Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 03/01/1988 - City of Kent City Council Meeting - Agenda ` CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Council Chambers • City of Kent March 1, 1988 Office of the City Clerk 7 :00 p .m. w NOTE: Items on the Consent Calendar are either routine or have been previously discussed. Any item may be removed by a Councilmember . CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1 . PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Employee of the Month 2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. East Hill Zoning Area C - Appeal - Carey B . East Hill Zoning Area C - Appeal - Bergstrom C. East Hill Zoning Area C - Hearing Examiner ' s Recommendation 3 . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes B. Bills C. James St . Overlay D. Out of State Training E. CLID 316 Bonds - Ordinance •g7iL F. Mari-Park Preliminary Plat G. LID 318-Fund Transfer H. Railroad Crossings Petitions I . S . 277th Corridor J . Recycling Program K. 1988 Target Issues - Resolution ( (SS 4 . OTHER BUSINESS A. Multi-Family Development Standards - Zoning Code Amendment B. 1987 Pay & Classification Plan Implementation -- 5 . BIDS 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) . Employee of the Month Kent City Council Meeting pl"' o 4' Date March 1, 1988 Category Public Hearings 1�J I , r 1 . SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ZONING OF AREA C - EAST HILL COMMUNITY WELL ANNEXATION NO. 2 - MADE BY WILLIAM J . CAREY 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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 Ave . S .E . extended to 114th Ave. S.E. approximately and north of S .E. 244th extended . The Hearing Examiner recommends zoning of R1-9 . 6 , single family residential (9600 square feet minimum lot area) . 3 . EXHIBITS: Minutes of City Council Meeting of January 19 , 1988 , request for Reconsideration Order , Letter of Appeal . See memorandum, staff report , minutes , findings and recommendation in section for zoning of entire Area C as filed with this packet. ( Item 2C) 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner, 10/7/87 (Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc . ) Adopt zoning outlined in the Findings and Recommendation dated 10/7/87 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : OPEN HEARING: of PUBLIC INPUT: CLOSE HEARING: 6 . CITY COUNC I L ACTION.. J, Councilmember i moves . Councilmember seconds p /modify the findings of the Hearing Examiner and to recomme ed cuwith/disagree with the Hearing Examiner ' s og5o � � DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No . 2A EXCERPT FROM CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JAN 19 , 1988 CAREY APPEAL ANNEXATION ZONING East Hill Community Well Annexation No. 2 - Car eV APPEAL Appeal. This. .is a public hearing to consider appeal of the Hearing Examiner ' s recommended oning for the property located east of 112th Avenue S.E: ' . ' Carey Appeal . extended to 114th Avenue S.E. approximatelyland north of S.E. J244th extended. The appeal was filed by William J. Carey. The Hearing Examiner recommends zoning of R1 -9. 6 , single family residential ( 9600 square fi!p.t minimum lot area) . White noted that the Carey family has asked that this item be continued to the meeting of March 1st, and SO MOVED. Biteman seconded and the motion carried. To: City Council 1 �__ Date: November 10, 1987 ,��� From: William J. Carey Attention: Mr. Jim White, President'�� (ir ��E"r�� CITY CLERK Subject: Request review of Hearing Examiner's decision. Re: East Hill Well Annexation Area 2, #AZ-87-2. Reference: (a) Hearing Examiner's, order on request for reconsideration, dated November 4, 1987. (b) William J. Carey's, request for reconsideration, dated October 19, 1987. (c) Hearing Examiner's, findings and recommendation, re: subject area, dated October 7, 1987. (d) Staff report, Kent Planning Department, recommendation, re: subject area, dated August 11, 1987. In accordance with Section 16, of City Ordinance No. 2233, it is respectfully requested that the City Council review the Hearing Examiner's decision, as contained in reference (a) regarding my request for reconsideration, contained in reference (b) relative to the zoning of the subject property. This request for review is based on the reasons outlined in reference (b) showing that the Hearing Examiner's, "Finding of Fact and Conclusions", as contained in reference (c) to support and justify her recommendations to the council, were erroneous and invalid. The Comprehensive Plan, designated the area East of 112th Ave.S.E. to 114th Ave. S.E. (approx.) lying North of S.E. 244th, extended, as multi—family, 12 units per acre. The Hearing Examiner recommends to the City Council, reference (c) a zoning for this Area of R1-9.6 (single family residential with a minimum of 9,600 sq.ft. per unit. In my opinion, for reasons outlined in reference (b) , the Hearing Examiner has failed to provide adequate or sufficient evidence to justify and support her recommendation to change the zoning for the subject property as designated by the Comprehensive Plan. It is therefore respectfully requested that the City Council approve a zoning for the area noted above, of multi—family, 12 units per acre as designated by the Kent Comprehensive Plan. Respectfully Submitted, Wil am-J. Car 11236 S.E. 244th cc: Thomas Bailey Kent, WA 98031 Berne Biteman (206)854-2705 Stephen Dowell - Christi Houser Judy Woods Dan Kelleher Diane L. Vanderbeek James Harris CITY OF KENT OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER IN RE ) EAST HILL WELL ) ORDER ON REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AREA 2 ) RECONSIDERATION #AZ-87-2 ) INTRODUCTION This matter came on regularly for public hearing before the undersigned Hearing Examiner