, would you like to try to (unclear) . Mr. Harris: Let me, let me paraphrase that Linda Martinez is the one that stated it so maybe she could walk you through it. I 've got it written down here (unclear) . I 'm not sure that you have to have every word to be able to, to carry on (unclear) . She talks about directing annexations so that we insure that there is single family dwelling guidelines. Commissioner Martinez: Right Mr. Harris: That we look at the Central Business District toward maybe increasing the density there; prepare, propose to look at the overzoned areas of the City (unclear) Commissioner Martinez: That is correct. Mr. Harris: (unclear) Commissioner Martinez: That's zoning at the end, yea. Chairman Badger: (unclear) second that motion from Carol . Commissioner Stoner: Yes Commissioner Ward: Just a point of clarification, (unclear) what do you mean by overzoned? Commissioner Martinez : We have, we have in the red book and we've also discussed in some of our, in some of our hearings that there may be places that are inappropriately zoned for multifamily. I think the, one of the areas that we've discussed is, and I 'm, I, I, I, I 'm not good at directions, is South of Gowe, or Willis, thank you. There are, there may be other places that we're unaware of at this moment that are "overzoned" . And I think that it is appropriate, if we are interested 2 VERBATIM MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 29, 1988 EXCERPT FROM MULTIFAMILY DENSITY in, in encouraging single family growth in, in our community, and we may or may not be, but if we are, to look at rather closely at all of that. Where we have said that multifamily should be and where we have said single family should be. It may mean we need to look at Comp, at the Comprehensive Plan, I mean I think we will have to look at the Comprehensive Plan. (Unclear) Commissioner Ward: Yea, I was hoping that you would attach that, that language (unclear) that special language in there, that the, that the, we have verbiage in there that we would take a look at the Comprehensive Plan. All of what you are suggesting then points in that direction (unclear) . (Unclear) Commissioner Stoner: But, but it, but I see those three (unclear- microphone was turned off because of noise interference and voice was not picked up; please see minutes typed from shorthand notes) _. Mr. Harris: You're not going into the machine. (Unclear) Commissioner Stoner: Is the machine on? Mr. Harris: This machine's on. (unclear) We have to pick her up across (unclear) we've just got to get a better (unclear) (Unclear) Commissioner Stoner: All right. I ' ll go back but, the idea of the annexation areas, there being a guideline for the ratio of single family to multifamily in annexation areas, I, I think is something that's been touched on. The CBD study is coming up, and I think that is the place to address the Chamber' s concerns about multifamily density in the core because the discussions I 've heard about light rail and, and that kind of mass transit in this area suggest that there's competition for those dollars from a lot of communities in this area and that the advantage that South King County has is that we have rail in place. The disadvantage that we have is that we do not have all of the bodies in terms of filling the seats and, and so it's still a bit of a horse race to see who is going to come up with, with some money to actually put that into place. And I think that is going to be a factor in our decisions about multifamily density in the downtown. And, and 3 VERBATIM MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 29, 1988 EXCERPT FROM MULTIFAMILY DENSITY the other issue is the overzoned areas and that's Option C in, in the, in the study. And so I think you can take a look at those issues based on what we have done and will be doing. Commissioner Forner: I guess (unclear) agree with Linda. I feel that the Comprehensive Plan is a different issue that we discussed at our task force, that would be a, an issue that we were going to take up at our next task force. We actually discussed looking at the possibility of, of redoing the Comprehensive Plan at that time. Perhaps that is the time we should be (unclear) we should (unclear) . Chairman Badger: Yes Nancy. Commissioner Rudy: I think that the issue of (unclear) density in multifamily (unclear) area (unclear) needs to be taken up in conjunction with a study or the commission looking at that particular area (unclear) . I don't think that we can now even for the next year or so consider density that would affect rail or mass transit of some kind until we know that there is going to be some, something done in the way of rail or mass transit or whatever and know where it's going to be and what' s it's going to be. Then we can adjust the, the housing to match it because it will take considerable time for that to be (unclear) . I don't think that this is the time to be concerned with that. Commissioner Ward: (unclear) I 'm against a straight across-the-board 20% reduction (unclear) without, without there being a foundation for, for its application, a foundation in the sense that a 20% reduction (unclear) private property expert would have to have (unclear) transportation problems in the area. The strongest voice I 've heard so far is that, that transportation is a true consideration in the, in the multifamily reduction. Since it would have close to nil effect on the transportation issue, then there has to be another solution. We're not truly recognizing what the problem is. The problem wouldn't be solved by a reduction in multifamily (unclear) zoning. I am somewhat receptive to the discussion by the one gentleman who indicated that, that if our true aim is to reduce the number of people and/or concentration of people, then we should look at the overall zoning, we should look at the overall picture and not (unclear) one given zoning level in multifamily. We should pick the commercial and industrial and the overall (unclear) and that's why (unclear) looking at the Comp Plan, which is my understanding (unclear) determine (unclear) by which all of our planning reference should be made. In response to the statement that, that we don't have mass transit, transit as yet in the area, I think that's what planning is about. That's planning for the day that we will have it and if we think about it positively enough 4 VERBATIM MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 29, 1988 EXCERPT FROM MULTIFAMILY DENSITY (unclear) seemingly is a solution to the problem. A 20% reduction in my mind would not reduce people coming in here unless we stop growth. We're no longer again a small-town village type of a concept. That, that has gone by the wayside. We can control it, we can control the development by making strategic plans. And it has been suggested that we reduce the density of multifamily to, to, to accomplish the same. I don't think that's going to go. I, I think that's a decision made during a political year. It was suggested by an individual who in turn - by, through that suggestion brought it up. to be included in that Resolution which in turn now we are trying to determine from whence it came. I made a comment in an earlier meeting to the effect that I haven't heard from, from the citizenry who were so concerned about, about the people problem in Kent and fortunately Mrs. Orr (unclear) her statement and you were a long time coming but I was welcome, I was very happy to see you come. I 'm much more influenced by Kent's people (unclear) have had to, to, individuals, you know representatives of a given cause, a given segment. You, you're being at such a late date, it seems that I still haven't changed my mind about the reduction (unclear) overinfluenced by virtue of the fact that the bigger picture to me doesn't look the same as it does perhaps to many of the other Commissioners. Realizing of course that there is a motion on the floor, with a number of attachments which I can agree with, but there are some segments of it which I cannot, and therefore I feel as though that, that, to go along with the suggestion of an overall 20% reduction would be against my, my good conscience and what I actually believe in and so perhaps I ' ll be the only one going against it but I ' ll have to do that. Commissioner Martinez: Mr. Chair? Chairman Badger: Yes Commissioner Martinez: I hate to encourage you but I have a question. If you are against the 20% reduction and from all of what you have just said, the kernel of what you're saying is, is this correct? You, you would encourage us to put off the 20% reduction and redo the Comprehensive Plan? Is that, is that what you're saying? Commissioner Ward: No. I think that probably (unclear) the Comprehensive Plan has sort of set certain parameters in which development and/or changes in given densities are, are to be geared to. I am not really sure that if I 'm totally complying to that. I would, I would agree to a reduction of a higher percentage on East and West Hill 'cause I think that's truly where the crux of the problem basically lies. 5 VERBATIM MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 29, 1988 EXCERPT FROM MULTIFAMILY DENSITY Commissioner Martinez: Great (unclear) Commissioner Ward: I think, and, and, and I 'm stealing this information because I think that, that, that Bob Badger's suggestion in his memo to Council sort of hits the nail closer to the, on the head. I would agree with a 50% reduction and I 'm sure that the builders would, would go bananas behind that given suggestion but if you, if you limit it to certain areas and you try to funnel that, the true reduction that you're trying to get overall, to the areas in which they have the, the most impact, I would, I would also go along with an idea that the reduction on any annexed properties could be 20% of what the case might be to encourage the single family residences, and in spite of the fact that I truly do not believe in good conscience that none of that will mitigate whatever problems people, people see so far as additional people coming in here. It is not truly going to reduce it. If they cannot build within the confines of Kent's city, they're going to build on the outskirts and they're going to drive through Kent as they've been doing all along. I think I 'd just mention one of the earlier quotes (unclear) that, that (unclear) of the, of the property in the county is multifamily and it would be developed accordingly and those same people are going to come right into Kent. Commissioner Stoner: My, my concern with, with, I mean in many ways my heart says wouldn't it be wonderful to cut multifamily development on East and West Hill by 50%, but one of the real appeals to me of, of a graduated reduction of 20% is that it is equitable. Commissioner Ward: (unclear) Commissioner Stoner: To, to, to, I mean it shifts, it shifts the zoning code. It doesn't say to someone who has MR-M property that you can no longer build. It doesn't say you must build at MR-G densities. It says you can have an MR-M zone but the maximum that you can build at that zone is less. And I think that's a kind of equity that is important. (Unclear) Commissioner Ward: Yea I quite agree with your statement. It' s very equitable. As a matter of fact, it' s so equitable that it truly does not have any effect. The net result is the fact that, that, that the people aren't building to the maximum density anyway so what you're doing officially is you're telling John Q. , you're telling Mrs. Orr and her constituents who signed this petition that yea we gave you a 20% reduction and we haven't given you anything. You haven't really gotten anything because the developer hasn't been building to the maximum 6 VERBATIM MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 29, 1988 EXCERPT FROM MULTIFAMILY DENSITY level that he's allowed to build by the existing code anyway. So he's -•• going to still laugh all the way to the bank and we're going to have (unclear) property owners who in turn will say you have taken away something for which I invested and (unclear) you have reduced the amount in which I can receive as a return on my original investment. Chairman Badger: Yes Elmira. Commissioner Ward: And I am concerned about those people. Those people too; they're people too. They're not all developers. These are private citizens who are sitting on, on, like you and I. who are sitting on, on a piece of property that invested in it with the intentions that one of these days that property is going to be worth a certain amount of money and now through a legislative process, a quasi legislative process, we're saying their property's worth less. I wouldn't like anyone to tell me that if I had invested. Chairman Badger: Yes Elmira (unclear) Commissioner Forner: I would like to just go on record as agreeing with what Rusty said and also supporting the statement of the Kent Chamber of Commerce in providing high density in downtown areas. Not, but I also support the 20% reduction because I think those two things can be accomplished through other means by rezoning and by developing what we call a CBD area that specifies higher density within that area which would be the standard area for a light rail. And I do know that, I do agree with you when you say that planning has to come, transportation will come in after the density. You don't have transportation come in and then build density. I know that much from being on Transportation, that, that you have to have the numbers of people there before the transportation come in, so we must plan for rail before it comes, as much as we don't like (unclear) but I think that can be accomplished. And the reason I would like the 20% reduction is I think that it will provide us with a means of directing quality density in downtown while preserving the quality of our rural neighborhoods, that we can. And, and I agree with what you say, it, it doesn't do much but at least it is a statement from the Commission that says we are going to take control of this growth and, and I don't think it's going to impact any particular developer that much and it' s really not going to impact transportation and we agreed at the task force that that was not our purpose of this was to do away with transportation problems because it wouldn't. We are trying to make a statement that says we are going to take control of this rapid growth and, and try to bring it into some sort of a, a manageable program. So I do support it. 7 VERBATIM MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 29, 1988 EXCERPT FROM MULTIFAMILY DENSITY Chairman Badger: Greg. Commissioner Greenstreet: I support Linda' s motion (unclear) the three points, 20% reduction, review the over dense area and as far as the CBD, I agree that we should review that area. I 'm against, it should not be based on speculation. It should be a plan, receive input from the Chamber, and as far as where the density should be located and on the offset density with more open space and how to make this a livable community before the rail comes through. Then the density not be allowed until we do have rail (unclear) taking place. The zoning can be changed (unclear) , I mean to say, reacting or whatever to the plan. I support rail and that and the Chamber but (unclear) concerned with speculation. Chairman Badger: Anne. Commissioner Biteman: Yea, but I was looking years from 1970 to 1987 growth in multifamily. In 1970 it was only 26% and now it's 58 . 6 and I guess I like to think of Kent as a community rather than just a bunch of highrise apartments. When I go on the East Hill, I 'm very happy that I don't live there. I live on the West Hill and I like it as a community because I know my neighbors and it' s mostly single family homes so I 'd just like to leave something for the next generation. (unclear) Commissioner Martinez: I 'd like to say one thing in support of the, of my own motion, and that is that, that I think it is important that we send the additional language to the Council and to the Planning Department because I don't think that I agree with what everyone here has said. I don't think 20% reduction will get us anything except it will buy us a little time and it will send a message out, I think Elvira said this very well, it will help (unclear) that this is what we, we have an intent in this community to take control of our own destiny. And I want it known that the Planning Commission wants a serious part in, in that, in that activity, that we are concerned and that we even have some plans to do some constructive strategy (unclear) and constructive planning for it. Commissioner Stoner: I call for the question. Chairman Badger: Are you calling for the question, Carol? The question has been called. All discussion ceases. All in favor of the motion which I will ask (unclear) with by Charlotte or by Jim. Mr. Harris: (unclear) 8 VERBATIM MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 29, 1988 EXCERPT FROM MULTIFAMILY DENSITY Chairman Badger: Yes Mr. Harris: (unclear) Mrs. Anderson: (unclear - read motion from shorthand notes) Chairman Badger: (unclear) All in favor. All opposed. Commissioner Dunham: I would like to go on record that I abstained. Chairman Badger: Russell abstained from voting. Motion carried. Do we have a motion to close the meeting? Commissioner Rudy: So move. Commissioner Dunham: Second Chairman Badger: It has been moved and seconded that we close. All in favor. Respectfully submitted, r " oJamP. Harris, Secretary 9 - We the undersigned are petitioning the City of Kent :o re-zone all ui developed land in Area C R1-12. These are our concerns: Tl.e present street system is inadequate. S. E. 248th. is not adequate for additional traffic. In the past six months, traffic has nearly doubled on 248th. alone. It is not a safe street for children who must wait on the street for school busses. Adding more dense development will only add to the problem of this street and others an the East Hill which are already at level "F" of service. There is not adequate fire and police protection on the East Hill . Further dense development should be halted at least until the new fire station is completed. Since Walnut Park Phase I is a new concept and an experiment,' we feel if it is built, it should be carefully monitered before allowing any more zero lot line homes in Kent. By approving R1-12 zoning for all undeveloped areas of Area C, a smoother transition will be made to existing single family homes to the East of Walnut Park Phase I and more of the natural wooded environment can be preserved. JAt+lcs _ S/N`` G��CET4e�[----jZ! A✓` =51=__, � / Y.{ ,Qro oay1--1/�'LL ZZL/ 2------a 5 _��/_-` —- -_ _ .� -------a? 3-- --Auc --S -_ ><tL T 4Jo9_-- _ tr� -------------- 4b ,�ar------��aQz__l�_-� --- �f_r� ------------ -`--- ---=------- -_S--- --- - --p------- - ------1L4�3_S E_ZJ/---------- ° ------'-'-----'----- ` -xC-----.CL_-T---- - � - ------------AL----ef --- `- ----- -----------1/'��3__S�`__��f D � - - -----19Szo_ii aA��S�_��T__4PQ3_L_ --- We the undersigned are l.:titioning the City of Kent _o re-zone all undeveloped land in Area C RI-12. These are our concerns: The present street system is inadequate. S. E. 248th. is not adequate for additional traffic. In the past six months, traffic has nearly doubled on 24Bth. alone. It is not a safe street for children who must wait on the street for school busses. Adding more dense development will only add to the • problem of this street and others on the East Hill which are already at level "F" of service. There is not adequate fire and police protection on the East • Hill . Further dense development should be halted at least until the new fire station is completed. Since Walnut Parl:: Phase I is a new concept and an experiment, . we feel if it is built, it should be carefully monitored before allowing any more zero lot line homes in Kent. By approving RI-12 zoning for all undeveloped areas of Area C, a smoother transition will be made to existing single family homes to the East of Walnut Park Phase I and more of the natural wooded environment can be preserved. ------------ - --- ----------a� -- -- - --------- �� -� - ------------aSZ -- - - ------ -- ------- ' = - ----------�5�,3.4__J1L '_ 5�--- t��L• c _�CG�cn---a s_ i¢�G_5E---------- We the undersigned are F_titioning the City of Kent _o re-zone all undeveloped land in Area C R1-12. These are our concerns: The present street system is inadequate. S. E. 248th. is not adequate for additional traffic. In the past six months, traffic has nearly doubled on 248th, alone. It is not a safe street for children who must wait an the street for school busses. Adding more dense development will only add to the problem of this street and others an the East Hill which are already at level "F" of service. There is not adequate fire and police protection on the East Hill . Further dense development should be halted at least until the new fire station is completed. Since Walnut Part; Phase I is a new concept and an experiment, - we feel if it is built, it should be carefully monitered before allowing any more zero lot line homes in Kent. By approving RI-12 zoning for all undeveloped areas of Area C. a smoother transition will be made to existing single family homes to the East of Walnut Park Phase I and more of the natural wooded environment can be preserved. -7 -1�-- =------- - -- - - - ------------------- 40 75 AIL ak /C9 a - � -- -- �() 1...{1-U---- ------ -----------ayy-��__�Qf_' �'�---��-- ----- 7 - - ------ ------------- -- - --, - - -----! ------------/i 3.L - E a sG �.._11 /v-tr_----- --_ j- ------7 5"- ------ ---- - --------- 5 --��`� --�ICtC-tea z�•-- ' , `�80`. 5��- �,--V ------- -�qVW 1 �__a'.`�°sue�i6�..r�off.---•�'�.t21�-`„�'�� ---- ----- ---viz -_--E -----` .x�A - ��U-/ We the undersigned are jtitioning the City of Kenn co re-zone all undeveloped land in Area C RI-12. These are our concerns: The present street system is inadequate. S. E. 248th. is not adequate for additional traffic. In the past six months, traffic has nearly doubled on 248th. alone. It is not a safe street for children who must wait on the street far school busses. Adding more dense development will only add to the problem of this street and others on the East Hill which are already at level "F" of service. There is not adequate fire and police protection on the East Hill. Further dense development should be halted at least until the new fire station is completed. Since Walnut Park Phase I is a new concept and an experiment, • we feel if it is built, it should be carefully monitered before allowing any more zero lot line homes in Kent. By approving R1-12 zoning for all undeveloped areas of Area C, a smoother transition will be made to existing single family homes to the East of Walnut Part: Phase I and more of the natural wooded environment can be preserved. - 2Y 3�Z_ I// --- -------------- --------- ---- --- - - -t - - ---- -,-p--- - ----------novas_ sE_ay4±►. _�---�g^+-� r�s� 91�4L - --------1iov _--_ ------------------ f --- ------asp-6 ---------�� e-=-11 `lf_v_e-_ --� -2 -�- ------------ o� --- We the undersigned are petitioning the City of Kent _o re-zone all undeveloped land in Area C R1-12. These are our concerns: The present street system is inadequate. S. E. 248th. is not adequate for additional traffic. In the past six months, traffic has nearly doubled on 248th. alone. It is not a safe street for children who must wait on the street for school busses. Adding more dense development will only add to the problem of this street and others on the East Hill which are already at level "F" of service. There is not adequate fire and police protection on the East Hill. Further dense development should be halted at least until the new fire station is completed. Since Walnut Faro: Phase I is a new concept and an experiment, . we feel if it is built, it should be carefully monitered before allowing any more -ero lot line homes in Kent. 8y approving R1-12 zoning for all undeveloped areas of Area C. a smoother transition will be made to e>:isting single family homes to the East of Walnut Faro: Phase I and more ,of the natural wooded environment can be preserved. NAO _ _�Qo --------- ------��s= 1�-l1 '=--- ------Zs L1J------------- - ---------- --------- --- - --- - _ - ----- - -- --------=�-k`3---L�� ------------ `w3----a ------------ ----- ,-;I-&1P-Lr6if Iio f� ------- - - o?��3GA ---1/D a -------- �� ==fit' ------------ _ --- ------- 1`'Q�-=�1�------`S-- - -- - ----------------�Q71�_� -"?�=---- ------------- ------ ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------,----------------- --------------------------------------------- We the undersigned are 'petitioning the City of KeA to re-zone all undeveloped land in Area C R1-12. These are our concerns: The present street system is inadequate. S. E. 248th. is not adequate for additional traffic. In the past sir, months, traffic has nearly doubled on 248th. alone. It is not a safe street for children who must wait on the street for school busses. Adding more dense development will only add to the problem of this street and others an the East Hill which are already at level "F" of service. There is not adequate fire and police protection on the East Hill. Further dense development should be halted at least until the new fire station is completed. Since Walnut Park Phase I is a new concept and an experiment,* we feel if it is built, it should be carefully monitered before allowing any more zero lot line homes in Kent. By approving R1-12 zoning for all undeveloped areas of Area C, ,... a smoother transition will be made to existing single family homes to the East of Walnut Part:: Phase I and more of the natural wooded environment can be preserved. mti- --------a ss�3 8 ----=1L _ 04,14__ 5j07 ----- -------- —--ti` ltc=-------85 3�112-------- _ . pis 4 .PPO3/ o3 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- We the undersigned are �.rtitioning the City of Kent co re-zone all undeveloped land in Area C RI-12. These are our concerns: The present street system is inadequate. S. E. 248th. is not adequate for additional traffic. In the past six months, traffic has nearly doubled on 24Bth. alone. It is not a safe street for children who must wait on the street for school busses. Adding more dense development will only add to the problem of this street and others on the East Hill which are already at level "F" of service. There is not adequate fire and police protection on the East Hill . Further dense development should be halted at least until the new fire station is completed. Since Walnut Park Phase I is a new concept and an experiment, • we feel if it is built, it should be carefully monitered before allowing any more zero lot line homes in Kent. By approving RI-12 zoning for all undeveloped areas of Area C, a smoother transition will be made to existing single family homes to the East of Walnut Part: Phase I and more of the natural wooded environment can be preserved. , --'------- ---------------------- --- -- - --- ------ --�-- -----[lzC&-35-6E--24.4sµ_-A +�8--- __----__-__--_-__-_-__- -------------------------------„-__ _. 11 ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------- _ ---------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- We the undersigned are .:titioning the City of Kent _o re-zone all undeveloped land in Area C R1-12. These are our concerns: The present street system is inadequate. S. E. 248th. is not adequate for additional traffic. In the past sir, months, traffic has nearly doubled on 248th. alone. It is not a safe street for children who must wait on the street for school busses. Adding more dense development will only add to the problem of this street and others on the East Hill which are already at level "F" of service. There is not adequate fire and police protection on the East Hill. Further dense development should be halted at least until the new fire station is completed. Since Walnut Pars: Phase I is a new concept and an experiment, . -.. we feel if it is built, it should be carefully monitored before allowing any more zero lot line homes in Kent. 6y approving F1-12 zoning for all undeveloped areas of Area C, a smoother transition will be made to existing single family homes to the East of Walnut Park Phase I and more of the natural. wooded environment can be preserved. _ 4 --------------- ?�7 --------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- February 29, 1988 .. TO: KENT PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Ron Ricketts, President Suzette A. Cooke, Executive Director Kent Chamber of Commerce KENT C H A M B E R OF COMMERCE SUBJECT: Multi-family Density Please enter for the record at your public hearing on February 29, 1988. POSITION: The Kent Chamber of Commerce does not support the proposed 20% reduction in multifamily units for undeveloped properties. The City would complement its future plans for commuter rail and an economically stronger down- town through increasing multifamily density in the central business district. SUPPORTING STATEMENTS: The public's request for fewer multifamily units appears to stem from two concerns: appearance and traffic congestion. Appearance is the major element of discussion in multifamily development standards. While Dan Stroh stated on January 25, 1988, that "it was not staff's intention to reduce density through the proposed amendments to multi- family development standards, " several developers of small to mid-size projects claim it will reduce density. The city should take the lead in improving existing areas of the city with sidewalks, curbs, etc. , and offer positive incentives for residential developments that exceed current standards. This will attract better quality single and multifamily developments, and encourage a feeling of community and pride of ownership. Decreasing density in the city increases the liklihood of density around the city limits. This reaction simply spreads out the congestion problem, exacerbating any traffic mitigation efforts. Residents in and east of the city typically must pass through Kent for any destination. By increasing the density around major corridors, public transportation services (e.g. Metro) can operate more efficiently. An increase in allowable density in downtown Kent would facilitate the potential ridership for commuter rail. The ideal mass transportation system would allow an individual to travel without ever driving a vehicle. An increase in downtown residents provides a greater number of potential shoppers for downtown businesses, and increases the opportunity for residents to use core city services (e.g. library, senior center, Kent Commons, parks) . 608 W.GOWE .P.O.Box 65 . . .more. . . KENT,WASHINGTON 9801. (206)854-1770 Kent's ratio of multifamily to single family units will change sub- stantially with implementation of Kent's annexation plans. A reduction of housing units would result in increased rents (supply and demand) , thereby creating an even greater burden on human service agencies already overtaxed. There is currently a two year waiting list for subsidized public housing in King County. Seattle Master Builders Association 2155 112th Avenue N.E., Suite 100•Bellevue, Washington 98004•Telephone 20bj 451 7920 February 23, 1988 Mr. Robert Badger, Chairman Re: Multifamily Density Planning Commission (Public hearing, City of Kent February 29, 1988) -. 220 S. Fourth Avenue Kent, Washington 98032 Dear Chairman Badger and Members of the Planning Commission: This is a letter for the record as it relates to the proposed multifamily density reductions now before you. As you know the Seattle Master Builders Association, by letter to the Commission, has gone on record as opposing multifamily density reductions. In particular, we object to the method utilized by the City in looking at the density question. We believe that the splitting of the density standards from the overall density question is a flaw in your planning process. (This is so stated in our letter addressed to the Planning Commission dated December 14, 1987 and January 18, 1988. ) The process has also been objected to by letter to the City Council dated January 26, 1988 (see attached letter) . Therefore the Association again urges the Planning Commission to undertake a process by which the public is given a total comprehensive picture of how a 20% reduction will affect multifamily zoned property. It is the Association's concern that the City of Kent is not taking into consideration the fiscal impact to property owners as well as other factors. The owners of multifamily zoned property have, based upon the long standing Comprehensive Plan of Kent purchased property for development. Now the City of Kent through a legislative process plans to change the density policies, and will in effect substantially impact property owners. � s s � ��tOctl Seattle Master Builders Association is affiliated with the National Assocication of Home Builders Mr. Robert Badger February 23, 1988 Page Two The Association would support a process by which individual areas are evaluated, as to how the density impacts transportation, neighborhoods, etc. We do not support the Graduated Scale Reduction as recommended by your staff (option B) . This appears to be the path of least resistance. It is the Association's belief that the current planning process is open for legal litigation. Hopefully this can be avoided if the density question is handled in a more comprehensive manner and open manner. Sincerely yours, Larry K."Frazier, CP, APA Director, Local Government Affairs LKF:ab cc: Mayor Dan Kelleher Councilperson Judy Woods Seattle Master Builders - Association 2155. 112th Avenue N.E., Suite 100•Bellevue, Washington 98004•Telephone(206)451-7920 January 26, 1988 Mayor Dqn Kelleher RE: Multifamily Development City of Kent Standards (Feb. 2, 1988 220 S. Fourth Ave. Council Agenda) Kent, Washington 98032 Dear Mayor Kelleher and Members of the Council: On February 2, 1988 the City Council of Kent is to receive a recommendation from your Planning Commission on Multifamily Development Standards. This is in response to the Council's December 1, 1986 Resolution No. 1123 dealing with multifamily density reductions in the Kent area. It is also the Seattle Master Builders understanding that on February 2, 1988 the Council may or may not decide to hear public testimony on this important matter. It is also our understanding that the Council may very well approve the Multifamily Development Standards recommendation from the Planning Commission by putting them on the consent agenda, for approval at a later date. It is also our understanding that the Council could refer the Planning Commission recommendation to the Council Committee for planning matters. Attached are two letters dated December 14, 1987 and January 18, 1988 from the Seattle Master Builders Association. In these letters we have outlined our concerns over the Multifamily Development Standards being recommended, and the density question in general. It is the Association's opinion that the new Multifamily Development Standards for multifamily areas has such an impact on property owners that a full public hearing should be afforded the public before Council acts on these amendments. It is our hope that the City Council will understand and see the major impact these amendments will have on property owners. For the following reasons, we therefore request that a fully advertised public hearing before the City Council be provided on the new standards as well as the density recommendation now before the Planning Commission: 1) At the staff and Planning Commission level there has never been a full discussion of the relationship between the multifamily standards being proposed and the 20% density reductions in general. s fflwA y`O "' Seattle Master Builders Association is affiliated with the National Associcatlon of Home Builders Mayor Don Kelleher January 26. 1988 Page Two 2) The Planning Commission has dealt with the density question with multifamily standards as if they were two separate issues. The agendas have been structured so that public testimony on this matter had to be split. For example, even though the density question and multifamily standards are tied together they were discussed as separate agenda items. We believe this was a mistake and somewhat deceptive in dealing with a major public policy issue such as reducing density within all multifamily areas by 20%. 3) The Council in its December 1, 1986 Resolution No. 1123 indicated that -- "This density reduction would be achieved through revisions to Kent's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. " As of this date the Comprehensive Plan modification to deal with multifamily living areas has never been discussed in depth at a public hearing. 4) Because of this issue of reducing multifamily densities by 20% is such a major departure from the City of Kent's current land use and zoning policies it must be debated and discussed in a public hearing before the City Council. The Seattle Master Builders Association therefore respectively requests that the City Council: 1) Hold in abeyance or remand back to the Planning Commission the amendments on Multifamily Development Standards until the Planning Commission makes a comprehensive recommendation to the Council which ties the 20% proposed reduction to the amendments; or 2) That the City Council allow the public the ability to discuss both Items together regarding the density question at the Council level after receiving the 20% reduction recommendation from the Planning Commission; and 3) That the Council refer this matter to the Council Planning Committee for discussion before acting upon any amendment to your zoning code. The Association urges you to consider our major concerns and allow a fair public hearing process on this very important land use and zoning issue. We feel that in terms of equity to the public a public hearing at the Council level is a must. Sincer ly yours, Larry K. Frazier, AICP, APA Director of Local Government Affairs LKF:ab KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 25, 1988 The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Robert Badger at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, January 25, 1988, in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Badger, Chairman Anne Biteman Russell E. Dunham -• Elmira Forner Nancy Rudy Carol Stoner Raymond Ward COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Greg Greenstreet, Excused Linda Martinez PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Stephen Clifton, Assistant Planner Fred Satterstrom, Associate Planner Dan Stroh, Assistant Planner Charlene Anderson, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Stoner MOVED that MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 14 . 1987 the Planning Commission minutes for the December 14 , 1987 public hearing be approved as presented . Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Jim Harris distributed the Kent 2000 report and suggested that it be placed on the Commission docket in February. Because of Washington' s Birthday holiday on February 15, the February Planning Commission workshop will be held on February 22 (with a Task Force meeting scheduled at 6: 30 followed by the regular workshop at 7:30 PM) . The February Planning Commission public hearing will be held on February 29, 1988. MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Chairman Badger opened the public hearing. Dan Stroh described the proposed amendments and stated their purpose. Mr. Stroh identified in the staff report the changes PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 25, 1988 Page Two incorporated as a result of discussions at the workshop on January 11, 1988 . These changes related primarily to Planning Director discretion in requiring an alternative screening method if berming is found ineffective and a definition of foundation landscaping. Larry Frazier, Director of Local Government Affairs, Seattle Master Builders Association, 2155 - 112th Avenue NE, Suite 100, Bellevue, WA 98004 stated the issues of multifamily development standards and multifamily density are interwoven and should be discussed together. Mr. Frazier read into the record the first page of his letter of January 18, 1988 and stated he desired his letter of December 14, 1987 to become part of the record also. Mr. Frazier supported the concept of Administrative Design Review and added that builders would need some incentive (bonus) for superior design. The testimony of Michael Spence, Seattle-King County Board of Realtors, Governmental Affairs Director, 2810 Eastlake Avenue East, Seattle, WA 98102 was deferred to the next agenda item on Multifamily Density. Loren Combs, 450 Shattuck Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055, represented the Shelter Corporation. Mr. Combs congratulated staff on their proposal. Dennis Riebe, Architect for Centron, 3025 - 112th Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA thanked staff for allowing him to be involved in the process of examining the proposed amendments. Mr. Riebe supports Administrative Design Review (ADR) and suggested the Planning Commission set up a future time to evaluate the ADR program, if it is implemented, with a view toward expanding the scope of ADR to other standards, e.g. , parking, landscaping, building separations within the site. Mr. Riebe added that density bonus credits for unique and creative design would be viable. Mr. Stroh stated it was not staff's intention to reduce density through the proposed amendments to multifamily development standards. Projects that he has checked in this .regard do not seem to entail a reduction in density. Mr. Stroh added that bonus credits can be available through a P.U.D. which is currently in the zoning code but that at this time staff cannot support expanding the ADR process to include bonus credits. In response to Chairman Badger, Mr. Stroh stated that these proposed amendments are not a cure-all for ineffective multifamily design but they would help to promote better design. Commissioner Forner questioned whether density bonus credits in a P.U.D. would be compatible with the stated purpose of the multifamily development standards. Mr. Stroh added staff needs to address and meld the purpose with the requirements of the P.U.D. Commissioner Ward questioned if staff could unequivocally state that the proposed development standards do not affect density. Mr. Stroh PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 25, 1988 Page Three responded that staff had reviewed several developments and found that essentially the only land being constrained is that which is required for landscaping. However, in some cases, these standards would require a significant redesign of the site. Mr. Harris added that these standards were not set out to get at density. If a developer came in with a very rigid proposal and did not look at optional site plans, that developer could conceivably consider there is a problem with density. Mr. Harris stated further that topographical constraints would cause more loss of density than would these proposed development standards. Mr. Frazier reiterated a desire to have incentive for creating superior design and added that it could be just one or two units, not necessarily as high as 20%. Mr. Riebe stated the P.U.D. process is cumbersome and time-consuming. He added that the ADR is a viable alternative. Mr. Riebe stated he did not feel that these proposed standards would encumber any project Centron works on. A discussion of P.U.D. occurred. Commissioner Stoner MOVED and Commissioner Rudy SECONDED the motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Commissioner Ward MOVED to adopt the proposed amended standards for multifamily as presented by staff on revision sheet dated January 25, 1988. Nancy Rudy SECONDED the motion. Chairman Badger asked about clarification of the wording under 15. 09 . 045 (B) . Discussion occurred. Staff proposed the following amended wording, The Administrative Design Review process shall consider the compatibility of structures, other impervious areas as-well as and landscape features with within the site and its their compatibility with surrounding uses. Commissioner Stoner MOVED to amend Commissioner Ward's motion to include the new wording. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Mr. Harris stated the Planning Commission' s recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council at its next -. meeting on February 2 , 1988 . MULTIFAMILY DENSITY The minutes for this public hearing will be done verbatim and distributed as a separate packet. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 25, 1988 Page Four ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Rudy MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Dunham SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10: 00 PM. Re ectfully submitted, Cr�' P. Ha ri , Secretary KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY ON MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 Chairman Badcter: Let's get ready and let's address the second portion of our hearing tonight which is a public hearing on the multifamily density. I would like to open that hearing and I would like to ask Jim who from staff will be making that presentation. Mr. Harris: Mr. Chairman, Dan Stroh will be making this presentation also. Chairman Badger: OK Mr. Stroh: I believe the last time we discussed multifamily density at a public hearing was November 16th, before Christmas, and at that time there was a staff report, amendments to density, multifamily density limitations that were discussed and tonight the staff proposal is not changed from that staff report of November 16th calling for the, or proposing the graduated scale reduction in multifamily densities also known as Option B in the red report. This issue has been with us for a long time and at the last work session I .gave a brief update on the recent multifamily activity in the city. We are showing, for 1987 we are showing 888 units permitted. another 1,245 units beyond those that have gone, have actually applied for development through the SEPA review process, making the total of 2 , 133 units. That' s a big chunk of new multifamily development that, those that have already got their permits of course, their building permits would not be affected by the density reduction. Those that are within the SEPA process and have not yet got their building permits would presumably. Just wanted to recap the public purposes behind the density reduction that we' re trying to get at here, the purpose of neighborhood preservation where the less- intense multifamily should help to protect the single family areas. This should be taken together with efforts that the city is undertaking and has undertaken to protect and increase single family development within the city, and related to this, the purpose of trying to achieve a balance of housing options in the city. Within recent years, of course, as the red book documents, that balance has gotten further and further skewed as we 've converted from a city that was predominantly single family to a city where multifamily is the predominant housing type. So another purpose we're trying to get at is to try to reestablish some balance in the housing options and make some people have a choice. Those who want to live in multifamily would still have 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 - those opportunities and those who want to, desire to live in single family would also have those opportunities. Environmental suitability, another public purpose we're trying to get at, with somewhat less intense land use, less clearing, impervious surfaces, some opportunities for increased on-site open space, within the affected areas of the city. We're also trying to get at the public purposes of some reduction of impacts on public services and infrastructure within the city. The pace of the multifamily development in recent years has been so great that it has been very, very difficult to keep up, as everyone is aware, with the transportation demands of the increased housing and the public service demands of this pace of growth. The staff report goes a little bit into some of the transportation impacts in particular of multifamily development on the existing city transportation network. So, in sum, the proposals that we're getting at recognizes I believe the value of multifamily housing; we're not trying to eliminate multifamily housing. We're just trying to call for some moderation and balance. We're trying to get at simply some reduction in the, within the existing multifamily areas of the allowed density. This proposal would not actually change the zoning of any properties from multifamily that are currently multifamily. It would simply across the- board reduce the density ceilings. So in that sense, it is very, very significant but it's a tuning up of the densities that we currently provide for. I believe it brings us somewhat more into line with other area localities because our densities currently are higher than the norm for this area, at least our density ceilings are. This has been on the docket for so long now, that it really would be very desirable to, to bring some resolution on the issue if that is at all possible because it has been an issue that dates way back to December of 1986 when the Council first passed Resolution 1123 , which is over a year now. With these 2 , 133 units last year, there's a lot that's really water over the wall or whatever analogy you want to use, that' s happened since that time. So, that' s my comments at the moment. Can I answer any questions? Commissioner Forner: There isn't a sunset clause in here is there? Mr. Stroh: The proposal doesn't have any sunset clause in it. Chairman Badger: Alright, Dan. Thank you. On the sign-up sheet, let's, again let's try to follow the same proposition, about 7 minutes or so if you can. The first name on the list is Larry Frazier, Seattle Master Builders Association. Mr. Frazier: I ' ll give it another try. Mr. Chairman, for the record, I 'm Larry Frazier of Seattle Master Builders. I believe you have my address from the previous testimony given this evening. I kind of feel like I had a kind of a comprehensive approach to what we were talking 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 about here and I kind of got cut in half and so I 'm going to take the opportunity to refer back to some of my comments previously and to kind of try and tie it together. I believe I understand the logic that the City of Kent is trying to proceed in in terms of this density reduction question. So many years ago this community through their processes at that time allowed themselves the opportunity to put numerous amounts of multifamily development here. That happened to be the policy that was under consideration at that time and was adopted officially, legally within your documents. Many people, property owners, friends and neighbors of yours, purchased property on the basis of those plans and policies that the City of Kent indicated that they wanted to propagate. Through time and through circumstances, the increase in urban activity, you've had a situation where you do have considerable impact on those transportation networks both inside the city as well as the regional routes that take people back and forth to work up and down the corridor here. I would say that the problem that Seattle Master Builders is currently having, and don't get me wrong, I like working with good professionals and I think you have those people here in your particular department, but I think there is a way of looking at issues and in our opinion you cannot segregate the two issues. If you take a look at the height- limitations that were put on in the standards, the landscaping and the setbacks, tie that together with the, some kind of a across- the-board reduction of 20%, which I have never understood at this point where the 20% reduction came from, and maybe staff can clarify that for me, maybe I have missed that information somewhere along the line, to do that in a manner whereby you create a situation where these people who have relied upon this policy and direction that the City of Kent has had for years and to do it in a manner that does not, in my opinion, amount to full discussion of a very, very important matter, is _.. not quite right. I don't mean that to be very critical of the City of Kent, I mean that from the standpoint of the human standpoint of people who live in this area who have purchased property on the basis of good faith from the plans and zoning designations that have been on this area for years. So, from that standpoint, the second issue that I ' ll get to then is density, of course. And I would like to read for you my concerns. Second and still of concern to the Seattle Master Builders ` Association is the overall question of a density reduction by some 20% in all multifamily zones. Resolution Number 123 passed by the Council on December 1, 1986 is where that came from, generally. I don't think that I have to quote it to you; they have a copy of it here for you. In our letter of December 14, 1987 this issue was raised. As of this date, very little discussion has been undertaken by your staff or by the Planning Commission. At the January 11, 1988 work session, your staff handed out some basic information about multifamily activity during 187 as well as statistical analysis of the existing units. Plus they did the red book prior to this time and as Dan said, it had been hanging around for quite awhile, and the alternatives were in there. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 You will recall it is the Association's position that the increasing setbacks, limiting heights as well as increasing landscaping requirements, density in multifamily areas are being reduced in the City of Kent. Even though you passed that this evening, it is still our opinion that you are reducing those densities in some form. Now, to what extent that is, I think that's a debatable question. It is our professional opinion that the minimum lot sizes in your zoning code, which determines density, have to be considered along with the amendment to the multifamily standards, otherwise the density reductions are taking place by modifying dimensional standards within multifamily zoning districts. It is also our opinion that the City Council directed the Planning Commission to consider revisions to the Comprehensive Plan as it states in Resolution. 123 , Number 123 . We suggest that if any density reductions take place in Kent it is done more properly together with the revisions of the Comprehensive Plan. And what I 'm saying is, even though in the State of Washington, that the Plan is not a mandatory, legal document, it does not require that you change that at the time you change your regulatory ordinances which are the zoning ordinance in this case. It' s not mandatory; it' s suggested by state law that it be used as a guide. We believe that you should take a look at your Comprehensive Plan, find out in fact what your long-term strategy is in terms of multifamily areas in relationship to single family which I understand you want to increase if possible, and other kinds of related development. We think that would be a more proper form to take it in, rather than doing it in a sedimental-type approach. At this time the Seattle Master Builders Association, for reasons cited, does not fully support the amendments before you, and the amendments in this case were the amendments that you already approved. We like, we would like our concerns addressed and hereby requested it, correct me, request it in this letter. I guess the one comment I would make is that in Resolution 123 , Section 1, the City Council hereby declares its intent to establish a goal of achieving an average density reduction of 20% on all undeveloped multifamily-zoned lands throughout the city. The density reduction would be achieved through revisions of the Kent' s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. And I suggest to you that the standards that you just adopted reduce density without changing the Comprehensive Plan. I do not see this being done in a uniform, comprehensive approach to dealing with the major issue that's now before you and this would be the multifamily consideration. I 'm probably out of my seven minutes, but I 'd like to reserve the right for us any rebuttal that would come up during the discussion. I do thank you. I would also like to say one more thing. It is my assumption that all that's being recorded here tonight and all the discussion will be before the City Council in a findings from the hearing and will be there in such a manner that they have the time to review it before they make any, take any action on the recommendation. I just ask that question, is that in fact the case? 