on August 19, 1987 and September 21 1987 . A recommendation to the City of Kent City Council was issued by the undersigned on October 7 , 1987. Mr. William J. Carey filed a Request for Reconsideration on October 19 , 1987 . Said Reconsideration Request is timely pursuant to City of Kent Ordinance No. 2233 , Section 15. The Request for Reconsideration raises five issues. In addition, written argument with respect to each issue is presented in the five-page reconsideration request. The undersigned has carefully reviewed the arguments presented. ORDER Having reviewed Mr. Carey' s reconsideration request, it is hereby ORDERED that said request is DENIED. City of Kent Ordinance No. 2233 , Section 15, sets forth a series of criteria for reconsideration of a Hearing Examiner decision. These criteria permitting reconsideration include erroneous procedure, errors of fact or law, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearings. The proponent of the Request for Reconsideration has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence any of the criteria set forth in the Ordinance. Accordingly, the request is denied. DATED this 4th day of November, 1987 . DIANE L.4VDERBEEK, HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF KENT ptanni O"DOD KIRK IODDf. I,Ju y" A�2m ••�,�..^�.��mm n '1 -1 pp �' .Mgt H CLARK AVE= 9 AVE mM:? H� O N Ly -2nti p-. . a KEN INOTON /;;.s, AVE 000M11, 3 1i, ST-1 In IA n L•J f 1' N JASON 0 AVE b ~ 2 ! ~ =VANDE ANT m m + hs/HO J<. ' '+ n AV[ a 'EYE. m � r .'}'PSic 1` x N PROSP CT- AVE r'1 M MPL ON]ym 0 EALE%A DER a Y•O n'G• a LFNORA AVE a CREST AVE , m '$ 'T � N HAZEL <D r-+� m m $ m N AVE n -1.'aD T.C•: AVE a0 (D - ONEB IRNER * 2 F aY �!r1 S ^" s LN 0 n S _ -t r0- y RI M'OI SC.aa , ,?� ... IELO E s rL• C 2 _ m y < (EE• N O AVE LANE " R �' r. y 2 �^ O,a:t1: i�'' u AlVORO 4, afsT r AVE y x n '^ y �; .ta1•�`F�•1 AVE P - 0 Tn, ] F ] ELLIS VIEW -�.� •'' 00 u ^ r+• PL NI --1 PL n It '',.� m N SUMpI?. HILLTOP AVE •Ct REITEN PD 11 N :C.L!'Va-', d0 •N+ S IA AVE u S MAPLEWOOD A VE. ~ �...'jtl1. D Elm IIIIiI II II It III 5 92ND tr' S KIMBERt OM I'E \\•'.�.1 ,!S N "Nox �OM N AVE y�f00, 1A 11 Ada:. r " ~ rN A W y t t. 1 1 9ATH AVE 7 rAV .: :t: LL ( u = cn N 'r ray i.(,i?,1j�•_O = n Off, t' e VN m 93TN _ u _.. -3AV "" o .•i(.•'py u-s AVE 3 96TN AVE 3 `^ �BTIt SAVf •1..}V,�.L\:n�w�f.! .�1:' oz_ 7TH � � u u u © r VE _._ 11L6 ,LOd O ti 2 987H AVE S o P RAWB RRY N y� S I y O C:• 9 v n w w 99TH AVE ! m 0 n A nn D• ... L BE —_—_ nr�'��'�9z•aa� y1Al 0 100TH AVE . . MST zM qrj E SC Sti ^ �M Ox-4 v ' nM m 9 r>F 102ND. .'.8 arrltad0 00 u N )aAVE BE u O7. i uu 103RD < m 2 -I a ■I��i 9tr 9z.61{i = . 1OATH AVE im E �'• -' 9mi MR mD YY h •• , n 107TH PL BE Ar uu W t N mm 19TH 2 109TN AVE y y a SI E Sj ••� N 1`Zn •n � Ni� 1S Ar z Ix lOSTH AVE S� -. 1 114M V i+J I SSu'T� ' a •< 'A � I Z N RI is N^ •n r- 3: oo _ 0 yy� u I1 T t1 R1-9,6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL o` u / w 'N IJ VE = _ N !V V' ON APPLICAI EAST HILL WELL ANNEXATION AREA 2 LEGEND IAZ-87-2 Number_ HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION a�1plicallon Silo oposed ulnnunlm DQ (18S1. Pr G AREA C Zoning bndry city limas tr1�17lF SCALE = Vicinity Map I - loco 1 To: Hearing Examiner Date: October 19, 1987 From: William J. Carey Subject: Request for Re-Consideration Reference: (a) East Hill Well Annexation Area 2, AZ-87-2, Area "C" Hearing Examiners Findings and Recommendations. (b) Letter dated August 15, 1987, William J. Carey to Diane L. Vanderbeck. Subject: Proposed Rezoning of East Hill Well Annexation Area 2. The Reference (a) report recommended that the property East of 112th Avenue S.E. 252nd except Bainton property be zoned R1-9.6, Single Family Residential (9,600 square foot minimum lot size). It is requested that consideration be given to change your recommended zoning for property located East of 112th Avenue S.E. extended and North of S.E. 244th Street extended to Multi-Family 12-24 units per acre. This request is based on the following reasons: 1. The procedural process is defective since it violates the basic principle of democratic Due Process. 2. It is not in accordance with the "Kent East Hill Plan". 3. It is not in accordance with the "Kent Comprehensive Plan". 4. It is not in accordance with the stated policies and goals of the Rent Planning Department. 5. The Hearing Examiner did not give full and adequate consideration to the special and unique conditions existing in the subject area noted above. Following is a detailed discussion of the above points: 1. Defective procedural process, etc. To fully understand this point it is necessary to make a chronological review of how the zoning recommended in Reference (1) evolved. Planning Department records show that two community workshops were held in May, 1981. About 230 residents, property owners and representatives of local business attended these work- shops. These workshops were attended by many city officials including the Mayor, City Administrator, members of the City Council, Planning Commission and Planning Department. -2- Following the public workshops, six citizen Advisory Committees were appointed by the Planning Departments. The committee members attended numerous meetings and spent hundreds of hours assisting the Planning Department is developing goals, objectives, and policies for the East Rill Plan. During January and February of 1982 preliminary land use concepts were developed and presented for comments and review by the Citizens Advisory Committee members at a public meeting held in March, 1982. The proposed land use recommendations developed by the Citizens Advisory Committee were then submitted to the Planning Commission and reviewed at workshops in late March and April 1982. The Planning Commission then held public hearings during the month of