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 Mr. Harris: Well, we take our letter that you recommend to the City Council in a normal manner. They then receive it and do whatever they want to do with it. They can either, the night that they get it, they can take action on it, they can refer it to a committee, they can refer it to a committee of the whole, they can continue it on and have another hearing. It is not in our hands here to say what the Council may do with an item. Mr. Frazier: Yea, and I guess, excuse me Mr. Chairman. Chairman Badger: In specific, are you asking, Larry, that your letter accompany anything? Mr. Frazier: I 'm asking that, that it's my understanding that this is a public hearing, if they're going to take action as I understand it, potentially next week, a week from, what is it, tomorrow? today? , a week from tomorrow, Tuesday, that they should have afforded to them the complete record to make a recommendation from this Planning Commission of all the testimony that you have before you. That that would be in terms of a full and complete record in order to be able to make a reasonable decision, whether it's denial or approval or send it to some committee or whatever it is. And I 'm just asking the question, is all that information including the tape recording material here in front going to be afforded to the Council so they can make a recommendation? Mr. Harris: Let me just say that the, the procedures that the Council takes when they receive either a Hearing Examiner or Planning Commission or Human Services Commission recommendation is a set of minutes that will be extrapolated out of the, out of the recording and the details are not given to them. Mr. Frazier: OK Mr. Harris: And never have been and never will be. The only time details are given to them is when someone appeals the Hearing Examiner decision. Then the person must pay for a transcript of the, of the. Mr. Frazier: OK Chairman Badger: In particular, then, it would behoove Mr. Frazier if he wishes to comment to go direct to City Council. Mr. Harris: That's right. That' s right. Chairman Badger: And see what happens. Commissioner Ward: (unclear) 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 Chairman Badger: We have no idea. Mr. Harris: Well that's an open meeting so that all people from the public can testify. Mr. Frazier: OK. Thank you. Chairman Badger: Loren Combs again, from Renton. Mr. Combs: Mr. Chairman, Commission members. My name is Loren Combs, 450 Shattuck Avenue South, Renton, Washington. I mentioned to Mr. Stroh out in the hallway, this is kind of exciting for me because I 'm actually getting paid to do something that I would have done for free but I didn't tell my client that. I 'm here the first time to address the density issue. I 've lived in this neck of the woods for quite some time having bagged groceries at the old Lucky Store when I was in high school, and I remember several years ago they were talking about the infilling of the urban areas. That eventually this outward growth was going to slow down and the growth would then start to concentrate back into the developed areas and you would see more condominium and apartment developments. And I think that' s what you are seeing happening now. The 80 's were supposed to be the time that this happened and it is happening. I think that is evidenced by Resolution 1123 . Your Council was concerned and said "Gee, now that we've got it what are we going to do with it. " And I looked through Resolution 1123 and your, your Council expressed three concerns. The first concern was the effect of growth on the infrastructure and the city's ability to provide the services. Dan covered that. The second one was the proportion of single family to multifamily development. The third concern they expressed was that the multifamily development should be consistent with neighborhood preservation and not be aesthetically offensive. I believe it is possible to implement those three, or implement procedures that would accomplish taking care of those three concerns and the side benefit would be to obtain the 20o reduction from the maximum theoretical buildout under code zoning. And what I would like to do in the short time that I have is present to you what I see as a viable alternative to what' s been proposed by your Planning Department. The first concern is the effect of growth on the infrastructure. None of the options presented in the study really address this issue head on. And it should be addressed head on if you are going to adequately, adequately look at what the Council wants to have accomplished. I recommend that you consider enacting a system under which developers would pay up front their fair share of the cost of providing increased services necessitated by the development. This could include fire protection, police protection and central government services. For those of you that have been around Kent for a few years, you probably recall the ordinance that was passed some years ago that 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 was challenged. They, they wanted to come up with an environmental ordinance to somehow make developers pay the costs of the impacts on the environment and in the park system. And they had a bad experience with that. But, now this fair share concept is legally defensible if you do your drafting properly and you implement it properly. Your city has already used a type of this fair share concept in your transportation plan, which by the way, I consider an excellent plan, where you have a fair share concept for your east-west traffic corridors, where the developers will not protest the formation of the local improvement district at a future time, and your planners up front tell them what the, what the cost will be to them. This is a fair share kind of concept. You can use that same concept to address the Council ' s concern about the effect of development on your infrastructure and do it directly, up front. Say this is what we are doing, and this is how we do it, rather than try and do it with a shot- gun approach, and say, well, we will across the board reduce densities 20% or graduated scale. You're not really addressing the Council ' s concern. I think this is a more appropriate way to do it and from a developer' s standpoint, I 'll step over here and put on my developer's standpoint, it then gives him the option, he see's up front that it's going to cost me "x" number of dollars and he can plan. for that, rather than try to do it through the back door by reducing density. Because you don't really accomplish it. You're still going to have to deal with the infrastructure with a 19 unit per acre development as opposed to a 20.7 unit per acre or 22 unit per acre, you're still going to have the impact. It just may be a couple units less but the impact 's still there. So I would ask that you consider studying that and there are, there are many municipalities that are studying that right now. And I think it's a good plan. The second concern that the Council stated in their Resolution was the single family to multifamily ratio. This is a concern that is not best addressed by a reduction in the multifamily densities, but by encouraging single family construction. If you decrease the density, let's say, from 23 units per acre to 19 units per acre, you still visually have an apartment complex that may have 2 or 3 less units in it, but you still have an apartment complex and you haven't really addressed what the Council is really concerned about and that is keeping the proper ratio, preserving the neighborhoods, your single family neighborhoods. I think that the key way to address this directly again is not the shot-gun approach or the gradual reduction of the densities in multifamily, but use Option D which is one that was suggested by your, your planners in their multifamily study. And, and use that concept where you encourage single family development, if that' s what the Council wants, then, then let's not use the shot-gun approach because you still are going to have an apartment unit in the single family house, and the apartment may have a couple less units in it but you haven't increased the houses, and I think that' s where your Council is expressing its concern. Option D is one method of 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 approaching that issue and that by the way is the one where they, they say in the newly-annexed areas only allow it to be single family, not multifamily. You can use that same concept for your existing single family areas as well. Good concept. The third concern is neighborhood preservation and environmental integrity. There are three options that have already been identified that I think more adequately address this concern head on than does the proposal that is being recommended by your planners. Option C, in my mind, is the best method of preserving those targeted neighborhoods. This is the rezone of overzoned areas. I personally experienced your neighborhood concept when I wanted to put an office building over here in one of the areas that you wanted for single family back several years ago. I marched up to the Planning people and said, "I got this great idea for an office building" and they said "Sorry that's an area we want to keep single family. " Well, I liked the idea then. I was disappointed, but it was a good concept to have low, medium-income single family close to the CBD. You should use that option in this context, because what you're doing then is you're preserving those neighborhoods, which is what the Council said they wanted, by eliminating multifamily in those areas. That is a good concept that hits the nail on the head and does not do a shot-gun approach. The other option, that was Option C. The other option is Option F and this is a reduction based on environmental constraints. This is a reduction that will more likely than not automatically take place. And that's something you need to look at with regards to the planner' s proposal. The Council said reduce 20%. By the planner' s own estimates, the environmental constraints, Option F, will reduce it approximately 11.2%; I may be off a couple percent, excuse me, 11.4%. The plan that they're proposing is a reduction of 20. 2%; those two are going to, you know, the environmental one is a logical thing to carry out the concerns of the Council. It will probably occur anyway and you will end up with a density reduction of 31. 6%. That' s not what the Council was after. You should address it again head on, use Option F, implement it, and you' ll, you' ll get the reduction you're after. The third area is something I already took care of, which I fully supported, that was your multifamily development standards. They will affect density, maybe not across the board. In the project I looked at there was an effect on the density. The last issue is the 20% reduction. I submit that one of the benefits of the above proposals and you can quote some numbers because it's, it's in the documents you have, is that you specifically address each concern with a specific solution while at the same time the side benefit is you're going to get your 20% reduction, but you've been, you've been honest in your approach. I strongly encourage you to use this technique as opposed to the shot-gun approach because, again, it does not directly address the concerns. But there is another issue that no one has brought up and that is that you may want to substantially reduce multifamily in some areas and actually consider increasing the density in others. An 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 example of a substantial reduction is the area set forth in your housing and community development neighborhood strategy area. You do an across-the-board reduction on a graduated scale, you still have multiple family in the area that you wanted to have as only single family. You haven't addressed the issue. The other issue is the intensive multifamily areas. The regional transportation plan prepared " by the Puget Sound Council of Governments encourages construction of housing close to rapid transit and hard rail terminals. You are not doing that by the proposal that they have made. The March 26, 1987 transit amendment to the regional transportation, plan recommends that land use planners seek to minimize future transportation problems by encouraging the development of housing near employment centers and logically it should be near where they can get to those employment centers with the least use of single occupancy vehicles. In other words, put your dense housing near where the rail terminals are going to be. The proposal that you have before you doesn't address that. The Tacoma-Seattle Steering Committee for the Regional Transportation Plan on January 29, 1987 recommended acquisition of light rail. The idea is to have some place where people can go, get on the train and -- get to Seattle and Tacoma, maybe go as far as Olympia. Your plan doesn't address that. If you look at intense areas of multifamily, you want to get the people close to the rails, otherwise you're defeating the purpose. You're going to end up with a gridlock system. As late as today, the mayors of the City of Bellevue, Everett, Tacoma and Seattle met on the radio, and I don't know if any of you had the opportunity to hear that broadcast. I did and was fascinated because, guess what they discussed? Mass transit, and all the development problems that cities are going to have in the next 20 to 30 years. One of the things that came up was the light rail system that they're going to be proposing. And to do an across-the-board density reduction is counter productive for those goals. They're talking about a massive gridlock system unless we do something. And I think you now have a golden opportunity to address that through this density issue. You should encourage the maintenance of high density in the valley floor because that's where the rail system is going to go. Logically there is a right of way that already exists, and that' s where it' s going to be. This, the proposal does not address that. In conclusion, Mr. Stroh indicated to you, and I have the utmost respect for this gentleman because I 've used his thoughts for my own clients, but he indicated to you that this matter is over a year old, and that you need to get some action on it. I agree that you need to get some action on it, but you must remember that they've had it a year; it ,only got to the public's eye in the middle of November. The public has only had this concept two months. And this is a major issue for your city. And I think it needs to be looked at especially if you' re going to do it, do it right and address all the issues. It' s, I encourage you not to take the easy way out by recommending the across-the-board, mindless, 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 with all due respect, the mindless approach where you have, and I think you will, I think you can, I think I 'd better strike that out of there quick. I think you can meet your reduction goals without doing what is being proposed. I think you need to target really what the Council really wanted. And by the way, just a sideline, the client that actually paid me to come down here to do what I would have done anyway has an apartment complex that we checked today, does meet the development standards you just approved because it's going to be a quality project regardless. And even if you go with the worst density proposal these guys could drum up, we're still going to be able to do our project, so what I, what I 'm proposing here is something that is good for your city and good for the area. My client wanted me here anyway but their project is a good one and it's going to meet those standards. Thank you. I realize, Mr. Chairman, I 've gone over and I appreciate your patience. Chairman Badger: Any questions? All right, the next gentleman, Mike Spence. Mr. Spence: Mike Spence with the Seattle-King County Association of Realtors. I 've given you my address in the previous proceedings. That's kind of a tough act to follow here. I think both of my predecessors have said the same things I would have liked to have been able to say, and very articulately. I just talked, I ' ll, I ' ll be real quick, because of that. We have a couple of concerns about the blanket 20% reduction too. Number one is just, number one is what I stated earlier about the, the real effect on property values and tax base and I think people who have acquired property under a certain level of land use, I. I don't think it' s fair to them to, to just by a slash of the pen suddenly reduce their value perhaps more than 20% in some cases. Point number two is that this affects the supply and demand curves of affordable housing and I think that' s something to look at in light of the future growth predictions, and a blanket 20% reduction in multifamily is going to certainly have a detrimental effect on that. Point number three which my predecessors talked about at great length, is the fact that there are several other alternatives out there. There' s, there's several groups across the state and across the Puget Sound region that are looking at infrastructure finance. The Seattle- King County Economic Development Council is doing some work on that. It is my understanding that there is a task force here in the City of Kent that' s looking at a road mitigation ordinance. A bill was introduced in the legislature down in Olympia last Friday dealing with road mitigation. So we would urge you to just hold, hold steady for a little while and see what comes up out of some of this. I think the concept of transportation benefit districts and some local improvement districts, road improvement districts, and, and as my predecessor said though, the, the shifting trend into perhaps light rail or bus, I think 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 all should be, should be figured into this, and, and, and we would just request that you plan the density of the City of Kent around some good _ thought as to what's going to happen in the future, both economically and infrastructurally, so I will say no more than that. Thank you. Chairman Badger: Thank you Michael. David Halinen. Mr. Halinen: Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is David Halinen. My address is 3015 - 112th Avenue NE, Suite 203, Bellevue 98004 . I am here tonight on behalf of the Wright Group, a developer of multifamily housing in the Kent and adjoining South King County area. I want to join in with Mr. Combs as to the remarks that he made. He stole most of my thunder regarding the, he used the term shot-gun approach. I was going to use the term overly or excessively broad brush as to the current density reduction proposal you have before you. I, I think it is quite appropriate to try to focus more specifically with the specific concerns that were raised by the Council when it considered the, the (unclear) , the (unclear) subject in December of 186 and through its passage of a resolution. One of the, and to elaborate on one of Mr. Comb 's points with respect to the impact on infrastructure and public services, I, I 'd like to point out that nothing that I 've seen in the, the report on multifamily density, the _ so-called red book, specifically dealt with areas of the city that are experiencing relative, or relatively greater lacks of infrastructure problems than others. I would surmise, and I stand to be corrected, that probably some of the outlying areas probably of the East Hill area perhaps where there've been, as I understand it, many of the concerns expressed about the burgeoning multifamily development, they may well have a, more of an urgency in terms of infrastructure, public service concerns. By using the approach that Mr. Combs suggested in trying to focus on some of the other possibilities for addressing these underlying concerns, we'd be able to, for example, achieve effectively the density reduction on the, on the East Hill, perhaps leave the density alone in other areas of the city or, or it may be appropriate to actually increase densities especially in light of the light rail rapid transit possibilities that the future may bring forth for the community. With that, I think I ' ll adjourn unless you have any questions. Thank you. Chairman Badger: Thank you. Dan, would you like to have any more comment tonight? ,.., Dan Stroh: I would. Thank you. There were a lot of concerns raised tonight and that' s great because we really wanted to get an opportunity to hear some concerns that people had about the proposal. It is a broad-brush proposal and it does go very, has some major impacts, there's no question about that. I 'm trying to respond point by point 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 to some of the concerns that were raised. Concern about the Comprehensive Plan one is very important because we take the Comprehensive Plan very seriously and the actions that we do in the Planning Department are based on the Comprehensive Plan and directives. The Comprehensive Plan was (unclear) of course in the original Resolution 1123 and that was considered in the proposals put forth and the one that we're actually recommending at this point. We feel that it's not incompatible with the existing Comprehensive Plan in the approach that we have taken, particularly in, in across-the-board approach is one where we are not changing any of the areas that are currently designated multifamily to any other designation. Those that show on the Comprehensive Plan map as multifamily would stay as multifamily. And in the original report of November 16th, there' s a series of policies out of the Comprehensive Plan that are referenced including policies in the Housing Element and in Public Utilities Element and Circulation Element, that are just some of the goals and policies that we pulled out of the Comprehensive Plan that we think the current proposal does in fact satisfy and help to further. A big one for instance is in the Housing Element insuring an adequate and balanced supply of housing units offering diversity of size, density, age, style and cost. There's others as well, but they are (unclear) so if we don't feel, we do feel in fact that the current proposal is compatible with the existing Comprehensive Plan and that for the current proposal an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan really isn't necessary, or called for. Mr. Combs raised a number of points that I think are, are quite important. Going over the concerns that Council actually raised in Resolution 1123, what we're trying to get at. I will say that Council on top of those concerns did raise a question (unclear) about where the 20% came from. The 20% came from Council and we're trying to respond to the approach and the, the kind of, of direction that the Council actually asked us to go in. So the 20% is not just something the Planning Department invented in order to carry out these three objectives. It comes from the Council and it's, we tried to look at ways of achieving those objectives in the most reasonable way while accomplishing that 20% reduction. But I ' ll respond point by point. On the infrastructure, Mr. Combs said that none of the options really addresses the infrastructure problem head on and talking about development impact fees and probably need for some additional ways to finance these incredible drains of resources that we're having on our fire and police and our other public services, on our transportation networks, on our water and sewer system as we strive to deal with this incredible multifamily growth. The development impact fees I think possibly is a viable concept but not as an alternative to this, perhaps on top of this. As Mr. Combs himself said, even if we were to accomplish 20% reduction, we would still have all the development impacts that the multifamily developments, and not just the multifamily development, but other development as well, 12 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -- VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 causes. We would still have to deal with that. So that it may be that, that's an approach the city, you know, will have to look at in broadening. Right now we get (unclear) transportation mitigation conditions. We are able to get some development fees that way to generate some money to begin to take care of the transportation problems we have. We may need to broaden that, but I don't really see it as an alternative to displace the 20% reduction that we are trying to get at here. We also with 20% reduction will have a, a significant impact on reducing those infrastructure needs or at least the pace that we're having to try to deal with them as the multifamily comes in at the rate that it's been coming in in recent years. On the single family versus multifamily objective the Council has raised. We, we' re doing a couple things on that front other than just the 20% reduction, because the 20% reduction itself doesn't really accomplish this goal all by itself. The Council asked us to do the multifamily reduction and look at ways to encourage single family and I 've kind of got a list, and I won't go through it now, but I kind of have a list of things that the city has done in the recent past to try to encourage single family development and try to retain the existing single family development that we now have in the city. So again, it' s not an either/or kind of thing but that single family objective is something that we're trying to approach on top of the across-the-board density reduction. The third objective, the, the neighborhood preservation, keeping the integrity of the existing neighborhoods, I think does tie in with the single family versus multifamily ratios, the impact that multifamily development has on single families. The higher those densities are, the more impact that there is. In the across-the-board density reduction approach, where you do have existing neighborhoods that are being significantly impacted by the multifamily, this is not going to cut out all impact, just as the proposal you passed in development standards is not going to cut out all impact, but it will have a role to play, and an important role to play. I think what we're trying to here is bring our densities, in part we're trying to bring our densities into line with the norm in this area. And as we have talked about at some earlier meetings, if you compare us to Auburn, if you compare us to the county, Renton, if you compare us to other area localities, our maximum density ceilings in comparable districts are on the high side. Auburn took a much more aggressive approach at reducing multifamily development. Their maximum density ceiling in their maximum multifamily district is now 18 units to the acre. Ours is still 40. Now Auburn is not the model of what the norm is in this area. Auburn, Auburn, (unclear) and they are not the norm, but just to give you an example of another community that went much further than we're going, that's the community directly south of us. So that, I think that the across-the-board density reduction is, will have a significant impact on all three of these objectives but it won't accomplish anything all by itself. Neither will anything else that's 13 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 been proposed. It's kind of a starting point that responds to what the Council has asked us to look at and to accomplish and probably some other actions will have to be done complementing it. Just a couple of other points. Option F, dealing with reduction by environmental constraints. We looked at that in the report, to be honest and to face the point that there are some sites that are constrained by the, as we pointed out about the last issue, some sites that are constrained by the natural features that mean you can't get the density ceilings on them no matter what you did. And we pointed that out in the report. We tried to make a calculation on how much of the theoretical buildout potential those environmentally constrained sites actually represented. 11.4% I think, is what the red report shows. I don't think the Council was talking about the 20% reduction being accomplished by, you know, really what's a phantom. That density never existed really. The red report says that density, you know, was never really there because, because of steep slopes, drainage, other kinds of environmental problems, you can never could develop that. If we were to pretend like we're taking action by saying we're going to implement Option F, we haven't done anything, that de facto density that really doesn't exist. We did try to document that in the red report, in all fairness, to show that that was land that was zoned multifamily. We tried to account for all the multifamily land in the city, but I don't think that's a real density. And taking action to rezone that land to some other district really would not be a very meaningful action to take. A couple of other points made by some other speakers. Well, there's one other point that Mr. Combs brought out which was about an approach where you would reduce the density in some areas and perhaps even increase it in other areas. This action we're taking tonight is an across-the-board approach designed to (unclear) of what we're looking at tonight, designed to accomplish some things the Council has asked us to do, designed to bring us in line with other localities, it would have significant, immediate effect. It' s not an end point. In the future, there' s always going to be adjustments that are being made. We are going to be bringing new land into the city. The annexation of the new land will be associated with - new annexation zoning for these areas. Some of these may in fact be suitable for multifamily. Others might be suitable for single family. But it's not an end point, that' s going to be shifting. Down in the valley there may be, in the future as we actually get a handle on these infrastructure needs and services needs, it may be that there may be areas down in the valley that where additional multifamily zoning would be appropriate. At this point, you know, we're, we' re trying to get at an action we can take now that will have a significant impact but it's not the end point. And this is going to be a shifting thing as considerations are made and as the Comprehensive Plan is a kind of a dynamic kind of document (unclear) . We'll follow that. This is not an end point and I can see adjustments being made on down the road, where in fact we may be wanting to reduce 14 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 densities further in some areas, maybe rezone entirely for multifamily in some areas, on down the road. But this is the action now that, that will have a significant impact at this time. And it's not an unreasonable action. It' s well thought out I believe. It's well documented; we've done some significant studies on it, trying to get at these objectives as best we can. And at this point in time we are still getting development at the rate that I was talking about earlier, this 888 units plus 1200 and some units under SEPA. You might say we are looking at somewhere between 800 and a thousand units being permitted each year, so I don't know if we want to continue to study this and study this and study this, before we really take any action. I could say, I think I ' ll, unless you have some questions. Chairman Badger: Dan, in particular, how did Auburn get its down to 18 units per acre? What did they do, actually rezone? Mr. Stroh: Auburn undertook a major Comprehensive Plan amendment (unclear) September 1986 . They were trying as, this is the best I know what went on, they were trying to, there was strong concern there raised about preservation of single family. Auburn, as I say, experienced the same thing we did .in going from a predominantly single family into predominantly multifamily, where by 1984 they were 55% multifamily or over 55% I believe they said. So they, they very drastically set up some districts where they said that their primary, in fact, they say their primary focus in their residential development is towards single family. And I believe they have at least one district where multifamily is allowed as a conditional use at somewhat less than 18 units to the acre. It may, I 'm not sure what that figure is but the only one where it' s allowed outright is this, this district where it' s allowed at 18 units to the acre. After they finished their Comprehensive Plan amendment then they went through a zoning amendment and I 'm not, I don't know the whole history of, of, in fact somebody else, one of the other planners here may be more familiar with that, but they, they went very aggressively after trying to preserve single family. They said that they were both trying to preserve single family and restore the, the family orientation of the city, and that they went after this very, very aggressively in the way that they did it. Chairman Badger: I still didn't really understand whether they downzoned the land. Mr. Stroh: Yea, and I don't know the answer to that. I think they must have because I can't imagine that in, some people have been in the area longer than I have, but they, they must have had much more intensive multifamily districts prior to that, that action, because 18 is, is, there's no community in this area I 'm aware of that has that as a ceiling except for Auburn. The norm I would say in this area is more 15 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 like, for your highest density zone, it's more like 30, and for your middle density zone, the number's a lot more like 18 to 20. Mr. Ward: Did, does anyone know as to what Auburn accomplished there? Their aim? Mr. Stroh: I think it' s kind of early to. Mr. Ward: Did it stop development in Auburn? Mr. Stroh: I think it's kind of early to say. Auburn's kind of in a, in an interesting position because they're so far south they don't, they're not getting all this multifamily pressure. Mr Ward: I 'm doing a fantastic lot of building in Auburn. I was trying to be facetious. Mr. Stroh: They are not growing as fast as Kent is. Mr. Ward: No, I know. (Unclear) they stopped development. Mr. Stroh: Well, I don't think they stopped development either, but I am not, not the best person to tell you what's been going on there. Chairman Badger: Alright. I would like to offer any one of the speakers a minute or two of rebuttal or anything if you, any of you, would care to do so? All right, three of you have indicated. Let' s go in the order that we did before. Larry, you were first. I ' ll give you about a minute or two for your comments. Mr. Frazier: Last time I got thirty seconds. I 'll take two or three minutes though. I have a couple of questions if I can direct them to you and maybe you can direct them back to staff, if that would be the procedure you'd like to, to utilize. I need to know if, if there' s not going to be a significant discussion of the Comprehensive Plan and its role to play in the development process in the Kent area, and it' s going to be dealt with in a, a matter of years by the multifamily reduction. If it in fact takes place at 20% as is being proposed, is in fact, this going to be a change of significance, enough significance or maybe no significance at all as far as the city is concerned? Is it considered a non-project under the SEPA rules and would there have to be a Declaration of Nonsignificance issued? Mr. Harris: Just to answer that, I think, we've already done that, haven't we? It's a Declaration of Nonsignificance and since it' s a non-project situation. 16 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 Mr. Frazier: I objected to that in the very first letter that we, we gave and we still would like to go on the record that because we ._ believe that a Comprehensive Plan is of a major significance in the development strategy for a community that changes of this magnitude that should have been a declaration of, of, should have been an EIS on a non-project done and still would like to maintain that for the record. I would suggest that there, you know the red book as it's currently before you, is a pretty good document. It's got a lot of basic facts in it and things of this nature, I agree that some of the -• discussion about the things we're trying to achieve in terms of the environments in their community and Dan read some of those. I would suggest though that with, because of the major impact that this proposal has before you, and I hope you understand that it is a major impact, that it is being viewed as where is the justification for the 20% reduction; where did that figure come from; and does the city understand the impact of that particular reduction? I would suggest, with all due respect to the elected officials, that they had a considerable amount of pressure put on them from the community for obvious reasons, they've been hit with a lot of development, that it's more of a political reduction there as opposed to a technical reduction. And I believe that that is part of the reason why we would like to see an EIS done on this project and it be put into a broader framework, rather than having it done in the manner that it' s currently being done. I guess I have said enough tonight. I do appreciate your being attentive to what I have to say. We would like to see more time on this particular issue by this Planning Commission because I understand it's the only one that' s going to hold a public hearing unless the Council decides to go for a public hearing. We will be calling for a public hearing on this issue as opposed to not having a -• public, it ' s too important an issue for this community and for the property owners and the impact it' s going to have on them. Thank you. __. Chairman Badger: Thank you. Loren, did you wish a second? Mr. Combs: Just briefly your honor. Chairman Badger: Come forth. Mr. Combs: Thank you. I had to use "your honor" so you would let me get back up here. I promise to be brief. I appreciate the position that your Planning Department is in because I 've sat there trying to get through an idea that I honestly believe in and I can't understand sometimes why they don't move quite as quick as they should. But I 've also sat up there and I hope you respect the request, you take a little time and look at this proposal. You need to look at your mandate under Resolution 1123 . Mr. Stroh went through some of the things and said no we' re addressing that one somewhere else, we can address this one 17 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 somewhere else. But Resolution 1123 said those were the concerns that the Council had that they wanted you to consider and that's what you're here for. I respectfully ask you to look at it and to make sure that what you're doing pinpoints those concerns and doesn't use the broad brush. I brought with me some numbers given to me by my client. I didn't think I was going to have to use them but I think it's important at this stage that you understand the effect of the broad brush approach and why it is important to pinpoint it. Not only is a pinpoint more accurate and you'll more directly attack what your concern is, but let me throw out some numbers. On my client's particular project, the lost opportunity cost, if you went with the broad brush approach, and assume an area to build to maximum density, is $621, 000. Now I submit to you that you ought to be real careful when you start using a broad brush when you're talking about those kinds of numbers. And as one of the gentlemen pointed out, you do have people that have bought land, moms and pops or developers or whoever they are, they bought land with an expectation of being able to realize the opportunity that this land afforded given the existing zoning. You are talking about too big of numbers to use a broad brush. Ms. Stoner: Would you define your term please? I hate to interrupt you but I don't think I am going to get your point unless I 'm clear about what. Mr. Combs: No, I appreciate that. I 'm not an economist so forgive me if this isn't technically correct. But what they do in the appraisal world is if you are going to build an apartment complex, they will come up with a value and attach that to it and that is the opportunity that can be created out of that piece of ground. The lost opportunity then, is they no longer have the opportunity to do that, it would be a smaller scale, and the difference between the two is this $621, 000. I asked my client, again, I 'm kind of simple when it comes to numbers so I said well, translate that into, for me, into money. How much money would I have in my pocket if I 'd of built the bigger unit, 'cause I know I 'd have had to spend some more in lost opportunity cost to build these extra units that you've taken away from me. The lost profit off of, off of this given project, if that were, if they wanted to build to maximum which they did not, but if they were, under the broad brush approach, the loss to them would have been $272 , 000 because you are taking the gravy. When you knock off the top, you're knocking off the gravy because they plug in their cost, there' s a certain basic cost that you have to incur no matter how many you build, when you build 19 or 23 . When you knock off that 20% or that 18%, you're knocking off the profit because almost a, 100% of that extra unit is profit and you're skimming off the profit. So I just ask you to consider carefully using the broad brush, when you're impacting, my client it' s not going to affect that much because we're not building at maximum 18 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 N density, but there are people out there that you are extremely adversely impacting, too much so to use a broad brush and I ask you to consider it. I did it again, your honor, I'm sorry. Chairman Badger: Loren, before you leave. Mr. Combs: Yes sir. Chairman Badger: Do you know anything about Auburn in this area? Mr. Combs: I know a little bit your honor. Chairman Badger: Do you know, do you know if they had zoning permitting higher than 18 units per acre before? Mr. Combs: Yes they did. And many cities still do. For example, one of the cities I represent has zoning far in excess of what you have. Chairman Badger: Did Auburn actually downzone that? Mr. Combs: Well, that's a tricky term, your honor. What you're doing in my mind is a downzone. But they do it by sleight of hand, where if they change a number from MRM to a different number, a different lettering, that that' s technically a downzone, but what you've done is a downzone under the guise of a text change, because you then have taken a zone that was 23 units to the acre and changed it to 18, but you're calling it a text amendment but I still can't build those five units no matter what you call it. Chairman Badger: I guess that answers my question. Mr. Combs: I, I tried not to; attorneys tend not to answer questions, your honor. Thank you kindly. Chairman. Badger: Thank you. Michael, did you or David wish any comments? Mr. Halinen: I 've got a brief one. Chairman Badger: Good Mr. Halinen: Again, David Halinen for the record. I would like to talk about two points, one last addressed by Mr. Combs regarding the gravy quote, unquote element of a, a multifamily development project being tied into the, the last number of units. To quite an extent, that may be an over-simplification. I, I think it makes a valid point, but I think another element of that is that a developer will not go 19 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 forward with a project unless there are profits to be made. What effectively will happen is that some of the projects will not happen and the effect on the market is to raise the rents overall. So I think that, that is a, a impact of the proposal that you have to, I think that it's provable, that this will, will in fact have some impact upon rents in the city. The other comment relates to Mr. Stroh's reference to the grounding of the proposal in the Comprehensive Plan. He chose as a for-instance a reference to one of the Comp Plan's policies in a, the Housing Element section. That choice I think is, is symptomatic of the broad brush approach and the lack of a relation to the Comprehensive Plan. I believe the cited policy urged the benefits to the city of a mix of housing types in the city which is probably a laudable and a good goal for the city to have. However, , I would suggest that rather than supporting the mix, this proposal actually tends to inhibit the mix. What we're doing is squeezing down the relative densities between single family and multifamily housing. I frankly can't logically understand how the 20% reduction on multifamily housing in any way enhances the mix. So I, I think again it's symptomatic of the fact that this proposal doesn't have good linkage with the Comprehensive Plan and that should be I think a red flag for you in terms of your consideration of the matter tonight. Thank you. Chairman Badger: Thank you very much. Commission, it' s approaching ten o'clock. What will your procedure wish be for tonight? Do you wish to continue this meeting, continue the public hearing? (Unclear) Ms. Stoner: Mr. Chairman, you mean to continue the public hearing until February? Chairman Badger: Yes, go ahead. Ms. Forner: I would like to make just a comment, perhaps not on the public hearing but just based on the amendment itself. I don't know if this is an appropriate time to (unclear) . Mr. Harris: I guess we have a motion and a second so (unclear) Chairman Badger: We have a motion and a second (unclear) discussion tonight to continue. Does everybody fully understand there's been a motion and second make to continue the public hearing to the first available public hearing opportunity date whether that' s (unclear) Mr. Harris: We want an explicit date, and that would be February 29th. Chairman Badger: to February 29th. 20 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 Mr. Ward: This is leap year isn't it? Chairman Badger: There's been a motion and second made to continue the hearing until February 29th. Will anyone call for the question? Mr. Ward: So called. Chairman Badger: All in favor of continuing the public hearing until February 29th on the multifamily density issue? Aye? Opposed? One opposed (unclear) . I do so agree that it' s then been continued to February 29th. Is there anything further or I would like to close public hearing? Mr. Harris: Well, I would like to Chairman Badger: It has been continued. Mr. Harris: I would like to suggest that on, now on your February 22nd you are going to have your task force that night. I 'd like some direction from the Commission possibly on what you would like from this staff concerning this matter for that work session, because if we just come back to the public hearing on the 29th you've got all this material that's before you now, would you like the staff to do some further review on the relationship to the Comp Plan, relationship to the ordinance? There are a number of items (unclear) Ms. Stoner: I also think it would be helpful to have verbatim minutes at that meeting so that we can go back over the testimony we 've heard tonight on this issue. Mr. Harris: And that will be done on the 22nd. Chairman Badger: On the workshop date. Mr. Harris: OK, we' ll do that. Mr. Ward: Jim, Mr. Harris: Elmira Forner has some question that probably needs to be answered. (Unclear) Ms. Forner: I don't know if this is the appropriate time but it is dealing on this subject and that was kind of the. 21 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 Mr. Ward: Why don't you go ahead and say it and we'll make a determination. Ms. Forner: I guess I have not been involved in this whole process of, of the reduction for multifamily units, but I have been very involved in this area on the transportation issue. I have been involved on the subcommittee to the Standing Committee to the Puget Sound Council of Governments and I 've also been involved with METRO, so I understand the problem quite well from this point and I agree very much with the public comments, especially Mr. Combs about, ,you know, the alternatives to our problem. The, the one thing I don't agree with and I think that we've kind of got away from the purpose of this amendment, or whatever it is, of reducing the, the number of multifamily homes, and that to me instead of, it's, it' s not a shot-gun approach as far as I am concerned; it ' s a finger-in-the-dike approach; it' s, it's an opportunity for us to introduce some of the things that they have just mentioned. I don't know how many transportation plans that we have gone through and planned and finally adopted and by the time you adopt them they are obsolete. And I feel that in our Planning Department if we keep procrastinating, by the time we finally decide that all these neat things that we're supposed to do to make this valley a nice, livable place, and we're going to have light rail come down, and we' re going to have, you know, all these plans and special places and we're .going to have an industry here and have it all planned out, we are never going to get there unless we start acting now to say we need some time. And so I feel that reducing the, the rapid growth to a manageable rate buys us some time to do the things that you people want done. And if we don't find time, they're not going to get done and we're going to end up with a big sprawling mess that we' ll never find solutions for. And that' s kind of the comment I wanted to make on this is that it' s not the end of the world. And that' s why I said is there a sunset clause on it. I 'd like to say, hey let' s do this and say in three years, take another look at it and in the meantime we can go ahead with some of these projects, look at the Comprehensive Plan, but if you wait to go through the Comprehensive Plan again, that' s going to be five years and there' s going to be multifamily solid all over the valley. I mean, I 'm probably out of turn speaking like that but I have been involved in this kind of planning for eight years in this valley and I know what trying to play catch up is like and, and it' s not fun, so that' s. Chairman Badger: Would you like staff to address any particular one of your comments for the workshop? Ms. Forner: No, I just. Chairman Badger: Would you like them to address (unclear) 22 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 Ms. Forner: I think we need to keep this in perspective as a finger- in-the-dike approach to addressing the problem. I don't think, I think we need this in order to address the problems that have been suggested to (unclear) Mr. Harris: Mr. Chairman. I would like to say that generally the testimony is in your hands now and all we would do is highlight anything that you would like us to highlight, for instance the, relate our action back to the ordinance, discuss our action in relation to the Comprehensive Plan in more detail. Points well taken here except that we are advocating a staff report, a staff recommendation (unclear) 20% reduction in the manner that we put in the red book here. It' s going to be up to you in your debate to determine if that's the way you want to go. Ms. Rudy: If we are going to continue this hearing and we are, can we do something about limiting testimony in the next session to new testimony from new people so we don't rehash the same ground that we have at the last two hearings? Chairman Badger: Do you have any comments, Carol? Ms. Stoner: I, I think it's possible to do that if we have and read verbatim minutes from, from this. Ms. Rudy: It seems to me we've done that before. Ms. Stoner: Yea, I think it's a possibility. Chairman Badger: Are there any other comments? Mr. Ward: I want to say (unclear) I would like to see staff address some of the, some of the comments made in regard to our adherence to the Comprehensive Plan. I think, I think that's (unclear) . I would further like to see, to get some input from staff as to, assuming at the next public hearing time that we will, will, a vote will be made as to what our recommendation is to be to the Council regarding the, the, the shot-gun approach (unclear) been suggested, that we have, have something, you know, regarding a status report of (unclear) transportation outlook looks for (unclear) I think that' s an important point for consideration. I disagree with our Commission here in this (unclear) it's much broader than that, I think that, that a question has been raised and asked a number of times as to where the 20% came from and I think one person said it and, and it, and I think that we would have to (unclear) that if we want to control multifamily development that there are better ways of doing it and (unclear) ways 23 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 (unclear) first issue (unclear) we voted upon. One personal comment I 'd like to make is that, that supposedly there's a lot of people out there who are, are against the rapid growth and development as far as multifamily in the Kent area but I was surprised to see that none of them spoke tonight and that's one question. I don't know whether we're not advertising strongly enough or whether basic people, John Q. Public, will come out and I just think developers (unclear) but the people who are out there, who are saying that we are tired of the multifamily development in the area, who want to see it reduced, I would like to, I sure would like to see them come up here and say that, but I haven't seen them tonight. And even though that much testimony in the past has been given in workshops and what have you that indicate that a, that a, there's a lot of people claim that the, that they are tired of the rapid multifamily development (unclear) , I think the economy determines how development goes. I think we have a, a fantastic situation in Kent with the rapid growth and development than we have had in (unclear) and it' s sort of unusual and it's something that the, the (unclear) but every time you have development you are going to have, to have people. (Unclear) Chairman Badger: Is there any better way, Jim, of getting a newspaper article before our next. Mr. Harris: I, it' s hard for me to answer that because without the press being involved in this kind of situation, it is difficult. We have to try to get the articles in the newspaper and they only put articles in the newspaper if there' s something catchy. And we have talked them into putting articles like this in the paper but it's difficult. It's not easy. If they're not attending, they only attend at the City Council. They will not attend Board of Adjustment, Human Services or Planning Commission. Mr. Ward: (unclear) Respectfully submitted, James P. Ha ris, Secretary 24 SEATTLE•KING COUNTY BOARD OF REALTORS° Ld 2810 Eastlake Avenue East Seattle, Washington 98102 REALTOR® Telephone (206)328-1980 Q -e Cel co p � �> January 25, 1988 Mr. Robert Badger, Chairman Planning Commission City of Kent 220 S. 4th Ave. Kent, WA 98032 Dear Mr. Badger and Members of the Planning Commission: The Seattle-King County Association of REALTORS• has been studying the proposed amendments to the Kent Zoning Code dealing with multifamily zoning. We have no formal position supporting or opposing the amendments - but we would like to offer the following comments: 1. REDUCTIONS IN INTENSITY OF LAND USE MAY NEGATIVELY AFFECT PROPERTY VALUES AND THE TAX BASE. We are concerned that an overall reduction in possible density of 20% may have a detrimental effect upon property values and the tax base of the City. Land that has had its development potential reduced will be worth accordingly less to developers. The resultant reduction in the tax base will have far-ranging negative effects. We urge the members of the Planning Commission to consider this result carefully. 2. THE REDUCTION OF DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL WSLL MEAN LESS AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR PRESENT AND FUTURE RESIDENTS OF KENT. An overall reduction in allowable density of 20% will have a direct and immediate effect upon the availability of affordable housing. As you know , the laws of supply and demand govern the cost of rental housing in a given area. To reduce the available inventory during a time of projected population increase (The King County 2000 study predicts 300,000 additional people in the Puget Sound region by 2000) will certainly lead to higher rents charged in ALL rental housing. We strongly urge you to consider the effects of these proposed amendments from this perspective also. REALTOR • Is a registered mark of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS 3 . OTHER WAYS EXIST WHICH MAY SOLVE TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS. It is our understanding that these proposed amendments are being offered in response to complaints about increased traffic in the streets of Rent. While we acknowledge that reducing density is one way to reduce traffic, there may be other ways which may work at less cost to everyone involved . Other alternatives include Transportation Benefit Districts, Local Improvement Districts, Mitigation Fees, and increased alternative transportation, such as bus or rail. We have seen nothing in the record which indicates that any of these are being considered as possible alternatives . We respectfully request that these be considered simultaneously with the proposed amendments which are being offered. For the aforementioned reasons , we ask at this time that you consider these potential consequences before adopting the proposed amendments . These comments are intended to be constructive in nature. Any appearance otherwise is purely unintentional . Thank you in advance for considering them. Yours sincerely, Michael Sp nce Governmental Affairs Director MS:ms LEG342 Seattle Master Builders Association 2155 112th Avenue N.E., Suite 100•Bellevue, Washington 98004•Telephon (2 ;)451.7920,' - January 18, 1988 Mr. Robert Badger, Chairman RE: Multifamily Development.. Planning Commission Standards (Density) City of Kent Public Hearing 1/25/88 220 S. Fourth Avenue Kent, Washington 98032 Dear Chairman Badger and Members of the Planning Commission: This is a letter for the record in response to the proposed amendments to the Kent Zoning Code Chapters 15.04.04 through 15.04.60, and Chapter 15.07.60 as well as additions 15.08.215, and 15.09.045. It is also requested that the Seattle Master Builder's December 14, 1987 letter to the Planning Commission (see attached) be incorporated into the public hearing record. First, the Seattle Master Builders Association has reviewed the proposed multifamily development amendments and offer the following comments: As of this date the Association has attended one public hearing and one work session on the Multifamily Development Standards being proposed. The amendments dated January 11 , 1988 in our opinion are a substantial improvement over previous drafts. In particular, the concept of an Administrative Design Review (ADR) is an excellent idea. It is the Association's opinion, that the ADR concept would give individual builders and owners more flexibility in designing and building on their property. The Association could support the ADR concept. It is also suggested that the Planning Commission consider within the ADH concept a bonus density for superior design. In particular, under the Administrative Design Review Section 15.09.045 an item should be added dealing with a density bonus. The Seattle Master Builders Association recommends that the following type of language be added to Section 15.09.45: If in the opinion of the Planning Director based upon the findings that a superior site plan is identified, he (the Director) may award bonus units. " It is suggested that the density bonus formula would best be placed in Chapter 15.09 - Administration. We believe that such bonus incentive would help bring about better designed multifamily living areas for the City of Kent. The staff of the Seattle Master Builders offers its expertise in preparing the final language for a density bonus provision. ...,.. O#"N rO"",0 Seattle Master Builders Association is affiliated with the National Assocication of Home Builders 2 - Second, and still of concern to the Seattle Master Builders Association is the overall question of a density reductions by some 20% in all multifamily zoning areas. (Resolution No. 1123 passed by Council on December 1, 1986) . In our letter of December 14, 1987 this issue was raised. As of this date very little discussion has been undertaken by your staff or by the Planning Commission. At your January 11, 1988 work session your staff handed out some basic information about multifamily activity during 1987 as well as a statistical analysis of the existing units, available land and building potential. You will recall it is the Association's position that by increasing setbacks, limiting heights as well as increasing landscaping requirements, density in multifamily areas are being reduced in the City of Kent. It is our professional opinion that the minimum lot sizes in your Zoning Code, which determines density have to be considered along with the amendment to the multifamily standards. Otherwise the density reductions are taking place by modifying dimensional standards within multifamily zoning districts. It is also our opinion that the City Council directed the Planning Commission to consider revisions to the Comprehensive Plan as it states in Resolution No. 1123. We suggest that if any density reduction take place in Kent it is done more properly together with revision of the Comprehensive Plan. We, therefore, recommend that you direct your staff to look at this question in much more detail prior to the Planning Commission approving any new multifamily standards. At this time the Seattle Master Builders Association for the reasons cited doesn't fully support the amendments before you. We would like our concerns addressed and hereby request it by this letter. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the Planning Commission on this important matter of major concern to our membership. Sincerely, L K. raztVCPAPA Directo Government Affairs LKF/sy attachment cc: Sheldon Blue Jim Harris, Planning Director Seattle Master Builders Association 2155- 112th Avenue N.E., Suite 100•Bellevue, Washington 98004•Telephone (206)451-7920 December 14, 1987 Mr. James Byrne, Chairman RE: Multifamily Development Standards Planning Commission City of Kent 220 S. Fourth Avenue Kent, Washington 98032 Dear Chairman Byrne and Members of the Planning Commission. This is a letter for the record in response to the proposed amendments to the Kent Zoning Code - Chapters 15.04.040 through 15.04.060 and chapter 15.07. In evaluating the proposal by your Staff dated November 16, 1987 the proposed recommendation deals with three basic elements which include minimum Yard requirements (setbacks) height limitations and landscaping. - It is the Seattle Master Builders Association's understanding, that this proposal is designed "to improve the quality of the higher density residential environments in Kent, while not unduly restricting private enterprise or initiative." The Association applauds this approach to the problem, but is concerned about several items. I would like to outline them for you at this time. 1. In evaluating the proposal the documentation doesn't provide an analysis on what the economic, or design impacts are going to be on private property owners. By increasing the setbacks, limiting heights, as well as increasing the landscaping requirements future multifamily proposals-will be economically as well as design impacted. It is, therefore, recommended that your staff be directed to prepare an analysis so that property owners can see how they might be impacted fiscally as well as design-wise. It would be possible to prepare layouts (renderings, etc. ) that display the design impacts of the amendments. It also suggested that some cost figures be prepared which indicate how the amendments will affect cost considerationsto multifamily developments. 1 4 "�� Seattle Master Builders Association Is affiliated with the National Assocication of Home Builders r 2 - 2. Another concern has to do with the amendment impact on the density of multifamily developments in the City of Kent. It appears that the the proposed amendments are somewhat of a de facto approach and will decrease density (number of units) in the City of Kent. The Association is aware that Resolution No. 1123 passed by the Council on December 1, 1986 asks the Planning Commission to look at reducing multifamily densities by 20%. Therefore, in evaluating the proposed amendments in our opinion it appears that density is being reduced through modification of the zoning standards (the amendments before you) -- rather than through amendment of the density ceiling of the zoning code as described in the Kent Planning Department Report on Multifamily Density dated July 1987. The Association would like to suggest that if the City of Kent does plan to lower density levels of multifamily developments, that amendments to the standards, and the density question be linked together. Otherwise the amendments in our opinion by themselves, create a density reduction. We,therefore, believe that the density question should be fully debated, and evaluated before acting upon these amendments. 