April. Following this review by.the Planning Commission, a final plan document and environmental impact statement was prepared and submitted to, and approved by the City Council. The East Hill- Plan recommendations then became a part of the citys "Comprehensive Plan". According to the Planning Department, the "Comprehensive Plan" is used by the Mayor, City Council, City Administrator, Planning Commission, Rearing Examiner, and other city departments to guide growth development and spending decisions. Residents , land developers, business representations, and others may refer to the plan as "a statement of the city's intentions" concerning future _. development. The Comprehensive Plan designated the subject area noted above as Multi Family, 12 units per acre. However, the Planning Department and Rearing Examiner now recommend a zoning of R1-9.6, Single Family Residential (9,600 square foot minimum lot size). This raises the question of why did the Planning Department change the proposed zoning for the subject area as noted above. The Planning Department Staff Report gives various reasons for making the zoning change, such as inadequate roads, traffic problems, inability to provide essential services, etc. , but close review of the Staff Report shows the primary factor that influenced the change in zoning was the effort to comply with the intent of Resolution #1123 passed by the City Council in October 1986, stating its intent that vacant Multi-Family zoned lands within the city be reduced by twenty (20) percent. The reference to this Resolution appears throughout the Staff Report and it is obvious that this was the compelling reason for the zoning change. In my opinion this Resolu- tion should not have been considered since it has not been officially approved by the City Council, and as you stated in Reference (a) , it may be illegal. -3- In my opinion this arbitrary decision by the Planning Department to downgrade the zoning for the subject property, as noted above, with- out the benefit of a public hearing is a serious breach of faith with the hundreds of East Hill residents who participated in good faith in the many meetings and workshops to assist the Planning Department in developing the East Hill Plan as noted above, and Siolates the basic democratic principle of Due Process. 2. It is not in accordance with the "East Hill Plan". See above for details. 3. It is not in accordance with the "Kent Comprehensive Plan". The plan designated the subject area as Multi-Family, 12 units per acre. however, the Planning Department and Hearing Examiner now recommend a zoning of R1-9.6, Single Family residential, (9,600 square foot minimum lot size) . 4. It is not in accordance with the stated policies and goals of the Kent Planning Department. The subject property lies South East of "Royal Firs", a new apartment complex of 186 units, and forty (40) acres of apartments lying North West of S.E. 240th Street. The Planning Departments policies provide for a buffer transitional area between high density, multi-family, and single family neighborhoods . This is another reason for requesting reconsideration of your recommended zoning for this area. It is logical that this buffer zone be established at 116th Ave. S.E. , since 99% of all single family houses are currently being built East of 116th Ave. S.E. In addition, this would be consistent with the current zoning West of 116th Ave.S.E. , between S.E. 256th and the Kent Kangley Road. This area is currently zoned Multi-Family. In addition, the subject area along S.E. 240th Street is a main East West traffic corridor. 5. The Hearing Examiner did not give full and adequate consideration to the special and unique conditions existing in the subject area noted above. The Hearing Examiner (see paragraph 26, page 6 of Reference (a)) seemed to give special weight and codsideration to a petition signed by over 150 citizens in "Area C". It should be noted that most of the people who signed this petition live An or South of S.E. 248th. None of the residents living in the subject area signed the petition. The two areas have entirely different problems. A good example is the difference in the traffic load. South East 248th has approximately thirteen (13) times more traffic than South East 244th. This ratio of 13:1 was confirmed by actual physical count on October 12, 1987', between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Three Hundred Seventy Seven (377) vehicles used S.E. 248th while only 29 used S.E. 244th during this period. -4- Another good example is the difference in the number of Multi- Family units presently existing along the streets. There are currently approximately 1000 Multi-Family units along S.E. 248th. There are none along S.E. 244th. The subject area ccasists of a total of approximately 35 acres; four (4) 5 acre tracts, and six (6) 21 acre tracts consisting of nine (9) single family houses. It should be noted that only three (3) single family houses were built in the entire Area "C" during the last ten (10) years. During this same period approximately twelve hundred (1,200) single family homes have been built in the area East of 112th S.E. , extending North to 132nd S.E. , lying between Kent-Kangley Road on the South and 248th on the North. This comparison shows it is unrealistic to down zone the subject area to single family houses. No building contractor or land developer are interested in building single family houses in the subject area. Your recommended down zoning will kill any possible development in this area. We take specific exception to the following paragraphs of reference (a) under "Conclusions" relating to "Area C". 