3. In the staff report of November 16, 1987 a Determination of Nonsignificance was anticipated. It is now our understanding that a Designation of Nonsignificance has now been issued. Although it is understood this is a non-project action under terms of SEPA, it appears that substantial impacts will occur. Throughout the Puget Sound jurisdictions have done Environmental Impact Statements for zoning code amendments. Therefore, it is recommended that your City Attorney be requested to look at the proposed amendments to see if, in fact, an environmental impact statement should not have been prepared by the City. It is the Association's preliminary opinion that such an impact statement should have been prepared given the major impact of the proposed amendments. In closing, I would like to thank the Commission for allowing the Seattle Master Builders Association this opportunity to speak before them on this Important matter. We would respectively request that you evaluate our remarks, and take them into consideration during your deliberations. The Association would also like to extend its expertise as well as its cooperation in helping the City of Kent come to a well thought out and equitable solution to the multifamily question now before you. Sincerely, Larry K. Frazier,-AICP, APA Director, Government Affairs LKF:sy cc: Don Chance KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 23, 1987 The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Byrne at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, November 23, 1987, in the Kent City Hall , City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: James Byrne, Chairman Robert Badger, Vice Chairman Anne Biteman Russell E. Dunham Greg Greenstreet Linda Martinez Nancy Rudy Carol Stoner Raymond Ward -- PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director James M. Hansen, Principal Planner Fred Satterstrom, Project Planner Dan Stroh, Assistant Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 26, 1987 Planning Commission minutes for the October 26, 1987, public hearing be approved as presented. Commissioner Dunham SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT (RR#87-3) Mr. Stroh presented the list of business LIMITED COMMERCIAL IN and professional services and personal PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE DISTRICT services requested by the Commission. Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the Commission adopt the following additions to the principal and conditional uses listed in Section 15.04.150: accounting, auditing, and bookkeeping services; educational and scientific research services; architectural and urban planning services; medical and dental laboratory services; advertising services; blueprinting and photocopying services; business and management consulting services; consumer and mercantile credit reporting services--adjustment and collection services; detective and protective services; research and development services; stenographic services and other duplicating and mailing services; news syndicate services; employment services; schools: driving (auto only) , business and stenographic; business associations and organizations Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1987 The following personal services may be permitted as conditional uses subject to being part of a planned development which is at least 50 percent occupied by office uses: beauty and barber services (including schools) ; tanning salons; nail manicuring services Commissioner Badger SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Mr. Satterstrom presented the City Council ' s request for the Planning Department and Planning Commission to review multifamily development standards with comments from the public, recommending text changes to the standards which would make the multifamily developments more compatible with adjoining land uses and provide adequate buffers along streets and entry ways. This would be one way of attempt- ing to improve the quality of life not only in the multifamily development but also as it affects adjacent developments. Mr. Stroh presented the proposal to amend Chapters 15.04.040 through 14.04.060 and Chapter 15.07 of the Kent Zoning Code to change the minimum yard requirements depending upon the type of street frontage involved, to. encourage lower roof lines if they are close to the street, and to change the landscaping requirement standards in the Garden Density (MRG), Medium Density (MRM) and High Density (MRH) Multifamily Residential Districts. Discussion followed regarding these standards and walkway areas in developments. Mr. Stroh explained that sidewalks are not addressed in the development standards but are implemented through the SEPA process. Colin Quinn, representing Centron, 3025 112th Avenue NE, Bellevue, supported the attempt to review the standards. He felt that setbacks, heights of buildings and landscaping were very important, but he would like to see a varying placement of buildings on a site. Through modulation and rotation of buildings, interesting spaces can be created between buildings to provide a more interesting, livable space. Building rotation eliminates straight lines. Increasing the setback requirement would inhibit the ability to rotate the building configuration. He contended that a building could be placed as closely as currently allowed, but this might be only a corner of the building. The effect achieved could be dramatic and could make a project appear to have less wall area. He assured the Commission that he would meet or exceed any standards set by the City of Kent, and he has done this with The Lakes project. He felt the staff should be given more flexibility and that each design solution should be handled on a case-by-case basis with the option to appeal . David Parks, 25946 129th Place SE, Kent, felt that the requirements did not address the issue of privacy. He felt that a six-foot-high fence does not provide adequate privacy when a multifamily development abuts a single family residential area. He suggested that trees need to be carefully selected because deciduous trees do not provide privacy in the winter. -2- Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1987 Lowell Hall , 22823 134th Avenue SE, Kent, pointed out that angles in buildings increase the cost of the structure and would increase the cost of the rent. He expressed concern about providing housing that could be afforded by the renters. He felt that the landscape plan should take into consideration the type of vegetation and coverage it could provide during the entire year and that the maintenance of this landscaping should be provided. Mr. Stroh was not certain if the rotation approach could be reached through standards or if this approach would require a design review committee. He felt that some extra time should be spent considering flexibility in standards. Commissioner Ward MOVED to close the 'public hearing. Commissioner Badger SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Ward MOVED to continue the hearing at a special meeting on December 14, 1987. Commissioner Dunham SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. MULTIFAMILY DENSITY Mr. Stroh presented the current proposal to amend the density provisions to .,, provide a "graduated scale" reduction in the maximum permitted densities of the multifamily districts. The percentage reduction in each zone would be directly based on that zone's density with the resulting overall reduction in development potential of approximately 20 percent. The proposal is designed to accomplish the Council 's intended density reduction in a fair and equitable manner. The staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Option B in the "Report on Multifamily Density" and suggests that the Commission recommend to the City - Council that Chapters 15.04.030 through 14.04.060 of the Kent Zoning Code be amended to accomplish this proposal . Colin Quinn stated that he is philosophically opposed to any attempt to dictate market demand by means of government regulations. He felt this was a political , not a planning, issue. There has been a dramatic shift from single family to multifamily development because of the changing American lifestyle. Many people are divorced and cannot afford a house payment, and many others are falling into an age group which does not choose to have the responsibilities of single family dwelling. There are no regulations that can alter these changing needs. He felt that if people lived near their jobs, there would be less transportation impact on the freeways and bridges. This could be accomplished with multifamily units so that the workers could live near their jobs. He felt that the public should have their choice of housing, and that a realistic density would be 18-25 units per acre. Lowell Hall felt that this study was a response to the traffic and utility problems. The area between the Cedar River and the Green River is the largest area left in King County for housing, and the largest growth will be in the area east of Kent. If land is downzoned, the developers will build east of the city limits of Kent and the city will still have traffic problems but no revenue from the developments. -3- Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1987 Mary H. Williams, 25331 68th Avenue South, taught school in Kent for 45 years and feels that the quality of life is better in a single family residential area than in a multifamily development. David Halinen, representing Wright Group, a multifamily developer, 10900 NE Eighth Street, Suite 1000, Bellevue, felt that it is important to provide housing where the jobs are located. He suggested incentives, such as density bonuses, when certain performance standards are met. Andy Miller, 18606 SE 287th Street, Kent, stated that his taxes had increased 31 percent this year and expressed concern about who would bear the cost for the new multifamily developments. He commented that traffic in Kent is as congested on the weekend as it is during the week. Jim Orr, 24909 114th Avenue SE, Kent, felt that people on the East Hill are over- whelmingly in favor of more single family development in the area. He suggested that where multifamily is to be developed, it should be spread out to certain locations. Leona Orr suggested that costs for building single family residences be reduced. She felt that multifamily housing would not decrease the costs of services and hoped that the single family residents would not be carrying the tax burden for those who live in multifamily units. Mr. Stroh concluded by stating that the proposal is not intended to stop multi- family developments but only to reduce the densities of these developments. This proposal does not involve rezoning any land from multifamily to single family use. Commissioner Rudy MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Stoner MOVED to continue the hearing until January. Commissioner Rudy SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Commissioner Badger was elected as Chairman and Commissioner Martinez as Vice Chairman for 1988. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Ward MOVED and Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jame P. Harris, Secretary -4- KENT PLANNING AGENCY STAFF REPORT -- FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 1987 AMENDMENTS TO MULTIFAMILY DENSITY LIMITATIONS I. BACKGROUND In December 1986, the Kent City Council passed Resolution No. 1123 . The Resolution referenced a number of concerns regarding the City' s rapid growth and the proliferation of multifamily housing. Among these were the impacts of uncontrolled growth on the City' s infrastructure and its ability to provide necessary public services, the projected proportion of multifamily to single-family residential development, and adherence to the City' s Comprehensive Plan goals of environmental suitability and neighborhood preservation. Resolution 1123 set forth a major policy regarding the future of housing in Kent: the intent of the City Council was to achieve an average density reduction of twenty percent on undeveloped multifamily-zoned lands throughout the City. This Resolution is the impetus behind the current proposal . In the ensuing months since the December 1986 Resolution, the following benchmark actions have taken place: o Spring 1987 - Planning Department undertakes a comprehensive survey of multifamily development and available multifamily-zoned land in the City. o July 1987 - Planning Department releases "Report on Multifamily Density. " o August 24 - City Council Planning Committee reviews six policy options in Report; settles on a preferred approach. o September 8 - City Council reviews progress on issue at monthly work session. o September 15 - City Council passes Resolution No. 1145. In this Resolution, Council endorses Options B and C in the aforementioned report; sends the issue on to the Planning Commission and Hearing Examiner for review and further public input. o September 21 - Planning Commission reviews the issue at its monthly work session. STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 1987 PAGE TWO o October 19 - Planning Commission considers the issue further at its monthly work session. II. PROPOSAL The current proposal is to amend the density provisions of Zoning Code Chapters 15 . 04 . 030 through 15 . 04 . 060, Multifamily Residential Districts. The revisions provide a "graduated scale" reduction in the maximum permitted densities (dwelling units per acre) of the multifamily districts. The percentage reduction ranges from 7 . 5% in the MRD (Duplex) District to approximately 30% in the MRH (High Density) Zone. The resulting revised density ceilings would be as follows: MRH, 28 ; MRM, 19 ; MRG, 14 ; and MRD, 9 units per acre. The proposed action targets the lands with the highest potential development density for the largest percentage cutbacks. The percentage reduction in each zone is directly based on that zone' s density, with a resulting overall reduction in development potential of approximately 20% . Under the proposal, development of underdeveloped and vacant land (excluding the Lakes) would result in an increase of 6, 865 units under a fully built-out 'scenario. Compared to the current development potential of 8, 605 units under build-out at existing Zoning Code densities, this approach represents a reduction of 1,740 potential units (an overall 20 . 2% reduction in development potential) . The proposal is designed to accomplish the Council ' s intended density reduction in a fair and equitable manner. The reduction would affect all multifamily-zoned land in the City. It would target those properties with the greatest impact on municipal services and the environment with the highest percentage reductions. It would leave in place the existing four-tiered system of multifamily densities, and retain reasonable economic value for all properties affected. III. DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED PROPERTIES The proposal would affect all multifamily-zoned properties in the City. This includes the following districts: MRD (Duplex) , MRG (Garden Density) , MRM (Medium Density) , and MRH (High Density) . The Planning Department's July 1987 "Report on Multifamily Density" documented the amount of available multifamily land within each zoning district and STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 1987 PAGE THREE Census neighborhood as of June 30 . Together with vacant properties, "available" land includes _ "underdeveloped" parcels; i. e. , those properties with a significantly less intense current use than permitted. An example would be an MRM parcel occupied by a single-family dwelling. Such "underdeveloped" properties have a high potential for future conversion to the more intense multifamily use. The Report provides a neighborhood breakdown of vacant and underdeveloped multifamily-zoned land. The July data show 6 . 4 acres of vacant MRD, 246. 3 acres MRG, 152 . 1 acres MRM, and 9 .9 acres of vacant MRH-zoned land. For underdeveloped land, the data show 0 acres MRD, 22 .3 acres of MRG, 86.2 acres MRM, and 46. 8 acres of MRH-zoned land. With the exception of the Meeker Neighborhood, base for the Lakes Development, the largest portion of available land occurs in the four East Hill neighborhoods. The proposed amendments would primarily affect the above vacant and underdeveloped lands, with the exception of the following: 1) Properties available as of June 30 and therefore included in the inventory, which have received or will receive building permits between July 1 and enactment of the proposal ; and 2) The Lakes development, which includes 219 of the 258 vacant MRG-zoned acres . . This large phased development is proceeding under an approved Master Plan with overall development density set by the Hearing Examiner as a condition of its original rezone. Fully developed multifamily properties would be minimally affected by the proposal . The revised standards would only affect such properties if they were to expand or be rebuilt. IV. CONSIDERATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan sets forth major policies governing future development of the City. It is a statement of community goals and aspirations, and is designed to provide for an orderly and coordinated pattern of growth. The Zoning Code is based on the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and amendments must be similarly STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 1987 PAGE FOUR based. This proposal is consistent with the policies expressed in the Comprehensive Plan, as shown below. Goal 3 of the Housing Element is to "assure an adequate and balanced supply of housing units offering a diversity of size, densities, age, style and cost. " In pursuit of this goal, the proposal is designed to correct the growing imbalance in the ratio of single-family to multifamily housing. A reduction in multifamily densities and related encouragement of single-family development should provide for a greater diversity of housing choices within the City. Goal 4 of the Housing Element is to "assure environmental quality in residential areas. " The proposed density reduction provides for a less intense pattern of land use. It is expected to result in reduced land clearance, reduced coverage with impervious areas, and increased opportunities for on-site landscaping and open space. All of these should better protect and enhance the residential environment. The overall goal of the Public Utilities Element is to "provide a planned, coordinated utility system. " The rapid growth of multifamily development in recent years has greatly stressed the City's ability to provide necessary public facilities and services (water and sewer, police , fire protection, etc . ) . A reduction in multifamily development potentials will enhance the City' s ability to provide needed public facilities and services in an efficient and coordinated manner, consistent with the above goal . The overall goal of the Circulation Element is "to establish a balanced, safe and efficient transportation system for all modes of travel . " Additional vehicular traffic is a major impact of new multifamily residential development. Traffic generation reports show that each new multifamily dwelling generates an average 6 . 1 to 6. 6 daily vehicle trips, including 0 . 6-0. 7 trips during the critical p.m. peak hour. The estimated reduction in development potential of 1, 740 units would thus be coupled with a reduction of 10, 614-11, 484 potential additional residential vehicle trips. By reducing a major portion of potential increases in multifamily trip generation, the proposal should facilitate a more balanced and orderly circulation system, consistent with the above goal of the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 1987 PAGE FIVE V. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE A State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Checklist was prepared for this non-project action. The Checklist was submitted on November 5, 1987 . A Determination of Nonsignificance is anticipated. VI . RECOMMENDATION Based on the above considerations and the more complete information contained in the Planning Department' s July 1987 "Report on Multifamily Density, " the Planning Department staff recommends that the Planning commission adopt the proposal described in Part II, for a "graduated scale" reduction in permitted multifamily densities (Option B in the "Report on Multifamily Density") , and that the Commission recommend to the City Council that Chapters 15. 04 . 030 through 15. 04 . 060 of the Kent Zoning Code be amended to accomplish this proposal . Kent. Planning Department November 13 , 1987 Appendix C-4 „h., ... Kent Planning Department MULTIFAMILY ZONED <LANDS INVENTORY VACANT LAND by Neighborhood and Zone MRD MRG MRM MRH Neighborhood Total Benson Center 0.0 1.8 15.8 0.0 17.5 Balance of City 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 ' Cambridge 0.0 0.0 2B.4 0.0 28.4 ' Downtown 4.6 3.6 4.0 0.0 12.2 East Hill 0.0 14.4 34.8 0.0 49.1 ' Grandview 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 8.5 Lower- East Hill 1 .8 5.4 14.5 2.7 24.4 Midway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Meeker 0.0 219.0 38.9 0.0 257.9 South Central 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 5.3 Scenic Hill 0.0 2.1 0.0 7.1 9.3 Nest Hill 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --------------------------------------------------------------------- - 6.4 246.3 152.1 9.9 414.7 1 Appendix C-5 Kent Planning Department MULTIFAMILY ZONED LANDS INVENTORY UNDERDEVELOPED LAND by Neighborhood and Zone MRD MRG MRM MRH Neighborhood Total :., Benson Center 0.0 0.7 11 .2 0.0 11 .9 Balance of City 0.0 2.9 1 .1 0.0 4.0 `. ;-Cambridge 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Downtown 0.0 0.0 31 .4 2.5 33.9 ". East Hill 0.0 0.0 24.1 0.0 24.1 Grandview 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lower East Hill 0.0 18.7 3.0 42.2 63.8 Midway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ;:::•+.'` Meeker 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 7.3 South Central 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 7.2 , Scenic Hill 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 2.2 ' West Hill 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.3 86.2 46.8 155.2 in it 4: Kt�UM!It ! LLJ Z � ,�� f • • �. •,_ Ili : .w P II _ i I I _. r • ��1 r 1 I i i I, ��'l:1 ' I I �-•41;:rC_:>� u'i, ! J,I A. i. if . , ., �•'' ' �, 1 _ •, I I III �4� ' I I it •�-� - ,._ lit ��,q,, � :� :� �. Y-z. f � r Its• _ { ,:I .. ., _ � _� _ ,_- � ,•- --' ((�� ••- n i �•i ill' , ,. 3�Ii _ _ r'..i I I I'l j4� — •, ! I I I .I I!I *n'_ ,• I I!st 1 — I _` 'i bf—Ill•. — i r' ! ` — .I —3 I�� L' _ till'.'!; l \—\�..I�%�'_��-,. " �I�: '�-�-I��'-a�E'�`�,:�,t.-� _-. .,�....�,�crn"i.f^'� . .- , F{��tl. r � -•�� '-v d. .�•� . - September 15, 1987 HOUSING & all stated that the staff recommends that the COMMUNITY $ `�, 180 be used for South of Willis Pedestri DEVELOPMENT Impn vements . Ball also noted that the st f had ne a survey of the area covered by ock Grant nds and found that approximate) 240 homes ar in need of repair. Mayor Kelle r declared the public earing open. Jean Salls, Director of the South ing County YWCA Emergency ousing Program, oted that homelessness is serious rob em in South King County and th t this pr ect would house approximately 108 f ilies, or 300 people. Salls stated that approxima ely 5% of these people would be Kent resident and that priority would be given in thes ty-funded units to residents of the Cit of nt. She noted that the project is cons • stent w h the overall goal of the Human Reso K ces elemen of the Kent Comprehensive P1 n, and urged e Council to support the reMmendation of th staff. There were no fVdthe r comments from the udience and WHITE MOVat the hearing be clo d . Woods seconded motion carried. WOO S MOVED to appro e the 1988 Housing and Commune y Develo ent Program as presented. White _. se con ed . Motion carried. Mayor Kelleher com nded the members of the City of Kent H an Se vices Commission for the good work they ha e ne in presenting their material . ZONING ( CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 31 ) REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOWELL Multi-Family Density Reduction. ADOPTION of Resolution 1145 , forwarding the City Council Planning Committee ' s recommendation of Options B and C of the report on multi-family density to the Planning Commission and Hearing Examiner for action. This matter was discussed at the City Council Workshop of September 8, 1987 . Dowell noted that he feels that the resolution restricts the Planning Commission and suggested including the words "or any other options" after Options B and C in Section 2 . He noted that that would free the Planning Commission to accept input in their hearings on all or ariy other options. Woods noted that since the Planning Commission had discussed this for several months already , she would be reluctant to include the six options which had been considered. Dowell stated that he agrees with Options B and C, but that it would be too re- strictive to limit the Planning Commission to - 6 September 15 , 1987 ZONING them. WOODS MOVED that Resolution 1145 be adopted as presented. Houser seconded. Bailey suggested adding the words "or with amendments to those recommendations" after Options B and C. Upon Biteman ' s question, Harris noted that the recommendation would not be difficult for the Planning - Commission to implement. Woods noted that the Planning Committee had been providing the Planning Commission guidance for their consid- eration so that they would have a focus in their hearings , and suggested passing the resolution. Dowell reiterated that the construc- tion of Section 2 limits the Planning Commission to Options B and C. Woods noted that Options B and C were their primary emphases and that the Planning Commission could come back to the Planning Committee at any time for further guidance. Bailey proposed , as a friendly amendment, adding the word "suggested" before "Options. B and C" and before "recommended options" . DOWELL MOVED that Section 2 be amended to read "The City Council hereby directs the Planning Department, Planning Commission and Hearing Examiner to undertake actions necessary to proceed with suggested Options B and C or any other options in the aforementioned "Report on Multi-family Density" , which includes input from the public on the Report and the suggested recommended options . Bailey seconded. The motion was defeated with only Dowell and and Bailey voting in favor . The motion to adopt Resolution 1145 as presented then carried with Woods , Houser , White and Biteman voting in favor . CENTENNIAL J NSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3C) COMMITTEE Cent ial Committee . ADOPTION of Resolu ' on 1144 , authorizing the Mayor to appoin Centennial cwmittee to make recom dations for the City ' s��rticipation in e celebration of the Washington State Cen nial celebration and to plan special eve for Kent ' s Centennial celebration . OFFICE SPACE (CONSENT CALEN ITEM 3J) LEASE Leasing of fice S ace. AUTHORIZA N for the Cit dministrator to negotiate and ter into letter of intent for the purpose of sing office space. The City Administrator - 7 - RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, regarding multifamily housing density. WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1123, desires to achieve a reduction in the density of multifamily housing developments; and WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned with the increasing imbalance between multifamily and single—family housing within the City, and the availability of a mix of housing options for Kent resident; and WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned with the City's ability to provide in a timely manner the public facilities and services necessary to support the increase in multifamily development; and WHEREAS, the City Council Planning Committee considered the issue related to multifamily housing density, including the health, safety and welfare of the community, in a meeting on August 24, 1987, and endorsed Options B and C as outlined in the Planning Department's "Report on Multifamily Density" dated July, 1987; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the aforementioned "Report on Multifamily Density" and the Planning Committee recommendation and the reasons therefore, at a workshop on September 8, 1987; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish a balance of housing options that meets the needs of the citizens and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens and community; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The City Council hereby endorses Options B -- and C presented in the Planning Department's July 1987 "Report on Multifamily Density." r Section 2. The City Council hereby directs the Planning Department, Planning Commission and Hearing Examiner to undertake actions necessary to proceed with Options B and C in the aforementioned "Report on Multifamily Density", which includes input from the public on the Report and the recommended options. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this /� day of S91.�" 1987. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of If 1 1987. DAN KE LEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: q �'11'-ctd�J ZL Gtr-�iGh-� BRENDA JACOBER; EPUTY CITY CLERK APPR VED AS TO FORM: A B DRISC LL, CIT - ORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. //q-� , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of 4, , 1987. I✓' e-,.c�c a-/ V-6e-e�eA-i(SEAL) BRENDA JACOBE DEPUTY CITY CLERK 05160-170 2 - KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT September 4, 1987 MEMO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director SUBJECT: Multifamily density recommendation from the City Council Planning Committee On August 24th, the City Council Planning Committee reviewed the six policy options contained in the report titled "Report on Multifamily Density. " This report addresses City Council Resolution #1123 concerning housing density in Kent. The Planning Committee recommends the following two policies from that report. 