10. Last sentence: "Citizens who reside in the vicinity recommend less density still". This is not a correct statement. All citizens in the subject area request the zoning designated by the Comprehensive Plan. 11. Last sentence: "The Staff recommendation would reduce traffic by 38 percent -- etc". This statement is very misleading since it doesn't clarify or identify the basic figure reduced. All recent traffic studies show that approximately 90 percent of the traffic presently using S.E. 240th, S.E. 244th and S.E. 248th is generated outside the city. This leaves around 10 percent that is generated inside the city that the city has any control of. Accordingly, the reduced density proposed by your recommendation will have very little effect on the total traffic problems. Any objective and impartial traffic analysis would show that the traffic generated inside the city has very little impact on essential services. The primary impact comes from traffic generated outside the city. As noted in paragraph 5 above, the subject area does not have a traffic problem. 12. Same as 11 above. 13. ,Same as 11 above. -5- _. 14. First 'sentence: "The evidence establishes that. the emergency response times in their vicinity for fire and medical personnel is one of the highest in the city". This is an incorrect statement. According to the Fire Department this area is currently served by Fire and Medical personnel from Station 72, located East of this area at 140th S.E. Accord- ing to-Fire Department spokesman, their response time is quicker to this area than to other areas lying North and West. "Inadequate roads", etc. This statement is incorrect. A physical inspection shows that on a comparative basis that S.E. 244th is as adequate or in _ better condition than other roads in the area where Multi-Family houses have been built, such as 116th S.E. , South from S.E. 256th to Rent Rangley; 112th S.E. North from S.E. 240th, and S.E. 248th West from 104th S.E. The above shows that most of the reasons given in Reference (a) to support and justify the down zoning of the subject area are erroneous and invalid. In conclusion, based on the above reasons it is respectively requested that reconsideration be given to change your recommended zoning for the subject property from R1-9.6 Single Family residential (9,600 square foot minimum lot size) to Multi-Family (12-24 units per acre). Respectfully submitted, ey Wi am J. 11236 S.E. 44th Rent, WA 98031 ............ ... Kent City Council Meeting Date March 1, 1988 Category Public Hearings i 11 " 1. SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ZONING OF AREA C - EAST HILL COMMUNITY WELL ANNEXATION NO. 2 - MADE BY MICHAEL BERGSTROM 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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 Ave . S .E. The Hearing Examiner recommends zoning of R1-7 . 2 , single family residential (7200 square feet minimum lot area) . 3 . EXHIBITS: Minutes of City Council Meeting of January 19 , 1988 , Letter of Appeal . See memorandum, staff report, minutes, findings and recommendation in section for zoning of entire •.-. Area C as filed with this packet . (Item 2C) 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearin Examiner 10/7/87 (Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc . ) Adopt zoning outlined in the Findings and Recommendation dated - 10/7/87 ,_. 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ � I SOURCE OF FUNDS: IV OPEN HEARING: j y� PUBLIC INPUT: CLOSE HEARING: / i * , 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTI N: = / r� Councilmember_{ moves , Councilmember seconds M to adopt/modify hie findings of the Hearing Examiner and to concur with/disagree with the Hearing Examiner ' s rec mended _. zoning. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 2B EXCERPT FROM CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JAN 19, 1988 - BERGSTROM APPEAL East [Jill Community Well Annexation No. 2 - Berg- strom Appeal. This is a public hearing to consider an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's recommended zoning for the property located at 25219 113th Avenue S.E. The appeal was filed by Michael Bergstrom of Construc- tion and Development Services, Inc. The Hearing Examiner recommends zonipg,,of R1-7.2, Single Family Residential (7200 square feet minimum lot area) . The packet contains the following: Copies of the letter of appeal, recommendations of staff and of the Hearing Examiner, and verbatim transcripts of the public hearing before the Examiner. Kathy McClung of the Planning Department described the area, a 3.35 acre parcel situated south of S. 252nd adjacent to the Strattford Arms apartment complex. The public hearing was opened by Mayor Kelleher. Michael Bergstrom noted that he represented Amerinor Holding, owner of the proprty at 25219 113th Avenue - S.E. He stated that the Hearing Examiner's recommend- ation of R1-7.2 is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of 12 to 24 units per acre. Bergstrom noted that Kent's Zoning Code requires that the zoning recommendations for annexed areas be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, He referred also to the East Hill Plan of 1982 and Resolution 1123 in which the City declares its intent to achieve an average density reduction of 20% on undeveloped multi-family zoned lands. Bergstrom stated that the Hearing Examiner's Findings noted that many people spoke in favor of single family zoning but did not mention that there also were many who favored multi-family zoning. He noted that no alternative solutions were considered and that multi-family zoning of a lesser density such as MRG would achieve twice the requirements of Resolu- tion 1123. Upon Biteman's question, Bergstrom pointed out that this parcel is on the edge of property already developed.and adjacent to parcels zoned MRG and MRM with single- family zoning to the east and on 111th to the west. He pointed out that some of the Hearing Examiner's findings did not pertain to this particular parcel and that sewer service is adequate for multi- family development. Bergstrom noted that right of way dedications would reduce the parcel to 2.84 acres and MRG zoning would allow about 45 units. Bergstrom referred to staff concerns relating to traffic, and emergency services and he recommended that these issues could be addressed by the City aggressively applying SEPA authority to examine impacts of future -- developments so such impacts could be mitigated. Gene Oades stated that there are single family resi- dences to the east and to the south within one block of this parcel. He noted the traffic problems which would result if multi-density zoning was given. Tom Delaney stated that the sewer service on 113th only extends half way up the street. Mayor Kelleher noted that this hearing would be con- tinued to March 1st along with the hearing for the zoning of the entire Area C properties. There were no further comments and BITEMAN MOVED to continue the hearing to March 1 . Houser seconded and the motion carried. Construction & Development Services, hie. J 311!i Occidental Ave.S.,Seattle.WA 98104•624-5 797.9011161h Ave.S.E.,Bellevue,WA 98004.454-7655 �.. � cE, �.l WE Qt.l 2 1 R7 ^- t October21, 1987 ' � '' tiY; CITY CL% Kent City Council =rcfC c/o Marie Jensen, City Clerk 220 4th Avenue South Kent,WA 98032 RE: East Hill Well Annexation Area#2-File 4AZ-87-2-Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision Dear Members of the City Council: On behalf of my client, Amerinor Holding, owner of property at 25219 113th Avenue SE, J I am submitting this letter appealing the Hearing Examiners decision as it pertains to this property. The basis for this appeal is summarized herein. Fhl, Section 15.09.055 of the Kent Zoning Ordinance, which sets forth the steps for zoning annexed lands,requires that the Hearing Examiner recommend zoning designations which are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The R1-7.2 zoning recommended by the Examiner for this piece of property is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of 12-24 units per acre. nd the Findings of Fact presented in the Examiner's decision for Area C omit the fact that many people who testified at the hearing supported multi-family zoning. The Findings do not-reflect the range of requests and considerations presented at the hearing by the public. Third, the Examiner's decision does not consider alternative solutions. It reflects only the �chaicre between single-family density and zoning to the maximum density presented by the Comprehensive Plan Map. The possibility of multi-family zoning to a density'somewhat less than the maximum presented by the Plan should be considered. Density limitations, j combined with appropriate use of the City's SEPA authority, can work together to limit .J new impacts and help address current problems with traffic, utilities, and emergency services. Please accept this letter of appeal. I,intend to more fully present our arguments in favor of multi-family zoning at the appropriate City Council meeting. Pichael y,Bergstrom �1 Permit Processing-Ordinance Consulting .� Land Use Research-Project Con sulling ' Kent City Council Meeting '\; Date March 1, 1988 Category Public Hearings Jj. SUBJECT: EAST HILL COMMUNITY WELL ANNEXATION AREA NO. 2 AREA C ZONING NO. AZ-87-2 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This is the second and final hearing to consider the Hearing Examiner ' s recommended zoning for the East Hill Community Well Annexation Area 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 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Minutes of City Council Meeting of January 19 , 1988 , memo, map, staff report, minutes, findings and recommendation, petition filed at October 20, 1987 Council meeting, letters from Spurgeon, Haak, Vigoren and R. W. Thorpe on behalf of the Harry Boat property. 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner , 10/7/87 (Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc . ) Adopt zoning as outlined in the attached Findings and Recommendation, dated 10/7/87 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: - OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT: CLOSE HEARING: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves , Councilmember seconds to adopt/modify the findings of the Hearing Examiner and to concur with/disagree with the Hearing Examiner ' s recommended zoning and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the required ordinance. DISCUSSION: ACTION: ,- Council Agenda Item No . 2C KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 24, 1988 MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director SUBJECT: INITIAL ATI ST HILL MMUNITY WELL #221 AREA HEARING CO The City Council held the first hearing to consider the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation for the initial zoning for the East Hill Community Well 42 Area C on January 19, 1988 . At the end of that hearing, the matter was continued to March 1st. Area C. as shown on the accompanying map, lies easterly of 104th Avenue SE extending easterly to 116th Avenue SE. The map shows the zoning designations recommended by the Hearing Examiner. JPH:ca G. Y or KENT _ 7� �.......�'A o ptanni , I p '000 KIRK aDy 1A•(y nr�oS ij� mmZ 4 AVE mYw µ'\ U 3 J 2 -1 m n y a EN IN TOM fur,•AVE rlpOMµl m S ;A•fhs7N J/;1: A N JASON �� AVE 2 S -VANDF ANTER AVE o f� •1Y 0 r S f h�?C i N PAOSP T AVE £� t N MAR ON O S^ LENORA AVE >r 1 PL ym mALEXA DER N jY ^:Y > N HAZEL AVE ( S a CAEST AVE �� r a AVE O y �D Y't' - p f m 1• 2 ONEB 1RNER r i i F a7 O( \;•i'f ; m n R •( 10 9ELD 6 z r=- y T = m y . z • AVE LANE y QI 1^ SrOd 1.f�.'� O N ALYORD It AVE 1 x o .:f lry .•..-�4 �0 _. .Y F B MIS N N VIEW •I" N SUMMf ' ^ PL _I -1 PL �i '''r• ;•J, n r AVE HILLTOP AVE C REITEN RD N tll.'