1. Option B - Graduated Scale Reduction Option B employs a graduated scale of density reduction, with higher percentage reduction taken on higher density zones, and vice versa. A formula was developed to determine the percentage reduction needed in each zone in order to achieve the desired 20% reduction in development potential. This formula takes into account the density ceiling of each zone relative to all other zones. In this way, the percentage reduction in each zone is directly based on that zone's relative density. For MRH, the resulting percentage reduction is 29 .92% ; for MRM, 17 . 20%; for MRG, 11.97%; and for MRD, 7 .48%. Applying these percentage reductions to existing density ceilings, the resulting ceilings would be as follows: MRH, 28 ; MRM, 19 ; MRG, 14 ; and MRD, 9 . As in Option A, this approach would be accomplished by a text change of the Zoning Code, initiated either by City Council or the Planning Commission. All multifamily-zoned properties in the City would be affected. Under Option B. full development of underdeveloped and vacant land (excluding The Lakes) would result in an increase of 6,865 units. Compared to the current development potential of 8, 605 units under existing Zoning Code densities, this approach represents a reduction of 1, 740 potential units (an overall 20.2% reduction) . In support of Option B is that it addresses the equity issue raised by the "across the board" approach. This approach targets the land with the highest potential development density for the largest percentage cutbacks. Another point in favor is that _. Kent's higher density zones (MRH and MRM) permit more units per acre than comparable zones in most other area jurisdictions; reduction of the density ceilings in these zones would bring Kent onto a par with other localities. Like Alternative A, this Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members September 4 , 1987 Page Two _ approach is fairly easy to accomplish by means of a text amendment to the Zoning Code. It is comprehensive in that it would affect all multifamily property in the City, and would accomplish the - desired 20% reduction. On the negative side, this approach is somewhat more complex than the "across the board" option. Option B is an equitable, comprehensive approach that will accomplish the full 20% reduction. 2 . Option C - Rezone of "Overzoned" areas Under this alternative, certain multifamily-zoned areas would be identified as having been "overzoned, " given existing uses on site and on adjacent lands. (Areas considered inappropriately zoned due to environmental constraints are covered under a separate alternative below. ) This approach is site-specific, affecting only those properties identified as "overzoned. " It would be accomplished by amendment of the Zoning Map, initiated by City Council. Two such "overzoned" areas have been tentatively identified, both in the Downtown Neighborhood. Both are located within the City's Neighborhood Strategy Area (NSA) , the priority target area for Federal Community Development Block Grant projects. For over ten years, the City has been using Block Grant funds for repair and rehabilitation of single-family housing within the NSA; substantial numbers of houses have been repaired and conserved. Yet, designation of portions of the area as MRG and MRM runs counter to the goal of conserving the less intensive , single-family uses. The higher density zoning here appears counterproductive to conservation of these neighborhoods' single-family character, and counterproductive to the City's community development goals. The first area is known as the South of Willis district. Approximately 50 acres in size, it is bounded on the north by Willis Street, on the south by the M2 Zone, on the east by the Burlington Northern Railway, and on the west by South Sixth Avenue. This area is currently designated MRM. The second area lies at the northwest end of "North Park, " just east of State Route 167 . Just under six acres in size, this section is currently designated MRG. Option C would amend the Zoning Map by redesignating each of these areas to a lower density zoning, perhaps MRD. This zoning category is more consistent with the lower intensity single-family housing which characterizes both areas, and which the City's Housing and Community Development strategy has worked to maintain. Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members September 4 , 1987 Page Three Of the 50 acres zoned MRM in the South of Willis area, some 31.5 acres are underdeveloped and 4 acres are vacant. This represents a development potential of up to 816 multifamily units. Of the 58 acres zoned MRG in the North Park area, some 3 . 6 acres are available for development, representing a development potential of 57 units. Rezoning these two areas to MRD would result in a net decrease in development potential of 482 units. This represents a 5. 6% reduction in the City-wide multifamily potential. On the positive side, this alternative would make the City's zoning actions more consistent with the City's Housing and Community Development policy of conserving single-family housing within the target neighborhoods. This would benefit low- and moderate-income residents of the neighborhoods, and help to protect the older existing neighborhoods near the downtown core. A negative consideration is that this alternative affects only selected multifamily properties. Although affected lands are selected in a rational and systematic manner, some property owners may feel unfairly "singled out" as the development potential of their property is reduced. Option C provides zoning that is more consistent with existing residential patterns in certain areas of the city. JPH:ca KENT CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE August 24, 1987 3 : 00 PM Council Members Present Staff Present Judy Woods, Chair Charlene Anderson Berne Biteman Jim Hansen Steve Dowell Jim Harris Fred Satterstrom Others Present Dan Stroh Lyle Price, Kent News Journal MULTIFAMILY DENSITY Fred Satterstrom outlined the six options for reducing multifamily density in the City of Kent and stated staff is recommending Options B and C, Graduated Scale Reduction and Rezone of "Overzoned" Areas. Judy Woods confirmed that Option D. Application to Newly-annexed Areas, would not reduce multifamily density in areas presently within the city limits but stated that by not applying the reduction to newly-annexed areas, multifamily density within the city could become worse. Dan Stroh presented charts showing multifamily housing comparisons among seven neighboring cities. Discussions ensued on possible reasons for the increased multifamily density in Kent and Steve Dowell asked if a reduction in density would occur via natural market conditions without a Council resolution. Fred Satterstrom replied that multifamily housing developments in 1987 appear to be keeping pace with 1986. Fred added that staff is recommending Option C in order to bring the zoning into line with the single-family usage presently existing in certain areas. Dan Stroh clarified for Judy Woods that staff had contacted the - City Attorney regarding the options; the City Attorney cautioned that a systematic, rational decision-making process must be undertaken when rezoning an area. The committee decided to present its recommendation of Options B and C at the September 1st City Council meeting with the request that the Council refer the issue to a workshop session. GREATER KENT STUDY The committee accepted the policies of the Greater Kent Study with the request that Land Use Policy #LU4 be changed to read, "Annexations shall occur only if the area is contiguous to the existing City boundary with the exception of annexations for municipal purposes." Jim Hansen stated that it is recommended that the Council designate a lead department to coordinate annexations and that the election method of annexation be seriously considered. The committee accepted the ten and twenty year annexation maps (#2 and #3) with the amendment to round out to Pacific Highway South and to include the Woodmont Shopping Center area. The committee agreed with Jim Hansen's recommendation to - KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT August 17, 1987 MEMO TO : Judy Woods, Chair; Planning Committee FROM : James P. Harris , Planning Director SUBJECT : MULTIFAMILY DENSITY REPORT At the August 24th meeting of the Planning Committee, the Planning Department would like the Council to focus on the six zoning options outlined in the Multifamily Density Report. In previous meetings , we have discussed the findings of our work and how we need to determine the policy direction the city should take in accomplishing a density reduction. The Planning staff recommends that the Planning Committee endorse: 1. Option B - Graduated Scale Reduction 2. Option C - Rezone of "Overzoned" areas Option B is an equitable, comprehensive approach that will accomplish the full 20% reduction. Option C provides zoning that is more consistent with existing residential patterns in certain areas of the city. FS:JPH: ca Enclosures - Option A & B EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT ON MULTIFAMILY DENSITY This report addresses Council Resolution #1123 , concerning housing density in Kent. It concentrates on the issue of multifamily density reduction, a key issue raised by the resolution. The related issue of single-family incentives will be covered in a future report. Existing Situation In studying the density issue, the Planning Department undertook a complete survey of multifamily development and multifamily-zoned lands in the city. Data on existing dwellings and on multifamily-zoned lands were entered and analyzed on a microcomputer. Patterns and trends in past development were thus identified, as was a picture of the city's potential for future multifamily growth. Some surprising findings emerged from the study. With 8, 950 apartments and condominiums today, the city's housing stock is predominantly multifamily: 59% multifamily vs. 35% single family. (The balance of dwellings are mobile homes. ) As recently as 1970, this situation was approximately reversed. In 1970, multifamily accounted for less than a third of all dwellings (26%) , single family for two-thirds (66%) . Today, the city has 6, 994 more multifamily dwellings than it had in 1970, an increase of 358%. In this decade alone, the number of multifamily units has more than doubled, from 4 , 104 units in 1979 to 8, 950 today. In the same eight-year period, the only growth in single- family units has been through annexation. In fact, if recent annexations were not included, the city would show a net decrease in single-family dwellings between 1980 and today, with single-family demolitions outpacing new construction. The rapid increase in multifamily housing has resulted in heavy population growth. Since 1970, the city's population of 16, 275 has almost doubled, with the vast majority of new residents housed in apartments and condominiums. Recent growth is concentrated in the East Hill Subarea and the residential areas of the Valley Floor. While the number of multifamily dwellings has increased rapidly, the average size of developments has also been growing. The average multifamily development prior to 1980 held less than 30 units; the average size of projects built since 1980 is 110 units. This rapid growth of multifamily in recent years has greatly stressed the city's ability to provide necessary public facilities and services (streets, water and sewer, police and fire protection, etc. ) . Whether the city can keep up with this growth in an effective and timely manner is a critical issue. Whether the city wishes to maintain the current trend toward a housing stock increasingly dominated by multifamily units is a related issue. The balance and diversity of the housing supply, and availability of housing options for the city's residents, are the essence of the issue here. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT ON MULTIFAMILY DENSITY PAGE TWO To evaluate various options for reducing multifamily density, all multifamily-zoned lands in the city were surveyed. This includes 1175.8 acres in the following categories: MRH (40 units per acre) , 90 acres . MRM (23 units per acre) , 654 acres MRG (16 units per acre) , 353 acres MRD (10 units per acre) , 78 acres Of the 1176 acre total, just over half is fully developed. The balance of 570 acres is considered available for development. Of this, 415 acres are vacant; the remaining 155 acres are "underdeveloped. " That is, these properties are in a substantially less intensive use than is permitted by their zoning district. They are seen as prime candidates for conversion to multifamily uses. The full report provides breakdowns of available. land by neighborhood location and zone. _ Given the available land in each zoning district, the potential for additional multifamily units and population was calculated under two scenarios. Scenario 1 shows a potential 10, 699 additional multifamily units and 19, 255 residents added to the city. Scenario 2, with a more conservative assumption on conversion of "underdeveloped" land, shows an additional 8, 592 units and 15, 466 residents. Under both scenarios, the East Hill Subarea experiences the greatest increase, with the Valley Floor neighborhood close behind. Policy Options for Consideration The report sets forth six policy options for accomplishing the multifamily density reduction presented in Resolution #1123 . A mechanism is discussed for carrying out each option. The amount of affected acreage and number of potential units are identified. Finally, a brief evaluation is provided for each option. Option A• "Across the Board" Reduction This is perhaps the simplest of the options. Through a text amendment of the zoning code, the density ceiling for each multifamily-zoned property in the city would be affected. Option A would result in a decreased development potential of 1, 807 units (21%) . This is a straightforward approach. While accomplishing a substantial reduction in development potential, it is not a major departure from the existing zoning ordinance. However, this option may be perceived as less than equitable. This is because the less-dense zones absorb the same percentage reduction as the higher-density, higher-impact zones. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT ON MULTIFAMILY DENSITY PAGE THREE Option B: Graduated Scale Reduction Under this approach, the higher existing density ceilings receive the greater percentage reduction, and vice verse. As in Option A, this approach would be accomplished by a text amendment of the zoning code, and all multifamily-zoned properties would be affected. The net reduction is 1,740 potential units, a decrease of 20.2%. This approach addresses the equity issue raised by Option A, targeting land with the greatest potential density for the largest percentage cutbacks. It -is comprehensive, affecting all multifamily property in the city and achieving the full 20% reduction desired. It would bring Kent closer into line with the multifamily density ceilings of other area localities. One negative point is that the approach is somewhat more complex than Option A. Option C: Rezone of "Overzoned" Areas In this site-specific approach, lands identified as "overzoned" would be rezoned to lower densities. Two such areas have been tentatively identified within the city's Housing and Community Development Neighborhood Strategy Area. Together, they comprise approximately 31.5 acres of MRM-zoned land and 3 . 6 acres of MRG-zoned land. Rezoning the two areas to MRD would result in a reduction of 482 potential units (5. 6% of the citywide potential. ) This option would provide for zoning more consistent with the city's Housing and Community Development policy of conserving single-family housing within the Neighborhood Strategy Area. It would benefit the lower income residents of the neighborhoods and help to protect older residential areas near the downtown core. On the negative side, this approach affects only selected multifamily properties and does not nearly approach the 20% reduction sought by the resolution. Option D: Application to Newly-Annexed Areas This approach provides for reduced densities in areas recently annexed to the city. The East Hill Well #2 Annexation Area, annexed last April, would be directly affected. Of the area designated multifamily on the city' s East Hill Subarea Map, 160 acres are either underdeveloped or vacant. Should all of this area be zoned R1-7 . 2 rather than multifamily, a reduction in development potential of 1, 077 units would result. This approach provides for a substantial reduction relative to full implementation of the Comprehensive Plan designations. Zoning a larger area as single family rather than multifamily should assist the complementary goal of encouraging single family development. Further, no "downgrading" of existing zoning is necessary. On the other hand, this option does not improve the housing balance or reduce densities in •- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT ON MULTIFAMILY DENSITY PAGE FOUR the pre-annexation areas. Option E• Elimination of the MRH Zone This option involves elimination of the MRH zone from the zoning code and zoning map. All MRH property would be redesignated MRM. This approach would affect approximately 57 acres of available land, resulting in a reduction of 964 potential units. This option may be justified based on a comparison of Kent's upper density limit with that of other area cities. Kent's 40 units per acre in the high density zone is greater than the corresponding limit in five of six other area cities surveyed. However, this approach is not distributed over the full city and it represents a net reduction in potential units of only ilk. Option F• Reduction Based on Environmental Constraints _ This is a site-specific approach, involving identification of areas which are zoned at densities beyond their environmental suitabilities. Three such areas have been tentatively identified. Rezoning these areas to the RA (Residential/Agricultural) Zoning District would result in a decreased development potential of 979 units (11. 4%) . This approach has the dual benefits of protecting environmentally vulnerable areas and of protecting potential residents from environmental hazards. However, it is of limited effect because much of the applicable land would not be suitable for multifamily development in the first place. It is also not a comprehensive approach to the density reduction issue. Note on the Impact to Existing Multifamily Development In most situations when zoning changes on a property, a legally- established development which is not consistent with the new zoning becomes a "nonconforming use. " The nonconforming use is subject to special restrictions, including limits on expansion and reconstruction. However, multifamily developments in existence as of January 1, 1984 fall under a special residential exception and are not deemed nonconforming in terms of density provisions. Therefore, action on density reduction has no real effect on multifamily development in place prior to 1984 . Extension of the same exception to existing multifamily development built since January 1, 1984 will require a code amendment. DS:ca ZONING POLICY OPTIONS FOR REDUCING POTENTIAL MULTIFAMILY UNITS Percent Reduction Number in Potential Units Multifamily Reduction Option Affected Units Comments A. Across-the-board 20% 1,807 21% Requires text amendment reduction in potential to zoning code. Text density in all multi- amendments require public family-zoned districts. hearings before the Planning Commission. B. Graduated scale reduction 1, 740 20. 2% Requires text amendment in multifamily zones to zoning code. Text amendments require public hearings before the Planning Commission. C. Rezone "overzoned" areas, 482 5. 6% Requires zoning map involves reducing potential amendment. Map amendments density in certain neighbor- require public hearings hoods. before the Hearing Examiner. D. Annexation areas - in- 11077 * Requires zoning map volves implementation of amendment. Map amendments single family zoning in require public hearings areas planned for multi- before the Hearing family use Examiner. E. Eliminate the MRH zone - 964 11. 2% Requires both text and involves rezoning to MRM map amendments to zoning code. Public hearings before both Planning Commission and Hearing Examiner are required. F. Environmentally Sensitive 979 11.4% Requires zoning map Areas - involves rezoning amendment. Map amendments to low-density residential require public hearings in these areas before the Hearing Examiner. * Percentage not calculated since these lands are not presently zoned for multifamily residential use. CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OF MEETING OF AUGUST 41 1987 PAGE TWO Each particular request for annexation, according to the Greater Kent Study, would entail a detailed fiscal analysis. _... REPORT ON MULTIFAMILY DENSITY -- CONTINUED DISCUSSION This item was deferred to another meeting. NEXT MEETING DATE The next meeting of the Planning Committee is scheduled for August 24 , 1987 at 3 : 00 PM. The meeting was adjourned at 5: 15 PM. KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT May 11 , 1987 MEMO TO : Planning Commission FROM : James P. Harris, Planning Director SUBJECT : AGENDA ITEM FOR MAY 18 WORKSHOP The Multifamily Density Project is a new item appearing on your agenda for the May 18 workshop. This relates to Council Resolution #1123, passed December l .of last year and directing a 20% density reduction in undeveloped multifamily zoned lands. The Planning Commission will probably be involved in implementing Resolution #1123. Staff is currently putting together a study on the subject and will be prepared to provide a general presentation on the emerging work at the workshop. DS:JPH:ca KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 11 , 1987 MEMO TO : Planning Commissioners FROM : James P. Harris , Planning Director SUBJECT : RESOLUTION NO. 1123 20% REDUCTION IN MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT On December 1 , 1986, the City Council passed Resolution #1123 which stated the following: "The City Council hereby declares its intent to establish a goal of achieving an average density reduction of twenty percent (20%) on all undeveloped multifamily zoned lands throughout the City. . . The City Council hereby directs the Planning Commission to defer action on the East Hill commercial zoning amendments until an update of the overall East Hill Subarea Plan is completed. . . The City Council hereby declares its intent to seek an interlocal agreement with King County to also establish a twenty percent (20%) reduction in permitted multifamily density on undeveloped lands located in unincorporated areas near Kent. . . The City Council desires to promote the development of single-family residential use and, to this end, directs the City staff to study the following planning strategies and report their findings to the City Council : a. To streamline the permit process in order to expedite the issuance of building permits for single-family residences ; b. To develop more flexible building standards for single-family residences without compromising public safety or quality; and c. To propose zoning and comprehensive plan changes which would help to create additional opportunities for single-family residential development." A copy of Resolution #1123 is attached. JPH:ca KENT CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE February 9, 1987 3:00 p.m. Council Members Present Staff Present Judy Woods , Chair Lin Ball Berne Biteman Jim Hansen Steve Dowell Jim Harris Jim White, Council President Greg McCormick Fred Satterstrom City Administrator J. Brent McFall Others Present Lyle Price, Kent News Journal ROOFING SYSTEMS REGULATORY REVIEW Mr. Jerry Puetz of Roofing Systems , Inc. requested a zoning code change to allow sheet metal fabrication in a GC, General Commercial , zoning district. Upon exam- ination of the request and staff comments , the Planning Committee does not believe a zoning code change is justified. The Committee suggests that staff and Mr. Puetz continue to work together to bring his new building up to code and his general business operations into conformity with the zoning code. NEIFERT REGULATORY REVIEW Dennis Neifert requested elimination of the 20 foot rear yard setback in the CC, Community Commercial , zoning district. Mr. Neifert had indicated that the smaller lots in the CC zone (10,000 s .f. minimum lot size) were difficult to develop using the setback. Staff inventoried the 10,000 s.f. lots in the CC zone and found four lots only that were vacant or underdeveloped. The Committee expressed a desire to maintain existing regulations. 20% MULTIFAMILY Fred Satterstrom presented six alternatives for achieving a 20% reduction in multi- family units . The Committee agreed to eliminate the across-the-board 20% reduction option and elected to send four options to the Planning Commission for their con- sideration: 1 ) graduated scale reduction of density, 2) rezone "over-zoned" areas to single family residential , 3) eliminate the MR-H zone, and 4) reduce density according to environmental constraints . The Committee desires strong citizen involvement in the Planning Commission hearings on this issue; some citizens do not want any further multifamily development, other citizens will be concerned with economic constraints on development of their property. The option of immediate .,_ CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE February 9, 1987 Page Two restriction of multifamily development in potential annexation areas will be considered at the next Planning Committee meeting. A City Council policy could -•• be established and implemented quickly for annexed areas. This policy can become part of the staff proposal in the Greater Kent Study. It was suggested that because of lower interest rates and tax shelter limitations , the 20% reduction in multi- family development could be accepted more readily by the community. NEXT MEETING DATE The next meeting of the Planning Committee is scheduled for March 10, 1987 at 3:00 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m. KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 5, 1987 MEMO TO : City Council Planning Committee FROM : Fred N . Satterstrom, Associate Planner SUBJECT : PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES FOR MULTIFAMILY DENSITY REDUCTION The purpose of this memo is to present some preliminary alternatives on how to achieve a 20% density reduction in Kent' s multifamily zones . Following a discussion of these alternatives by the Planning Committee, the staff can look further into those options that appear to be more preferable and/or feasible. Results of Multifamily Inventory_ The Planning Department has recently completed an inventory of its multifamily areas and developments. Some of the survey results were presented to the Planning Committee on January 26, 1987 and are worth summarizing again. According to our inventory, there are currently 140 multifamily developments in Kent totalling approximately 8000 units . While many of these developments are small complexes of 10 units or less , there are some very large developments such as Quail Ridge (436 units) , Jonathan's Landing (344 units) ,and Riverwood ( 336 units) . Of course, The Lakes development when finally completed will outdistance all the others since its planned unit total exceeds 2600 residential units . It came as a surprise to the Planning Department staff to learn that there was currently more vacant multifamily-zoned land than there was developed land. Our survey disclosed approximately 433 acres of vacant multifamily-zoned land, com- pared to about 402 acres of developed land. In addition, our survey revealed 128 acres of "underdeveloped" multifamily-zoned land. (Underdeveloped lands are defined as underutilized properties that are likely to convert to more intensive use at some point in the future. ) Based on these findings , the potential growth of multifamily residential units under a built-out condition could more than double the number of existing units . Preliminary Alternatives The following is a range of alternatives identified by staff for approaching the density reduction issue. This list is not exhaustive; however, it includes a wide range of options which should assist the Council with its discussion and consideration. Also, the options are not necessarily exclusive of one another. One option may potentially be combined with another for a multi-pronged approach . City Council Planning Committee February 5, 1987 Page Two 1 . Across-the-board 20% reduction This approach would entail reducing the permitted density (units per acre) for all multifamily zoning districts by 20%. This would be done by changing the text of the zoning ordinance. No rezoning need be done to accomplish this alternative. Any new proposed development would have to conform to the reduced density standards; existing development would be "grandfathered" under the current ordinance. 2. Graduated scale reduction of density Like option #1 above, this approach would constitute a text change to the zoning ordinance; but instead of a uniform 20% reduction for all zones , a sliding-scale reduction would be used. For example, the density allowance in the MR-D zone might not be changed at all while the density in the MR-H zone might be reduced by 30 - 40%. In other words , the higher the permitted density, the greater the percentage reduction. 3. Rezone "over-zoned" areas to single family residential This approach would identify multifamily-zoned areas of the city where the prevailing character is single family residential and rezone them to low- density residential . Some areas of the city that might be addressed under this alternative include the North Park, South of Willis , and East Hill crest areas . 