� O 'A S N Vli D A ~ ~ �(Lcc i Z 1h''1 - S 93N0 PL S. i S MAPLEWOOD AV[- :�f'i .i D L I1111111111I111 N N => 03 S NIMBER( 0MTr 1\11 'f•••1r' N �N �0� AVE. •\.' /. i- y y (�.' 94TH AVE S N •t JM K•V• �T(•�i S'�' - N t• on 96TH " { _ "AVE �.�10' •F'•Z%��•J+ N-- • L6TH AVE S E�� -6TI1 ' •3 AVE S _�AY.. ' �x•;�.nOP. w% - 40 Ilan[ S t+�' `j\(.`^]q•l �1 ..f 2xC 7TH F�i!rlKlt * VE S f 96TH AVE S O gAWB ARY N C! v O n N 1 0 99TH AVE S y � TT � .J � ��.�.��9���. 001007M � AVE 1 BE N7C !� gr> 7 m �/ xm p IIAA Z 101NO. ..Barricade Zm Ar AVE BE 14 ' r 104TH AVE `•�191� —fie=rL y� A alfalfa ll _ O n f1 [rl LA LA N ,'i�1. .�� .1f17TH fmn Z m m N n NN 3 W W N •m - -� AVE SL 9T u •Tl c) - m D - .._.._...__ is IOBTH AVE S: r- z Z cn in m m i `n Z `� D.. (n y 1 N o .. _ . RI-9.6 � 11 Tlm (' ` IN .SYE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL = an ZE 00 .•.117TH PL z-i -f II / ' !T V r• Q1 57 r . APPLICAI HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION LEGEND EAST HILL WELL ANNEXATION AREA 2 Numhor_ /AZ-87-2 _ a�plicalioo silo rinn"Ilnll /1 roposed Raquesl: �r�p C _ zoning bndry city limils ■i■i■irL SCALE = Vicinity Map 1 - 1000 R.W. Thorpe & Associates, Inc. Planning • Landscape Envi'rru,onmenw(/►t1aall • Economics ® V 17 Principals: Jon Potter F E B 24 1988 Robert W. Thorpe, AICP January 27 , 1988 CITY OF KENT Je safer Tubb CITY CLERK -,. Kent City Council Kent City Hall Kent, Washington 98031 RE: Proposed rezone for property within Annexation Area C (11214 SE 256th Street - Harry Boat Property) . Dear City Council Members: You are currently in the process of determining the permanent zoning designations for specific areas within the recently annexed "Area C" file #AZ-87-2. We are representing one of the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Harry Boat, who own property located at 11214 SE 256th Street. Up until recently we were preparing to submit a rezone request to King County Building and Land Development Division to realize the potential RM 2400 zone placed on the property by the Soos Creek Community Plan. A site plan and location map are attached. We understand that the staff has recommended that this property be zoned at a much lower density than both the Soos Creek Community Plan designated as well as the East Hill Comprehensive Plan map (both recommending densities for multi-family at 18 du/acre). However, we feel that a single family_ zoning designation for this site would be inap2ropriate for this site. Properties to the west and south are zoned at 18 - 24 du/acre (RM2400 A RM1800). The site immediately adjacent to the west is three stores and the entire south side across 256th is two story multi-family. Several new and multi-family projects are in the immediate area. See vicinity and land use map. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The Kent City Staff's recommendation for zoning within Area C is somewhat consistent in land use i.e. residential but less dense than that recommended by the East Hill Comprehensive Plan. We feel that the site at 11214 SE 256th Street, adjacent to the Stafford Arms Apartment complex on the east, should be zoned to MRG rather than R1- 7.2 for several reasons which we have listed below: Seattle: 1300 Alaska Bldg. •2nd 6 Cherry-Seattle, WA 9B104•(2061 B24-6239 Anchorage: Suite 503- 1110 West Sixth Avenue-Anchorage, AK 99501 -(9071 276-0005 1/27/88 Page 2 1) To provide a logical transition from the Stafford Arms Apartments, zoned for 23 du/acre (MRM) to the site on the east which would be zoned to allow for a maximum of 16 du/acre (MRG). This then would transition to single family east of the site zoned R1-7.2 In general, the transition would occur from the high intensity commercial uses near the intersection of SR-515 and SR-516 east to the high to medium density multi-family and then to lower density multi-family (the proposed site) buffering the single family residences to the east. This transition also occurs from south to north with the commercial uses to the south transitioning to single family north of the site. 2) The site plan by R.W. Thorpe and Associates, Inc. provides for low- rise (two stories) townhouse units in 3 ,4 and 6 plexes, which visually would not only be low impact but would also transition from the taller Stafford Arms Apartments to the townhouse, two-story units on the site and two story to the south as well as the single family east. 3) The site would be buffered along the north and east sides with twenty foot wide, five foot high landscape berms with a double row of evergreen trees to provide additional transition within the site. Other mitigations include: a. on site drainage and detention b. recreational facilities for residents to respond to requirements of Kent School District c. walkways along 256th per Kent School District d. adjacent to existing Metro Bus stop e. contemporary Northwest architecture, and f. agreement to a Binding Site Plan or PUD approval by the City of Kent. 4) The site is currently a rundown, abandoned single family home in disrepair and is an eyesore for the surrounding properties and neighborhood. 5) The Soos Creek Community Plan had proposed this site as well as some of the surrounding area (including Stafford Arms Apartments), be zoned RM 2400 , which would allow for 18 du/acre on this site. We are recommending that the site be zoned MRG which would allow for only 16 du/acre, a reduction in density of 2 du/acre or a total of 5 to 6 units total. Seattle: 1300 Alaska Bldg. -2nd 6 Cherry-Seattta, WA 96104-1206)624.6239 ' Anchorage: Suite 5O3- 1110 West Sixth Avenue-Anchorage, AK 99501 •(9071 276-0005 N+ +6^•�•�• R.W. Thorpe & Associates, Inc. punning Landscape Environm®(,,((n�(ptal Economics ' ® E �' �' Principals: Jon Potter FEB 24 1988 Robert W. Thorpe, AICP January 279 1988 CITY OF KENT Jennifer Tubb CITY CLERK ,,.. Kent City Council Kent City Hall Kent, Washington 98031 RE: Proposed rezone for property within Annexation Area C (11214 SE 256th Street - Harry Boat Property) . Dear City Council Members: You are currently in the process of determining the permanent zoning designations for specific areas within the recently annexed "Area C" file #AZ-87-2. We are representing one of the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Harry Boat, who own property located at 11214 SE 256th Street. Up until recently we were preparing to submit a rezone request to King County Building and Land Development Division to realize the potential RM 2400 zone placed on the property by the Soos Creek Community Plan. A site plan and location map are attached. We understand that the staff has recommended that this property be zoned at a much lower density than both the Soos Creek Community Plan designated as well as the East Hill Comprehensive Plan map (both recommending densities for multi-family at 18 du/acre). However, we feel that a single family zoning designation for this site would be inappropriate for this site. Properties to the west and south are zoned at 18 - 24 du/acre (RM2400 & RM1800). The site immediately adjacent to the west is three stores and the entire south side across 256th is two story multi-family. Several new and multi-family projects are in the immediate area. See vicinity and land use map. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The Kent City Staff's recommendation for zoning within Area C is somewhat consistent in land use i.e. residential but less dense than that recommended �j the East Hill Comprehensive Plan. We feel that the site at 11214 SE 256th Street, adjacent to the Stafford Arms Apartment complex on the east, should be zoned to MRG rather than R1- 7.2 for several reasons which we have listed below: Seattle: 1300 Alaska Bldg. .2nd 6 Cherry•Seattle. WA 98104•(206)624-6239 Anchorage: Suite 503• 1110 West Sixth Avenue•Anchorage. AK 99501 •C9071 276-0005 .... ............ 1/27/88 Page 2 1) To provide a logical transition from the Stafford Arms Apartments, zoned for 23 du/acre (MRM) to the site on the east which would be zoned to allow for a maximum of 16 du/acre (MEG). This then would transition to single family east of the site zoned R1-7.2 In general , the transition would occur from the high intensity commercial uses near the intersection of SR-515 and SR-516 east to the high to medium density multi-family and then to lower density multi-family (the proposed site) buffering the single family residences to the east. This transition also occurs from south to north with the commercial uses to the south transitioning to single family north of the site. 2) The site plan by R.W. Thorpe and Associates, Inc. provides for low- rise (two stories) townhouse units in 3 ,4 and 6 plexes, which visually would not only be low impact but would also transition from the taller Stafford Arms Apartments to the townhouse, two-story units on the site and two story to the south as well as the single family east. 3) The site would be buffered along the north and east sides with twenty foot wide, five foot high landscape berms with a double row of evergreen trees to provide additional transition within the site. Other mitigations include: a. on site drainage and detention b. recreational facilities for residents to respond to requirements of Kent School District c. walkways along 256th per Kent School District d- adjacent to existing Metro Bus stop e. contemporary Northwest architecture, and f. agreement to a Binding Site Plan or PUD approval by the City of Kent. 4) The site is currently a rundown, abandoned single family home in disrepair and is an eyesore for the surrounding properties and neighborhood. 5) The Soos Creek Community Plan had proposed this site as well as some of the surrounding area (including Stafford Arms Apartments), be zoned RM 2400 , which would allow for 18 du/acre on this site. We are recommending that the site be zoned MEG which would allow for only 16 du/acre, a reduction in density of 2 du/acre or a total of 5 to 6 units total. Seattle: 1300 Alaska Bldg. -2nd&Cherry-Seattle, WA 96104-(206)624-6239 y Anchorage: Suits 503 oil10 West Sixth Avenue-Anchorage, AK 99501 6(9071 276-0005 Nw.T­*Goon - - 1/27/88 Page 3 In the previous application to Ring County, BALD staff was on record favoring the reclassification, however for financial reasons the builder did not complete the hearings process. Finally, and most important the Boats are retired, on limited income in Bend, Oregon. This property represents their retirement package. The change would be significantly adverse to them. They respectfully request you do not allow an anomoly in your annexation process, but rather designate it MRG subject to all conditions listed above including full site plan review. We will be at the March 1st Hearing to present our request. Thank you. Respectfully sub/�eds-7 R.W. Thorpe, AI for Harry Boat cc: Mayor Dan Kelleher Planning Staff Barbara Crosby Encl: Site Plan Land Use Map Comprehensive Plan Map Site/Area Photos Seems: 1300 Alaska Bldg. .2nd 6 Cherry Sesttle, WA 96104-12061 624-6239 ' Anchorage: Suite 503. 1110 West Sixth Avenue'Anchorage.AK 99501 'ES071 276-0005 CO Vr1::raw i _ L.nd•ea P.d EUU1 eom 7I y V �O t, 'IL I G 1D 0 N d m l it �-'� Z_l-' �J' -- •`i � 1 ` 3l c_ •';• 1I 0 o D H it/ r a 1A': tE _ * I Sri C: .�' �� j 3 to v_, 1° I D I F, 3�RE 8T ryIYW1 Ej L + ` j O N N N N I i Vz. _ I . + +�: n N O. •i $_j�O c__ s. ' J:? _m D C m O y II` -,/ �• I I I I I I •' O —-11 �j. 4'``. W I 11 I i I i D -•j�- 0 a °O' A to - '�•� 1 �-44l w o GO O CD A O O _I HFIEE $ Rl3gT Ntpus G N = x 1�o v O m 0 3 -9iv I �� - T`{V4 STPRTt bV�Hdr1SE: 1 3 -ut, ' t. (•�r C G N =0 ✓ i Ord �I' .