4. Potential annexation areas Two large annexations are presently being considered in the East Hill area. At such time as these areas may be annexed, full implementation of zoning for areas designated multifamily residential could be withheld. Staff is presently studying these areas in order to determine the number of acres involved. 5. Eliminate the MR-H zone The MR-H zone allows the highest number of units per acre (40) of any multi- family zoning classification. Very few of the 140 multifamily developments in the city approach this number, and most do not exceed 20-23 units/acre. None of the major complexes built in the past few years exceed 23 units per acre. The kind of density allowed by the MR-H zone does not appear to be needed and may falsely affect land values and development perceptions . Because of the relative lack of MR-H zoning (only about 10 acres currently are vacant) , this is only a partial solution to the 20% reduction. 6. Reduce density according to environmental constraint This approach would propose density reductions in areas and on lots zoned for multifamily use that were environmentally constrained, such as steep slope areas and wetlands. The degree or percentage of reduction would be related to the degree of constraint. FS:ca CI:0 a 0 n n n n n n n w J m m O m O) w w RI a a _.. 1 J T m w d d d d -S -) o o ro m v N rt� -. w o In Z � •z o o ro c c -t > > � d -�v Ol O rt rt d d •< O -)-I J < w 0 0 c 0 IV -f-f w m o m •< t d d m m N C) z m 7S m c io 0 0 75 0 0 n r rD ro v z m n o_ o o o -I n d n ro rt d O m m m n n a "l ID { m d• w t? o w III v d w m c o In n n n In N N rt n �+ vl •-•• O V O O O I/I O N 0 0. n n a LA 0 0 0 V w O to In m (1) V Ln v ` ' /T N -+ y A N N .--. N A N IQ -• N N p� O) W W p) I.) W N O W cn -• N N) O O m w N m n N co m m w w N w O W m V O w n m hl O O V IQ IV N O O w N A 71 I I In w = V -. VI V O m 7C S In n w In 1 v 1- -. w W ww w w w In N Q d �, N CD 7 T. O N A !D A m m n d V N N I< m m OI W A = m N 0 a N a a N N O a I/) O n < = < m < W w (/) rt n Z ul 0 < m m n m z m w w m s I< n N _ M m •yam III V 1p VI III A N VI W vl A N w V A co •I� V W V) A w rt m N W VN m Z C33 C N O) IV N V N I11 W r+m .. A -+ W CDN A w l0 N O) V ll) N O, N � V O If`7 N O N N N N W A w N O O) 1p N O to V h) m N IC w w m VI A N IT, �C f?C X X •S C A A nm C m -+I > > w v mz 0 o d d m m > 0- 0 n n 0 O O 0 H � 0 0 c n c n 0 m N p lF N N N W m m rV ni N N N N •--• A 1p V t1• A W N O ID ••-- V m C O O O I, Cl v t7 O v Cl tl n I"'1 c c c -1 o m a -1 0 0 0 n d J r m r0 m m m J rF 'Y N N rF rt rt m c a x x x x rn m o rt a a L. v * rt K » e. v r ...• .. -S m rt N S V •--• •-1 n .••• m N O m rt y Wrt 'i • � D 'f -+ N � � C d T• rt D N x -+ t0 V �a m N � r rD l0 V v f'O P W m X t0 co m V 10 Ut m O N W LAV_ rV A O W IWII O m W N _ W co A W t0 to m N L C- d O CAd m 0 In of m V to A W 3• 7 e3 m ... m ID N a O m rt f < rG D 2 m S rt G (D < S N < m m rt Z 4 m rDD '1 D m 'O Ul A V1 V l� A W W m A Ill C) -+ O lD A W A O VJ m m N IO m O D^-m-'{{ .•.. tl rt m Vl !n N m Z . C C W N N W O m N -+•m W N N m O O m O A O m O O N O r?•7 N O -A A A A N N p N m l.n m O N co co N co W N m J O In -• m A to v V In rY -+ m N W LA= X X x N X W x c c m A m W n m C. c -s o N X X X A A o m of J.o m a o am cn o 0o Jco nn o h —c o w n m 0 r J c n n J m c -1 I rci � J t:r m J M I J n .ta .... H F 0 � o m 0 J o ,7 v a J O �F 1F A 3. A A A A A A A W W W W tJ W W W W A 1F m V m Ul A W N O m V 0) ut A W N O W % ' b Z S m m m 0 V 0 0 x 0 S x 0 O b m m r1 M m o o m m )o o m o 0 0 o a w w w w w 01 rt rt •+ w w o J o. rt to b W a m S m to -.. N' 0 w a 1p C D m A S T ••• ...• O tD > > O G x x w m v rt rt ry w• -1 J -t In -t a� n O rt S S n ..,. m < X. N rt rt t1 fD O O. m rt N O N J J C tO in rt n. m to r c 2• m In 0 w v m to rt s o w rt-+ o. D -1 n rt 0 In N v 0 N �-76 v D n. N V 0 w rt N C J to In O In w N rt S O V m V rt N N In m fD 0 l0 ... .. . m v N W to v to m m O1 - v V N N N N t0 O W N () O A N m W m 01 W t0 O O a Ch Ut N N A m l0 Q1 N W 01 N m V m o) d 1 m N W 1 rt tr N — N A O N to m --• tT V S 7C W 4� A N m M Z W m t/1 N m Z N t)1 D m l/f b V D N -+ A D n. S W N N m m w < v O N < O + m m O (D n A m O A N ID N •+ < W 2 D to m D m n a y < to to N D W N O) A W '� 3 L7 •- N C-) 20- N 2 W b N an A A ht O1 O) a m O lJ N O W O) W 3 In A W A 10 to V O t0 O N O V1 -• O O In N to o1 O —M M l� O N l/) �i J• N fD Z C�77 W N O N 1+ -• m ap m l0 1)) O N -. Mo m N t A N t0 0"O) -+ O) A O O -+ V V1 O O 0 Y m O O 11 - A A W W _ A N N N O CD O O m O) lD A m V m 0 0 m O O O l0 O A m to V A A t0 -+ V A N O\ rt �C m h C x x x rn c m A A O) f1 fD c � o N x m O O O 0 w n > > > n x J n N N D M T m N J.a t j h N O N � m ' m v o 0 1 0 ry m 1 O u) w V N p w p rn m m m to rn to u, to rt to rn u, to .n ... W W N • O lf,, co V rn to W N O t0 W r •t ' N w w j n r M T. 7c 7c 7c w w m m m m m m m m m m > > > > J > > > .o a w r ro ,o 0 w ' In mv � mtow C�- . c m = w m J N O _ to -f n m d G. OW h m a v, d d d S a d N rt a n to b rn N O V m O tM tO N rt h co N � N tD n N v a in ., ...• tc 0 o com 0 N 41 wN V ._. tC ut O tr t.n O G. N V7 W to .-. p, to N W rn _.. m m !n to CDrt In o rt m m c. .Nn s a c .t> to m z w w 3 t<o to In m a m tD a• ro m n t* N N N rt O n nA A T A j 3 3 s .Tj ^• IN m N • O, O O of W W u, O A W Cn _. A v O --• -. O rn A V tL V m ref Y� m N N N m • Z W C r t0 rn O W t0 N ID tb to O rn A A 00 to O O T W � Vi DNj t+-mj N O 'h tr rn W (A W ---• N W N O O W N rn N N N O O V V N rn•"' '' V N N V m ID zn N O b A rn O OD to O V J>• rn c0 to rt to z he c G- n m rtz c i o m -h N o rho M Mm r wm o ❑ n o n n n P (T _ De N N m n o C+w Z n t0 n tO j h m o - o- n c c ru N 0 � •1 N �N 1 + O O 0 O_ O_ N N 0 O m r h N o rt rt v .t V V V V V rt V w rn rn m w (c w v rn rn A w N o m � 1 O w a a m• to m m T.a a w 0 pr ^b rn T J O C CX tJ Q O rh a N Z b O b -• .� O to O r'-S m m to c a a ro w m (� c •y o a r✓. 9 m O 5 a 7C rn r r m O' m m a O.m LA 3 t O �s a_ z a v a a n ,.•••. n •O `TC. bl N ]mC' 1=O < N m m c Z a 'brr J a < rt N to to -+ n a N Cl O X r+ N N b rh rt rt 0 to to ti to o 3 N N tX n co rr to Dr, 0 0 _ rn N rt + N O v In S co O O Oco (O t)) !b m N N W w N O JN 0 J � A N _ tV m b <J P O N to A C) m F rn V O (n A (I A O) N CDN O O t1 L Z CD O) O (n D O IM1 (C J O \ to _.. O 1- m N b o o. ? a. (0 m -g w m n or o a N to m to _ M O O n -t to 1 rt A -s o n to �' rf 2 S .Z1 m m rt r m r a. CA a a < o "' > > < < m m a fi m (n _. t x• w > O •. m b N tr Is (D N T • O W W V rn W to rn (n rn W n Ou O) b w W W O rn A to -• O l0 A N CDO N —m y t-C m N N v N m Z c _ C 7 N-+ Am to O rn M •m N N N F rn th rn N C3 O rn rn In rn 00 O rn rt`s N O W W -+ N -+ to -+ N N N N N A N •--t Cl rn rn N N rn V (J (O O m tr N N O O m to W W W rn V -+ 0O V O l.J O (O N V V V N rf Ln x x x ' c x x -f c A ) W n m _•• IDO N rt'S N x >( rn N F > > Z O 0 b 0 o mo mo on'o > to n o n o n n m m ,.• vJ v= to QvCL a c W o a n to 0 m c N N N N I � m srr. m m s 0 o o m l/1 rF o w 7 -h n O N T O' 0 of f rf m N to DO DO A * N * CD to W W w OVO 00 C Co co co O co co lJ . • . . OJ N O -• W N v to N O m N to w !n fn A .v m A .'o ^.� A ^•O n n y y > > O d fD m tO O R T. JC' y fD •• -Iy �-/iY rt A m O. S V tD O m 'O N N S tD { rt i" to -•d —' r�Y vrD Oi to a N �°N N J .• (Y N m f1' Q • U1 CO ^ m N • pl fD O --• m tO V N N to V v ^ 0 M to to to (n co .... V .... ttl to to C, O to J N •c N W m -..• N N N ' to O O N tJ tD r A A tr A -+ A m N ON 11 V m V o O N O A A co O to W G to m � m a CD ''* -n Clo m (1) o z m .. m < _ O to to Vt S N LA to m m N -~i. O O 'fi m to N N to C W O�j ty m to N N C m O -+N m m � to rt __ D N W W tr N < N O m rt ry S < N N to Co rt < a m o o m � < to n o D I m A rD n 3 tAAo t< t7 ^ 3 ^ 3 ^ ^ N? ^ $ 4 $ $ A $ T A O 2 m N co Cl co A y • J O O W tp N W N -+ N m to V A l0 m W V LT, V (b to l0 lb N r .._• N m O ^fD N N v N tD _ 2 C co to m m W -+ m N to to V to m O tD trt y n O .fi N N .... N w N A -�m _ V V' -P. m to N m N to t,J to N fD V tr 6 --• tJ V A a A to V N r+ l< A._r ._.• b) ....W tn2 rtc x x X N x x x y x OlA w m N-+ n m 4. A OD rt y c w yp "I N x x x x x to N V A N ...•. O O O O O -+ t O O N N N ry O to 3 O,. n n N y m d m n v y � on o_to n 0 rD rt H o +t * to kO to to to N to A O O O O O O O O O to 00 V al N A W W Q1 V Ol N A W N O b 0 m N 0 N N N N N tD mj L c C c c c c rt r* 3 T . > w w C O tG J tG J m 0 m o c n rt to to rr ri Y m m w m o -i Z m tD tD n o m .+ m o P P rn w m v I a m c 0 0 w ID N b c -t to rt to -t ID rm mw N rt rt n "1 (D mN n to to w .-. '+ ? N c rD n tD s N w rt to ce to o v a n rt m v 0o m n w to m to 00 - to O 00 W W A N N -. N -.-. -• J V N V O CD of N A CDW N O O m N O O O -+ 0) W N W to of N N N V A O N of C -+ 6 N N (n -+ 00 N m D° n) N N N z o, S a) t* o N c N N :a c c rt A S m w to . A r- N -+ fD -3 33 w N E o 0 -1 to O N N to CD _ 3 3 rt rt Re w N 1 -hq.. U1 A O1 O N w N to N rf to T 00 N Q. rt lD N O O O r' N m el o• S W L P N T i v v i 2p A o 22ar E2 a $ P cbr. D b N W W to N N to N a of O A N V A N lC of Ot W 00 W 41 N V m o, N O on O A A c0 of c0 t0 W O ^M -i tG to N N ....N ID 2 G a- N W lT A 07 N A P N -+ O b fD N N m N V to OD O A N W N A V 00 07 N t?'7 N O W W N N N N W A W N N c0 N T to D) W O V A V to O A N 10 W A rr A A A N Z O W Pf C x c n rD c -s o N O O w N 00 CA "'� n tD to O O 0 n n .M O -�1D N a P ct w .,, t� to P rt rt a -t rt a m o mtoo to � n to r� rD rt A N N N N N In A J N — — O lUiti m W N O tp 00 V m to A W N O to -.. •O O O O 0 S S .�. v o�i a m rr r+ t�-r > > m c m `° m a j m tv ',c 'c � j [t• 3 H m to w m r✓. ... a to c m J x m wrt 0 Ic �c� a O 0 N N 0 5 H c N m m m f o N rt j J D fD •td�t+ m tom 0 m •O -+d m .m. rt Ln m 1n 1nLO H co O 'O N v b rt N N rt H rt U N N to U1 • � 1 O 00 to N N N A N -+ ' Ot N IV U� m m N A O W to O A -• A t0 W N IV 00 A O m O V m W A U1 p0 O N O. to -+ A m O tow 41 --yy \ 7C J m N A tp f•1 VI U O f6 ... to o o OL 'r >c to s to N J N 3 N to rt O A rt m C o A m G rt C N J In m < -� In to In .N. rt n E H m m m rt n m a A = m N 00 Ol A In ,p N N 'O N W 0 W -• m .W.• [n In O Ot • O (n to W W A 00 O W W p 00 V N V A N CD Ol V --. - R< m In VI N m 2 ' C N 1p W JA to m CDeo o co N m v co p CO to to .+V i N O M In W N N N _. _ _ to UI 4l O\ A 00 O to t0 to rJ tNj\ t0 A V V A m .... . to to 00 A ? t0 OD O t0 to V -+• < x w w rt c x x r O0 C V A n m t•f'1 C X � 0 0 0 a m> > > n n n m m m f o �m a rtrt 00 1 m 0 m N N m O O O O O O O D O O O O O O O ^� m = 7w7 w w w wa w wq w w wa w w w w wc.. m m m 76 m m m m o - fD a p N V+ N -+ t� pAp�� A mmA A pAp W A Ol pe f/1 N N N nn G1+ O .'1' ra+ .-f rf O. tail w A m O co cn R a a a S s ' 3 S a m In 0 m o w m m < > a a a a < J < < < < m = r v w In w m m m m m z z z Em m 0 o - a rt S m z N 1 • N JC O C O O p p O O O A A O 2 = m 'O V 0 • A N -. N 41 w N la V O+ 'O N N A W V Ol W mW O\ V N ^m m VN• m Z C W 3 ' N N t0 N N N N N N T OD pl A N O m - m O co V Oi m V N A w O V N V V A V O V Vt V A O N In _. W .... _. .._. ...r _. N .... _... Ln-. 0 ( .. n m c o m -n N m m n n M �m -.0 .. e+rt m 0 N = m a n 0 m N w KENT CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 1987 MEETING - 3 It 20% MULTIFAMILY Fred Satterstrom indicated there were approximately 1000 acres of multifamily-zoned land in Kent; approximately 402 acres are presently developed into multifamily or into a use that will probably not convert to another use. Of the remaining acreage, 433 are vacant. Half of that vacant land is for The Lakes development, but that leaves approximately 400 acres of undeveloped or underdeveloped multifamily-zoned land. There are approximately 128 acres just in underdeveloped property. These data do not include land in zones which might allow multifamily use through conditional use permit for example. Most of the vacant acres (268 acres) are in the MR-G zone which allows up to 1600 units/acre; this is where The Lakes project is located. Approximately 154 acres of vacant land zoned multifamily are in the MR-M zone which allows 23 units/acre; a large portion of this acreage is the river meander south of the 516 freeway. The MR-H zone which allows approximately 40 units/acre contains about 9.58 acres of this vacant land. Approximately 11-, of the vacant acres are located in our lowest density multifamily zone, MR-D. There is a considerable amount of MR-D zoned land around the Northpark area that is underdeveloped. There are 140 different developments in Kent that are multifamily; approximately 8000 units of multifamily presently exist. If multifamily-zoned land became fully developed, we would have another 550 acres , 8,000 to 10,000 units. The ordinance reducing the number of multifamily units in Kent will have real ramifications for Kent's future. NEXT MEETING DATE The next meeting of the Planning Committee is scheduled for February 9, 1987 at 3:00 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 4:30 p.m. KENT CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE January 12, 1987 3:00 p.m. Council Members Present Staff Present Judy Woods, Chair Lin Ball Berne Biteman Jim Hansen Steve Dowell Jim Harris Fred Satterstrom City Administrator Others Present J . Brent McFall Dennis Neifert, Architect Lyle Price, Kent News Journal NEIFERT REGULATORY REVIEW Dennis Neifert presented his request for a regulatory review of the rear yard setback in the CC, Community Commercial , zone. Mr. Neifert would like the setback to be eliminated except where a commercial use abuts a residential use. Mr. Neifert believes the present setback requirement is restrictive and that the proposed change would promote good development of the smaller properties located in the CC zone. Lin Ball stated the 20' rear yard setback in the CC zone provides protection and buffering to the surrounding residences . Lin explained the setback area may be used for landscaping and parking and does not have to remain unused; no structure may be placed in the setback area. Jim Harris explained the CC zone was established to foster finer developments than in the General Commercial zone because of the CC zone location next to residential zones . Planning staff will inventory property sizes in the CC zones and present an analysis at the first Planning Committee meeting in February. The City wants to encourage good development. HISTORIC PRESERVATION A King County representative will do a presentation at the January 26th meeting. TREES Because Jim White was unable to attend today's meeting, discussion is postponed to the January 26th meeting. 20% MULTIFAMILY Planning Assistant Greg McCormick is conducting an inventory of existing multifamily projects and undeveloped lands in Kent. When the inventory is complete, staff will present alternatives for implementing the 20% multifamily reduction. Brent McFall KENT CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OF January 12, 1987 MEETING would like staff to look at those areas scheduled to be annexed in the near future as well . Judy Woods would like to know the ratio of multifamily to single family in neighboring cities, e.g . , Auburn and Renton. Other items addressed in Council Resolution #1123 will be incorporated into the annual work program for the Planning Department. These items include an interlocal agreement with King County and single family development incentives . NEXT MEETING DATE The next meeting of the Planning Committee is scheduled for January 26 , 1987 at 3:00 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m. --- December 1 , 1986 COUNCIL Council President. White read a letter from COMMITTEES Slade Gorton congratulating the Arts Commission on receiving the 1986 Dorothy M. Mullen National Arts and Humanities Award for cities under 75 , 000 population. He then noted that the following items would be discussed at the next workshop: 1 . Business license recommendations 2 . License requirements for trash collection services 3 . Utility tax rate for trash collection services 4 . Report from a franchised garbage hauler , the Robanco Company. 5 . Any items added by Administration Upon Bailey ' s question, :9hite noted that dis- cussion will not be limited to franchised haulers. Planning and Parks Committee. Woods noted that that concern had been expressed at the Town Hall Meeting regarding housing, particularly the number of apartments in the city. She pre- sented Resolution 1123 which would promote the development of single family residential uses in the city and establish a goal of achiev- ing an average density reduction of 20% on all undeveloped multi-family zoned land. DOWELL MOVED to adopt Resolution 1123 . Biteman seconded and the motion carried. ADJOURNMENT BAILEY MOVED that the meeting be adjourned at 8 : 50 p.m.. Woods seconded and the motion carried. Marie Jensen, CMC City Clerk 12 - RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, at the recent Town Hall meeting held on October 21, 1986, residents of the Kent area expressed concerns over the City's rapid growth and the proliferation of multiple family developments, in particular; and WHEREAS, according to a study conducted by Hebert Research, Inc. in October, 1985, the main housing problems cited by Kent residents were the profusion of apartments and overcrowding; and WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned with the adverse impacts of uncontrolled growth on the City's infrastructure and its ability to deliver efficient services to residents.; and WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned about the projected proportion of multifamily development to single-family residential development; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make multifamily residential development consistent with its comprehensive plan goals of environmental suitability and neighborhood preservation; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council hereby declares its intent to establish a goal of achieving an average density reduction of twenty percent (20%) on all undeveloped multifamily zoned lands throughout the City. This density reduction would be achieved through revisions to Kent's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. Section 2. The City Council hereby directs the Planning Commission to defer action on the East Hill commercial zoning amendments until an update of the overall East Hill Subarea Plan is completed. Section 3. The City Council hereby declares its intent to seek an interlocal agreement with King County to also establish a twenty percent (20%) reduction in permitted multifamily density on undeveloped lands located in unincorporated areas near Kent. Section 4. The City Council desires to promote the development of single-family residential use and, to this end, directs the City staff to study the following planning strategies and report their findings to the City Council: a. To streamline the permit process in order to expedite the issuance of building permits for single-family residences; b. To develop more flexible building standards for single-family residences without compromising public safety or quality; and C. To propose zoning and comprehensive plan changes which would help to create additional opportunities for single-family residential development. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of 1986 . Concurred in by the Mayor. of the of Kent, this day of 1986 . DAN K LLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JEN , CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: /ILL H. WILLIAMSON, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY 2 - I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. ��a 'S , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of 1986. (SEAL) MARIE J EN, CI y CLERK 04110-150 3 - PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES December 1 , 1986 Page Two PUD COURSE OF ACTION Staff will take the PUD ordinance to the first Planning Commission workshop in January to discuss incentives and Seattle Master Builders comments . Another workshop on the issue could occur in February followed by a public hearing also in February. The ordinance could come before the Council in March . INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH DES MOINES A draft interlocal agreement was presented for designating Kent as the lead city in working with a developer whose project includes one building located in Des Moines . The Committee asked that this item be placed on the Council Consent Calendar for the December 15th meeting. MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT Judy Woods presented a resolution calling for a 20% reduction in multifamily development in Kent. The resolution will be presented to the City Council at the December 1 meeting. It provides a direction and will be followed by staff recommendation of alternatives for instituting the 20% reduction. Berne Biteman suggested one alternative could be lower-density multifamily inter- spersed with single family rather than large multifamily developments which represent a community unto themselves . If resolution is passed, staff will look at city goals as a whole and present alternatives for implementation. NEXT MEETING DATE The next meeting of the Planning Committee is scheduled for January 12, 1987 at 3:00 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m. Kent City Council Meeting Date March 15, 1988 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: RECYCLING 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Public Works Committee further discussed the recycling proposals at their meeting on March 8, to determine if an award should be made in response to our request for proposals, or whether other action should be taken. After discussion, Chair Jon Johnson proposed, that based on the -. responses submitted to the RFP, staff be directed to negotiate an agreement with Kent Disposal for a curb side recycling program, not to exceed 18 months in duration, that would include voluntary participation by the customers . Concurrently with that, Kent Disposal should petition WUTC to include the cost of the recycling program in the tariff structure. The Committee unanimously supported that recommendation. 3 . EXHIBITS: excerpt from Public Works Committee Minutes 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember 6i seconds that staff neg fate an agreement with Kent Disposal for a voluntary participatory curb side recycling program not to exceed 18 months in duration and for Kent Disposal to petition WUTC to include the cost of a recycling program in the tariff structure. DISCUSSION:- ACTION: hSL(Il C `J YLCA c.J (�Q, �� Council Agenda `"� � Item No. 4E PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE March 8, 1988 PRESENT: Jon Johnson Gary Gill Berne Biteman Jim Harris Judy Woods Mike Ledbetter -. Don Wickstrom Jerry L. Graham Brent McFall Gary Ewing Sandra Driscoll Tom Sharp Burlington Northern Easement Wickstrom explained that Council has previous passed a resolution requiring that permanent rights be obtained when seeking utility crossings of railroad rights of way. In conjunction with our 1987 Sanitary Sewer Rebuild project, a sewer crossing of the Burlington Northern tracks at James Street is required. Burlington Northern had originally proposed a permit and after much negotiating they now propose an easement similar to what they have granted to Metro. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposal. Wickstrom requested authorization from the Committee to accept the easement. The Committee unanimously approved the request. Solid Waste Issues Jon Johnson stated there are two issues to be discussed under this topic. The first deals with the recycling proposals we requested. The purpose today is to discuss whether awarding the bid or to take some other action . The second item deals with making recommendation to the Council on a decision whether to commit Kent ' s waste stream to the County or to develop an alternative program. Johnson proposed that, based on the RFPs submitted, staff be directed to negotiate an agreement with Kent Disposal for curbside recycling program for a maximum of 18 months. In concurrence with that, Kent Disposal should petition the WUTC to include the cost of the recycling program into the tariff structure. That way there would be a definite period where Kent would no longer be subsidizing the recycling program. Johnson continued that if WUTC determined another carrier(s) were to be the exclusive hauler(s) we would then have to negotiate a similar type of agreement with those haulers. Johnson added the agreement should also include language to the fact that it is a voluntary program for the customers. Public Works Committee March 8, 1988 Page 2 Jerry Graham commented that Kent Disposal 's proposal included a recommendation that Kent give each customer a $1 incentive on their utility bill. Graham observed that if that $1 were added to their bid it would make their bid higher than Tri-Stars . It was determined that the RFP did not include a specific request to include an incentive program. Biteman suggested that if a break point be included in the agreement whereby if a high degree of participation took place the City would benefit. Additionally, Biteman suggested the agreement include the provision that if the company changes ownership, the City would be able to renegotiate the agreement. Johnson asked if the City' s ordinance would have to be changed defining recyclables. Driscoll stated they are not defined in the ordinance now. The ordinance would have to be changed to redefine garbage to exclude recyclables. Woods asked why this was being proposed when the determination had been made at the last Committee meeting and at the last Council meeting to delay action until a decision from WUTC had been received. Johnson clarified it seemed that regardless of the WUTC ruling, nothing would be changed for the City regarding his proposal . If another hauler is determined to be the exclusive hauler we would then have to negotiate with that hauler. Woods asked if any decision made by Kent would prejudice the WUTC ruling. McFall indicated he didn't think so. _. Jerry Graham noted that their program did propose using a local recycling company keeping an economic advantage in Kent. Johnson suggested this be brought before the full Council at their meeting on March 15. Gary Ewing added that his firm is local with three companies and they do also buy from other buyback centers in Kent. Johnson stated he should also make the full Council aware of this at the meeting on the 15th. Biteman referred to the survey sent by the Utility Billing Department that approximately 89% of the returned questionnaires indicated they would like to participate in a recycling program. Biteman made a motion that Johnson' s proposal be accepted. Woods seconded and the Committee approved. Public Works Committee March 8, 1988 Page 3 The second item under this topic deals with whether or not waste stream is going to be committed to the County or whether Kent will develop a system on its own. McFall stated he has sent a letter to the County requesting an extension of the existing agreement until September. No response has been received as yet. The Committee reviewed a checklist of actions the City would have to take if they were to develop their own system (copy attached) . It was clarified for Biteman that the City would have to develop their own Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan if they implemented their own solid waste disposal system. Driscoll added that once a plan is adopted it would require the approval of the Health Department and DOE. Driscoll stated the County is still waiting for approval of their 1982 plan so DOE approval is not a given. Johnson asked what would happen if the Council made no decision on this. Driscoll commented that if no decision is reached we would continue under our existing agreement. That would preclude us from participating in the forum composed of representatives of the suburban cities, Seattle and _.. King County on development of the new comprehensive solid waste management plan. The new agreement would allow us to participate while the existing agreement does not. Biteman suggested this item be tabled until a reply is received from the County. Driscoll informed the Committee there is only one Council meeting remaining in March. If a negative or no reply is received from the County, the March 31 deadline would still apply and a special meeting would need to be held. The Committee determined they would prefer to hold a special meeting if needed. Biteman moved this item be tabled until the next Public Works Committee meeting on March 22 . The Committee unanimously agreed. The Committee unanimously agreed the public hearing scheduled for March 15 should be on Recycling. Improvements to 256th Street Tom Sharp asked about any planned improvements for 256th Street between 104th Avenue S.E. and 116th Avenue S.E. He is planning on improvements to the driveway to Stratford Arms Apartments and would like to know if there are any scheduled improvements. It was determined that there are no improvements to 256th included in the 6-year TIP. Johnson added that the property owners could initiate an L.I.D. for improvements. Sharp inquired about the number of L. I . D. covenants that have been signed by property owners along this street . Gill indicated this information could be readily obtained from the Property Management section. Kent City Council Meeting Date March 15 , 1988 Category Bids 1. SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORKS FUEL TANKS 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening was February 17, 1988 with four bids received. The low bid was from Gaston Brothers in the amount of $79, 453 . After review of bids and project funding, the - Public Works Director recommends the contract be awarded Gaston Brothers and that $30,000 be transferred to this project from the Equipment Rental Reserve Fund . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from the Director of Public Works 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works (Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc. ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: nn Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds the contract fS the Public Works Fuel Tanks be awarded to Gaston Brothers for $79, 453 and that $30,000 be transferred to this project from the Equipment Rental Reserve Fund. DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 5A DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS March 10, 1988 TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council FROM: Don Wickstrom RE: Public Works Fuel Tanks Bid opening was held February 17 with four bids received. Gaston Brothers submitted the low bid in the amount of $79,453 . The project replaces the City's existing four underground steel tanks with reinforced plastic tanks and brings us into compliance with the Federal guidelines for underground storage tanks. A project budget of $70, 000 was approved in the 1988 budget. Based on the bids received, it is, however, anticipated the total project budget will be $100, 000. Because one of the existing tanks is presently out of service due to leakage (we are using a rented tanker truck at $250 per month in lieu thereof) and the age of the others are at the failure period, we see no alternative other than to proceed ahead with this project. As such, it is recommended that $30, 000 be transferred from Equipment Rental Reserve to this project and that Gaston Brothers be awarded the contract for the bid amountof $79,453 . BID SUMMARY Gaston Brothers $ 79, 453 O'Sullivan Construction 83 , 080 Petroleum Equipment Maint. 104,415 Omega 190, 174.93 Engineer's Estimate 55, 000 �x �r V 1f1� Kent City Council Meeting Date March 15, 1988 Category Bids 1. SUBJECT: RIVERBEND GOLF COURSE PHASE II 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Six bids were,,-received for Riverbend 'Golf Course Phase II with the low bid bmitted by Hall and Lindsay, Inc. of Seattle, Washington. The Department, Parks Committee and Architect John Steidel recommend award of the base bid and combination alternates as follows : Base Bid $1, 297, 650.00 - Add Alternate 1: multicolor wire 0.00 - Add Alternate 2: lake arification 10, 147.00 - Add Alternate 3 : pump drive 15,448 .00 - Add Addendum Alternate 3 : relocation 15 green 1,200.00 $1, 324,445 .00 ` Deduct - Alternate 166 trees - 7, 376 .00 $1, 317,069 .00 Tax $ 106, 682 . 59 Contingency at 4% $ 52, 682.76 Total Award $1, 476,434. 35 Note: Architect ' s estimate for base bid work was $1, 410,000. 3 . EXHIBITS: Bid tabulation and Architect ' s recommendation 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Department, Architect and Parks -. Committee at their March 9 , 1988 meeting (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $1,476,434. 35 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Golf Course Proiect Account Financed by Revenue Bonds 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to award the bid as recommended - DISCUSSION: ACTION• -- Council Agenda Item No. 5B March 9, 1988 TO: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL & CITY ADMINISTRATION FROM: JOHN STEIDEL, GOLF COURSE ARCHITECT SUBJECT: RIVERBEND GOLF COURSE CONSTRUCTION, PHASE II — BID I have examined the six (6) bids received by the City of Kent for ••. Phase II Construction of the Riberbend Golf Course and recommend that a contract be awarded to Hall & Lindsay, Inc. , of Seattle, Washington. Their Base Bid is $1,297,650.00. I also recommend accepting Add Alternates 1-3 from the Base Bid which will allow us to color code wire for irrigation, aerify the lakes and provide a more energy efficient pump plant. I also recommend that 166 trees be deducted from the tree planting portion of the work and that we accept an alternate on Addendum #1 that will enable me to better locate #15 Green. y All other Alternates are not to be accepted. The accepted Add Alternates and Deducts result in an additional $19,419. The Total of the Base Bid and these alternates, $1,317,069.00. I have previously worked with Hall & Lindsay and was very pleased with their work. I am confident in their ability to do the work specified. " I also believe that the City received a good and fair price for this work. ry BID TABULATION FORM . -r.• PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT .. CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON BID OPENING MARCH 9, 1988 - 11 : 15 AM 8 I y RaE •p GOLF COLR- E PHASE 1 1 -- v w CONTRACTOR G C71 w PLACE - I 00 r t v b e t w tt1 Q 4- 1� 0. 1_ C 1 TY OF KENT t..- -....__......... Vi.•r.._ .. .. .c. .C')..-...ro . ... . 3. '--C N CDtp.. Co. - tp. ... 01. ---- -.. ......__ r-.-C 3 d C� In U 00, O O tD 1� V }3 CITY HALL COUNC 1 L CHAMBER w M C N t9 •r M r 3 . . . . m r C .. .1 r cO-�L r C U CO h•--. �_._�__- f ---- • 0! u•1 Zf m 3 41 � �M n o 01 , 220 SOUTH FOURTH AVENUE �I Z.r- O L U N L w VI X 3 -. to V I--X. " •�� C't _ .._--._ ._....._. .. ...... _. ....._._. .. _. 01 •N M Rf v1 0) r� 7 O W tD N •r •F-J O O . . KENT, WASHINGTON 98032 '' N'O •N I C 'O O > O M +1 m C M I L V1 m C 4- 00_i�.a1_47.__. .O-Gd_.A1.0-O 4------•C-fq•N--. 4W 4- ...Ils.._.... b �• p y t0 w r0 m W 1� Lo 0 0 01 0>t 00 E O O r- O C 00 O S '- 4- NM J J 1� 0001�J0. ]L 01 tL1 ¢ UCL LL C7r-••rMN . c BID BOND _. .....--- '---- -'---•-'-- --_. ADDENDUM NO. i _ .. . _ __._._. ..__..._ .. --.._..... --.....- - ADDENDUM NO. 2 1 . SITE PREPARATION ----- - 126,116 _ ____ 29,.790 _• .•_128,,328 _.._ 50,000_._ ___U 6 . 2. DRAINAGE _ _ _ 12341488 142,.411., 3. GOLF COURSE CONSTRUCTION -232,115__ _-2502.976-_ ._ 339 361-. 3-42_C)_0_. __��.9:Z.�_•.,- 0 4. TREE PLANT/TURF INSTALL 211,931-- 3571534 _ 365,_250 472.9Q6 I`. _s_.,_!gRacAT�.ON/Punlp_Puwr_.._._.-' 604 000 - ..:_569�724_. ----619,Z79 TOTAL BASE BID 1,297 650 1 350 435 1 5 -770 RI ADD ALT 1 - MULTI COLOR WIRE _ _._..----....0_ 2,260._.-. ADD ALT 2_LAKE AER I F I CAT I ON - --103147 . _•_'_. D.,9].Q_.. 14a900 .-•--20,O( ADD ALT 3 - VAR FREQ DRIVE 15,448 15,657 16,080 y- DED ALT 1 - CART PATH 4.95 ---_4 _ •- . 4-.• DED ALT 2A. DOUG FIRS — _— 39 -- -'----- -•4_$_� . —. —55— -------_41 DED ALT 2B. CONIFERS 37.50 70 55 L DED ALT 2C. DECD TREES -- - 72.50 --_---- ._. �� -�5 - -- 35 DED ALT 3 HYDROMULCHING 4,770 11,000 PUTTING GREEN ALT. -F 0-- . ..._.._.__.+4Q0 _-_--t650_ ..__._......__..-0.- ---1C^ ADD ALT 1 . SAND ON FRWYS 10.25. --�0• --------•11 ------ -"9' ._.------•- ... ADD ALT 2. DRAINLINES --__-_. ..._-_..__......3. — -2 ADD ALT 3. NO. 18 GREEN - _— - —. 1•s200---. 4r2 - 2 . - --DED-,ALT..1,. ...4rr NP-DRAINAGE..._ 2.50 2.� •� 1• •--• W DED ALT 2. 4rr PERF DRAINAGE 4• 4'00 .._...-__. 1•50 -----"-- -2-- -- DED ALT 3. DRAIN SUMPS 50 65 82 40 _- ___-_ Lt' . . DED, ALT 4 .._4.•..FAI,RWAY DAAI,NAGE.. .__ ....__ _ .. .._.. ._ LL• DED ALT S. FENCING 0 0 0 1,000 3 000 ADD 2 ADD ALTERNATE - 4rrWATER HOOKUP 15,500 10,943 19,284 18,200 12 50C March 9, 1988 TO: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL & CITY ADMINISTRATION FROM: JOHN STEIDEL, GOLF COURSE ARCHITECT SUBJECT: RIVERBEND GOLF COURSE CONSTRUCTION, PHASE II - BID I have examined the six (6) bids received by the City of Kent for Phase II Construction of the Riberbend Golf Course and recommend that a contract be awarded to Hall & Lindsay, Inc. , of Seattle, Washington. Their Base Bid is $1,297,650.00. _. I also recommend accepting Add Alternates 1-3 from the Base Bid which will allow us to color code wire for irrigation, aerify the lakes and provide a more energy efficient pump plant. I also recommend that 166 trees be deducted from the tree planting portion of the work and that we accept an alternate on Addendum ##1 that will enable me to better locate ##15 Green. All other Alternates are not to be accepted. The accepted Add Alternates and Deducts result in an additional $19,419. The Total of the Base Bid and these alternates, $1,317,069.00. I have previously worked with Hall & Lindsay and was very pleased with their work. I am confident in their ability to do the work specified. I also believe that the City received a good and fair price for this work. ry � LJ I U '1 ABULA I I"I 1'UtIM PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON BID OPENING MARCH 9, 1988 - 11 : 15 AM R 1 VFR6Eh'O GOLF COURSE PHASE I 1 .•_--•+ PLACE -•--_-- - _--- -•-_- -.- v ' CONTRACTOR 1.0 CITY OF KENT L N Q .----. . ..._ ....... . . ...... ._. ...... .. . 41 +1 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER - 3 d' 220 SOUTH FOURTH AVENUE 'a' 4J cY 41 41 ll� .... M +1 VV +1 (01R . U pJ _: _ _.... .... .. .. .. . .ct i� ._. 41 r• 41 •r KENT, WASHINGTON 98032 4- 1. 1 L •r 4 FU H to W ^ a W In BID BOND ADDENDUM NO. 1 ADDENDUM NO. 2 1 . SITE PREPARATION 262,176 58,500 2. DRAINAGE 111,875 82,500 3. GOLF COURSE CONSTRUCTION 561,659 293,000 O 4. TREE PLANT/TURF INSTALL 381,631 358,000 000436 618� --'---. _5-,_,(RRj,GATT RrT{?.ON/PI • PLPINT..._._..._ . . 532_v TOTAL BASE BID ,849,777 1,410,000 --.W _ADD ALT_ 1 MULTI COLOR_WIRE 11,575 ADD ALT 2 - LAKE AERIFICATION 14,973__ ADD ALT 3 - VAR FREQ DRIVE -- - - 16,805 _.. . .. . --�E- ..�y, DED ALT I - CART PATH -- 3.30- -----_.----- ----- - -----•-_-- _ _DED ALT 2A. DOUG _FIRS 50 .- DED ALT 28. CON 1 FERS - -- ----- --'---40 --- ---.. - . DED ALT 2C. DECD TREES 45 DED ALT 3 HYDROMULCHING 5,125 PUTTING GREEN ALT. } 0 ADD ALT 1 . SAND ON FRWYS 13 ADD ALT 2. DRAINLINES 6,35 Z ADD ALT 3. NO. 15 GREEN 35 1i , .-DED ALT 1 . 4 NP DRAINAGE A - W DED ALT 2. 4 11 PERF DRA 1 NAGE 1.94 .... 6 DED ALT 3. DRAIN SUMPS 22.50 _..._.-_._. .. _..... ..-'- -----.. .. DED ALT_ 4. FA 1 RWAY DRAINAGE .21 ....____.._.._.. _... ....... E DED ALT 5. FENCING 840 ADD 2 ADD ALTERNATE - 411WATER HOOKUP NO Bid R E P O R T S 5 uJ II � �C� A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT 01 Ul fJJ ikQ �� ,1J � vL � (�Ca',�w �uU4 . I�CWJ L(.Ur►y r,�q w'�Si L,'Vy��_a�i tLr,✓i (I `1 kV, B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C. PU LIC WORKS COMMITTEE ? 7 �' D. PLANNING CO ITTEE M. E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE i LJA F. PAR COMMITTEE G. ADMINISTRATIVE,,REPORTS -Tr""-� 7 tV 4 LL i- /� ur�uz de, „ OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES February 16, 1988 COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Christi Houser Steve Dowell � � � � D � LS Paul Mann . D Jim White MAR 11988 Berne Biteman . STAFF PRESENT: Brent McFall CITY OF KENT Tony McCarth , CITY CLERK Mike Webby Marie Jenson Alana McIalwain Nancy Leahy OTHERS PRESENT: Dee Moschel , Chamber of Commerce Lyle Price, Kent News Journal Dick King, Shearson Lehman and Hutton APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS All claims for the period ending February 16, 1988, in the amount of $722,492.01 were approved for payment. RECLASSIFICATION - TEAMSTERS BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES Assistant City Administrator Mike Webby presented a proposal to the Committee to reclassify seven Public Works employees. These requests for reclassifica- tion had been submitted by the Public Works Department in December and the Personnel Department reviewed the reclassifications similar to the review given non-represented employees. Based upon the review, they are proposing to - reclassify seven positions at a cost of approximately $550 per month. The Committee reviewed the list of positions and the information provided and approved that the item be included on the consent calendar for the February 16, 1988 meeting. PAY AND CLASS STUDY IMPLEMENTATION City Administrator Mike Webby reviewed the implementation scenario for the City's pay and class study conducted by Bill Ewing and Associates. Mike noted that the implementation scenario based on the study already accepted by the City Council would be within the $50,000 budgeted amount, would provide that everyone be moved to the correct salary range, would provide for no cut in Operations Committee Minutes February 16, 1988 Page 2 salaries for existing employees and would provide that employees who would normally be recommended for moving to an A step would move to a B step if they had been with the City for longer than one year. In explaining this process to the Committee, Mike reviewed with them a number of examples. Following Mike's presentation, City Administrator McFall explained to the Committee modifications to the Consultant's recommendations. Some of these modifications were to implement the Mayor' s reorganization of the Administrative employees. The Committee recommended that the proposal be brought to the Council for their consideration. A few staff people spoke to the implementation expressing their concerns about the consultant changes and the City modifications. CLID 316 BOND SALE Finance Director McCarthy told the Committee that Dick King of Shearson, Lehman, Hutton, would be present at the Council meeting of March 1 , to present a proposal to purchase approximately $1 .5 million in CLID Bonds. Prior to that presentation, though he wanted to have the Committee brought up to speed on the current conditions in the market for the sale of these bonds. Dick King presented the trend data of interest rates noting that interest rates over the last couple of months have decreased dramatically from a recent high at the end of October and that the City is into the bond market at a very good time. He also discussed with the Committee his proposed interest rate at this time of approximately 7.42 percent and explained his gross underwriting spread of $23 per bond. Following the presentation the Finance Director noted that this was information only item at this time and would be coming back to the Council at their March 1 meeting. The Council appeared satisfied with the presentation by Mr. King and did not need him back for the Committee meeting, but he will be back for the Council meeting of March 1 . Operations Committee Minutes February 16, 1988 Page 3 OFFICE SPACE ACQUISITION City Administrator McFall told the Committee of a pending sale of the law offices located across 4th Avenue from City Hall . He noted that the law firm located there is looking to sell the facility to move to larger quarters. They are asking $580,000 with a 20 percent down payment and a seven year contract at 9 percent. He noted that the firm would be moving out in the spring and the City could basically move right in. This would greatly relieve office space problems currently in City Hall but it would be realized as only a short term solution to those problems. The Committee asked about connecting up computer lines and was told there would be no problem with either connecting these to the phone lines or if needed to channel across the street for that purpose. Also discussed was the pending proposal of a public/private partnership to build some office space on City-owned properties between City Hall and the Engineering Building, but it was noted that that project is at least two years from completion and that the City does have some immediate office space needs. Based upon this, the Committee moved the recommendation of the acquisition following receipt of additional information related to appraisal and tax records. COUNCIL CHAMBER REMODEL City Administrator McFall spent an additional amount of time with the Committee reviewing the Council Chamber remodel plans discussed with the Council as a whole at their 2/9 meeting. The presentation included the three alternatives as proposed by the architect following his meetings with the Mayor, Brent and certain Council members. Brent noted that all designs were inhibited because of the current design of the Council Chambers and that the fact that the walls are brick and there are low ceilings in various areas. The Committee took the information under advisement and would like to schedule a relook at the plans at their March 1 meeting and decide from the►ie whether to go ahead with the proposal or not. Council members Dowell proposed a short Operations Committee Minutes February 16, 1988 Page 4 term solution of converting the existing Council Chamber by improving the sound system and cutting an aisle through the existing rows of chairs, 'Ehis alternative will be reviewed with others at the 3/1 Operations Committee meeting. ' DECEMBER FINANCIAL REPORT Finance Director McCarthy reviewed briefly with the Committee, because of the time constraints, the December financial report noting that a full presentation would be made at an upcoming Council workshop. His presentation noted that the City finished the year at slightly better financial position than had been forecast at the time of the 1988 budget, but the increase was smaller than had incurred in previous years. This will be discussed in more detail at the Committee meeting at an upcoming Council workshop. 66F-01F OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES March 1 , 1988 COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Christi Houser Steve Dowell Paul Mann Jon Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Brent McFall (J� _... Tony McCarthy Mike Webby Marie Jenson May Miller OTHERS PRESENT: Dee Moschel , Chamber of Commerce Lyle Price, Kent News Journal APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS All claims for the period ending February 29, 1988, in the amount of $735,597.45 were approved for payment. OFFICE SPACE OPTION City Administrator Brent McFall reviewed the City's needs, plans and opportunities for office space. He noted that a study done approximately four years ago said that by 1988 the City would need an additional 30,000 square feet of office space. Current plans are to relocate the library, picking up 15,000 square feet by mid-1990 for use by the Police Department with existing Police space in City Hall being allocated to other departments. In addition, the City is looking for approximately 15,000 square feet primarily to house a Permit Center which would consolidate Engineering, Planning and Code Enforcement in one area. This space would primarily result from the development of a public private partnership on City owned land adjacent to City Hall . The earliest that this space could be completed would be mid-1989, and would provide the additional 15,000 square feet. An interim proposal would be to purchase or lease office space at other locations in the downtown area. An immediate option would be to purchase the Curran Law building across 4th Avenue from City Hall which would provide approximately 5,4UO square feet. Advantages of this purchase for $580,000 would be that it would be available immediately, be in proximity to City Hall and therefore allow the City to Operations Committee Minutes March 1 , 1988 Page 2 control future use of the space. The disadvantages are that it is not big enough for the Permit Center and would only provide housing the overflow department needs. It is not a long term solution and the grounds are not large enough for substantial parking at any future time. Additional negatives would be the amount would come off the tax roll , the City's debt capacity would be reduced from approximately $700,000 to approximately to $200,000. Based on this presentation, the Council discussed the pros and cons. Councilman Dowell supported leasing some space on a short-term basis, Councilman Houser was concerned about reduction in the City Council 's capacity, and Councilman Mann was concerned that the City needed additional space close to City Hall as opposed to a remote location. Even on a short term basis, Mr. Mann felt that leasing space was throwing good money down the drain. Brent noted that the appraisal on the building was $520,000 but that the City usually pays more than the appraisal since it is cheaper than condemnation. Councilman Mann moved to acquire the Curran property, but his motion died for lack of a second. Councilman Dowell proposed that the City enter into a lease negotiation for the Curran building, rather than purchase the building outright. That motion also died for lack of a second. The Committee decided to have a short presentation at the Council meeting of 3/1 , and let the Council make the decision on the property. CLID 316 BOND PURCHASE Finance Director McCarthy told the Committee that Dick King from Shearson, Lehman and Hutton had proposed a net interest cost to the City of 7.349964 and a gross underwriting spread of $22. The interest rate and the gross underwriting spread are below the rate proposed at the last Operations Committee. Based upon this input, the Committee decided to approve the sale of bonds to Shearson, Lehman and Hutton. The item as previously directed by the Committee will appear on the consent calendar for March 1 . Operations Committee Minutes March 1 , 1988 Page 3 PAY AND CLASS STUDY IMPLEMENTATION City Administrator Brent McFall explained to the Committee that he, with the concurrence of the Mayor, is proposing two revisions to the pay and class implementation scenario presented at the February 16 Operations Committee. These recommendations relate to the City Clerk staff and to certain administrative staff. In the City Clerk's area, the recommendation is that the Deputy City Clerk be classified at a range 25. In the Administrative area, the recommendation is that the Executive Assistant be classified at a range 30 and that the Community Events Coordinator be at a range 27 with the Public Information Coordinator remaining at a range 34. Administrator McFall explained that he had held various meetings, both with the Mayor and with the staff associated with the City Clerk's Office, and is making these recommendations with the concurrence of those -- involved. With respect to the function of the Executive Assistant, it was noted that the individual involved will be scheduling the work flow of the clerical staff, but that the individuals will be responsible to the City Administrator. Following this presentation Councilman Dowell had a question about the process. Assistant City Administrator Webby explained that the employees had completed questionnaires which their supervisors had reviewed and commented on but did not change. He also noted that all positions weren't included in the salary survey portion of the study as many positions could not be compared with those in other cities. Councilman Dowell also questioned other positions in the survey, particularly noting the parallel between superintendent positions. City Administrator McFall noted that there was concern for equity among like level positions in various departments and therefore the staff adjustment in that area. Also questions were raised concerning why the attorney positions were lower than certain maintenance positions. It was noted, that the study Kent did was a market study and that what the positions are paying in the market. Following this discussion, Councilman Mann moved the endorsement, Councilman Dowell seconded and it was unanimous that it be brought to the full Council for approval . COUNCIL CHAMBER REMODEL Because of the length of the meeting in discussing other subjects, the Council Chamber remodel was postponed for discussion at the March 15 meeting. 66F-OIF KENT CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE - February 16, 1988 4: 00 PM Council Members Present Staff Present Judy Woods Charlene Anderson Steve Dowell Jim Hansen Jon Johnson Jim Harris Paul Mann Fred Satterstrom Dan Stroh City Administrator Others Present J. Brent McFall Larry Frazier - Seattle Master Builders Dee Moschel - Chamber of Commerce Raul Ramos - The Mueller Group Dennis Riebe - Centron Tom Sharp - SDM Properties MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Chairwoman Woods stated the Planning Commission had held a number of hearings on the amendment to multifamily development standards and there had been considerable public input; the purpose in bringing this issue back to the Planning Committee is to have staff answer questions and address concerns from the Council and to further clarify the issue for other participants in the process. Chairwoman Woods added that at no time had the Planning Committee considered the 20% reduction in multifamily density to be uniformly extended to all areas of the city and stated the Planning Department was looking at additional options for the reduction to take into account issues such as rail transit. Councilman Johnson had no questions and stated the issue had adequate public hearings at the Planning Commission level, as has been the policy. Councilman Dowell had voted to bring the issue to the Planning Committee to address a concern about these amended standards having an impact on density and because Mr. Sharp of SDM Properties had stated that Stratford Arms and Titus Mansion would not have been built had these amended standards been in effect at the time. Councilman Dowell added that there were several good ideas incorporated into the amended standards from the report of the Executive Committee on City Design Policy and that the purpose of the amended standards was to enhance the 1 Minutes of Planning Committee Meeting February 16, 1988 quality of multifamily development. Jim Harris stated it was not the intention of the standards to lower density although it is possible that developers would need to change their design in order to obtain the density they desire. Mr. Harris added that density bonus is available through the P.U.D. process. Dan Stroh commented that it was his impression that Mr. Riebe's comment at the Planning Commission that these standards would affect density related to the first proposal presented by staff and not to the proposal as it exists today. Mr. Stroh confirmed that some of the concepts of the report on design were incorporated into the proposed amendment to multifamily development standards, i.e. , buffering single family adjacent to multifamily and providing for a better streetscape. He added that sometimes minor and sometimes major modifications to design would be needed to bring a development into line with the proposed standards but he does not believe that density would be affected. Mr. Stroh further stated that Stratford Arms was an unusual site and replied to Chairwoman Woods that smaller lots would have a harder time complying with the standards but in most cases could still be built to the same density. Fred Satterstrom stated the Council wanted to keep bulky, large structures away from single family areas as much as possible. Staff believes the setback is reasonable. Mr. Stroh commented that the Administrative Design Review (ADR) process provides a safety valve in allowing different approaches to accomplishing the same objective, at the Planning Director's discretion after considering three criteria. Councilman Dowell questioned whether the three criteria really allowed much flexibility. Mr. Harris stated staff intends to work with developers and let them know up front where there is a problem. Developers will need to be flexible also. ADR allows flexibility with a semblance of permanency. Mr. Stroh replied to Councilman Mann that the perimeter landscaping requirement would not preclude having patios or other such amenities. Mr. Satterstrom stated the intention is to avoid having pavement from the perimeter of the lot right up to the building. He further replied to Councilman Mann that there are developers putting in perimeter foundation landscaping now and getting the density they want. Mr. Stroh commented that the proposed standards attempt to upgrade the landscaping to provide bulk and screening. In response to Councilman Mann, discussion occurred on adding a statement regarding the timing of this process and review of the process by the Council Planning Committee after a period of time. Chairwoman Woods requested that staff prepare such statements. Mr. Frazier questioned whether amendments could be made to the Planning commission's recommendation without having additional public hearings. Committee members and Mr. Harris stated that the City Council is an open meeting, input from the public can be taken and the Council can amend recommendations that come 2 l Minutes of Planning Committee Meeting February 16, 1988 " to them for action. Chairwoman Woods added that if Council desires extensive revision to a recommendation before them, Council would usually remand the issue to the recommending body for additional _.. hearings. Discussion occurred on Stratford Arms and on the impact of the proposed development standards on smaller lots in general. Mr. Sharp commented that he believes the city is encouraging the development of larger parcels because the proposed amendments discourage development of smaller lots. Mr. Ramos was concerned about lots with two street frontages and asked if there could be flexibility to allow more stringent standards on the more visible street and less stringent standards on the other street, while retaining a variable setback. Staff agreed to add such an amendment. Mr. Ramos further expressed concern that there are rights of way for streets that will probably never be built or never opened; he asked for an amendment to the proposal to address that possibility early on in the development review stage. Staff agreed to add such an amendment. City Administrator McFall stated the city would have to maintain utility easements however. Mr. Frazier expressed concern about the process used in the public { hearings on multifamily development standards and multifamily density reduction. He added that he would like to have the Planning Director award density bonus for superior design. Discussion occurred. Chairwoman Woods added that perhaps density bonus could be considered in a future proposal to amend development standards. Discussion occurred on the effect of the proposed standards on smaller lots. Jim Hansen stated the city has a procedure for obtaining a Variance and that would be an appropriate avenue of relief. Mr. Riebe agreed and added that it is staff's intent to assist developers. Mr. Satterstrom added there is an "in-town P.U.D. " process on the books that applies to sites less than one acre. He suggests taking a look at the P.U.D. process to make it workable. Mr. Harris agreed and developers were asked to assist staff in this regard. The Committee agreed to have staff return with an amended proposal at the March 1 meeting and also forward it to the City Council meeting of March 1, 1988 . P.U.D. As stated above, it was agreed that staff and the developers would work together to arrive at a workable P.U.D. ordinance. 3 Minutes of Planning Committee Meeting February 16, 1988 PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S 1988 WORK PROGRAM This issue will be discussed at the next Planning Committee meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:35 PM. 4 � b 821851 N 821881 8220911 � 81 to 2222 81 BE 222 822461 N y� SE 224 8 I 8 227 P1 SE 225 81 -.. �r. Be Ke ty Hall Location Map " o Ice Station to 8E29261 Library s 234 Si (Aq&I P rk N Q = N 523881 3 CIOud 81 Z v A $ James 81 241 Hslan 81 •' • . Sam SI W Tahn nnea Ith[it > t 1 S 24 6E 244 W Masker SI > I �oija < rn Owa O 1R I S S HWY 10 ullb Ca pus Park P ti 5 H OO I Walnut ^ Maple at k 820181 628261 < . 2 A) N 113 F �4 > O 30- 826681 > 'n V to ti Q = &n - O� 7 > ; I G DECLARE AS SURPLUS 8-FOOT STRIP VICINITY i� 520 SCENIC WAY 11,..PRAISALS A FULL SERVICE APPRAISAL COME