• •_ _'\•1 .t• _ St T. n•W o �x-rSa l i j+ i j I -?./�1 E 5 (•t. •r. m o _ .f ' I _ Ir. cr I � '•//1�1•I _1 R — ; m _� _ IF y, In L CO 03 O— OWN im-SE I 1 =_ f =, : \•�••., - _ 'tea r.�. t �� � _"',[��o..Loe•11en ? ' j ' ail•Iln9 Plna I a R 0 In o AOProi, L•C a110 •-•i WO STORY TOWNHOUSE? bt+ng 1Ts1111-1.1 o • j Im oralnap•Oilon = - - i. Om. 0 nc loon A.•as SE 256th Street 11.1•a..•. f QUAIL RIDGE APARTMENTS CkgR W. Thorpe & Associates, Inc r apESoallle/Anehom a Land•oao• Arehltaeler• date 9 Enrlromm�m•1 AnaY•I• f „L 1900 Alaska Building 618 2r1d Avenue Seeflla•WA 90109 12081 b24.82�9 Land Economin• u_v 1� lie:�� _ ._ ___ .._.—_— --_ _—_ __—_. - ._ ..._.— _ . — ... .. •... �. ... .♦ C I T Y O F K E N T EAST" HILL PLAN LAND USE REVIEW 11 ...: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MF 2d MF : : : : . . . . SF 6 U vy S F 6 f MF 24 MF 24 =El 1, r MF24 �I�- . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. III , M F w24 : : ?AF 12: : : � '. . -•�f-�` " Y` I� I � : : : : : � SF 4 I • . r~ rL :MF \ — SF 6 r I SF 6 I r--1 I I I I I MAP 4 S—F SINGLE FAMILY: 4-sunits/acre Lc LIMITED COMMERCIAL/OFFICE µ MFn MULTIFAMILY: 7-12 units/acre 0 OFFICE MFza MULTIFAMILY: 12-24 units/acre CF COMMUNITY FACILITY F—CR-1 COMMUNITY RETAIL © PARK LAND USE BOUNDARY - ••-- CITY LIMITS F 9' S COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN ♦PEACE. SCALE IN FEET i . r I r � r r S-R S-R ® J i Vacant i T O. ql ' C9 y 0S-R Q $- -I-1-e o Single ftFroA mily w N M 2400Z5 S-R CL w m S-R E IRM 240 z I— — — —� ° w ..�JVfwY.. wGLo E > o O rr r T M y My cw 00 SE 256th St. 0 -��— Ouail Ridge Club (Apartments) (2 story) Legend S-R Suburban Residential RM 2400 Residential Multi Family' Potential Zone Classification Source: KING CO., WA ZONING Ilm cao ►1••1•Ilt� R.W. Thorpe & Associates, Inc. Seal t W lAnchtMl 1 * I 1300 •uta.eua01 e+e 2nC aw StttlMMk letL 12061 62�-e2]9 akwwMw.wuwO..mA.ICl w11n Ku.IWu..! l.na Eco.wwwn FFlg- 8 Zoning/Land USE Map NORTHWEST DEVELOPERS (HIKIDA) Reclassification (Kin Co., WA) .�•,,, � Y•.�y t�,py+ ��p„5 y�'py,� a.,. ., `kt: F' k7�r. ' 'tjc. �,��k} f. ➢k.{�Sf 4 i�'A�1i+ "T�1�..� ..f► �Y'i`. ,. i� • t. i`1y"�"' 'eta r'T 4 V {:. r • i ➢ < -��. _ b. ell ••• • - • _. ..f LYL � V. ',1�� y.F% Y J ➢fit y -. 16. IN Y 1.k ?Pan i , � 111111 ��, r•. 1:�. r �Iaa'�. � t ti A f^. Sr•. i ..;�i•t�.w €' _ � • _ • .�.; 1. . 'y,� ,c'ry�ti��Y K�f.v,.:'.�{� � '�� f � j�r-,��^r �.. iu .: 4�,. c 4 ➢�y� }v .� ' i � � {°'tt ��eti.zw'"�i�,..�-r> oe I I10ry ,fit _ _ •�'�..� �.. .. «i J ,: � � j.rNl tS R'ta `µ bk 1• .. 6 n J...�r'ti.� �4'w 4 ��• 'Y.X 4� rid "1 � .�„�«. r t a t T } aim it i �/+ .0 v r `'��?' `" � .ti �� 5' • � rat +i ^ �•r:�+ ...• rye � R1 r y� yly. y a.. r ^ 1 ♦ w' r' Y r (''� � M'J�'K'•d •CS-e#��re+i{°F'�'t 4 -r-p w' ! j' a �:.M:' ' ♦ {'y 7} , ^t :.A2.�,trf�.°4/1q�{➢r��Yii n'r�.'.$� k�G5 h d 1� i � 'b' y •• • . �� d ����r i� r+iP��CYk•p�N'^'��"� �Sk.�+F � 9 � �� f�i { •,�� . �•v �• Jf' r w3� J� �•a�3F 5 I �I h. l , uw rite � _ r SI N I. Ley i. }Jk i�. � mo t'..�, t •.•. .. s V s• '�'n`�`,�. :,. '1ao} . ::het �R � hi{ri ,ram •'r' ;r V q R h • p 3.T.t t s_1; I / i •Rv•. I •..rr��Yi w- �p 11-7L E�p� {•�� Js✓aiS.Y . Y iA M1 S . 1 }a 13. Sunrise Pointe Apts. just west of on _ north side _ of �y`L,•n�4u '6y"�xtAYeG4�b��'' rL.3�'S�.m�...Yia���sv."�'. b4 �i t. w o y Street- gig y�yyetCi!a ..�lM� V P "N41 r o � 11124 S. . 248th Street Kent, Washington 98031 January 17, 1988 Kent City Council 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032-�)89 Reference : r;ast dill Well Anne.,ation Area 2, #A2-87-2 Dear Ladies and Gentleiien: We are property owners and have resided at the above address for the past twelve years . The hearing examiners minutes dated August 19, 1987, and September 2, 1987, and the Findings and Recommendations by Diane L. Van,)erbeek, Hearing examiner, issued October 7, 1987, nave been reviewed. It appears that the city has decided to zone this property at the lowest use value possible. This general area has been allowed to he ceveloped into multi- family residential and light commercial use over the past several years . The south side of S. E. 248th Street has almost been completely filled with multi-family nuusinE. Tne property airectly south of us has been rezoned fur this type of a development. New apartment buildings are presently being built across the street from tree property to our west. Almost all cf the property owners on the north side of S.F. 248th Street ha'✓e five acre plots . Some people own more than one plot. Noss. of us want this area to continue to be developed into its best use or highest property value developments . We presently have two churches and a fire station is being designed to be built in this area . Corwaercial zoning is being recoiunenaed for 104th Avenue S.-. We request, as property owners , that the city council review the recommendations . Single family housing for this property appears to be completely arbitrary and not in the best interest of the property owners . Multi-family housing should be allowed to continue developing on the north side of S. E. 246th Street in Area "C" as shown on the zoning proposal . incerel; yours, Cnarles D. Spurgeon Property Owner 11525 S. E. 240th Street Kent, Washington 98031 January 17, 1988 Kent City Council 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032-5895 Reference : East Hill Well Annexation Area 2, #A2-87-2 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: The hearing examiners minutes dated August 19, 1987, and September 2, 1987, and the Findings and Recommendations by Diane L. VanDerbeek, Hearing Examiner, issued October 7, 1987, have been reviewed by us as property owners in this area . We are owners and have been residents for 34 years at the above address . This property is located on the S.W. corner of S.E. 240th Street and 116th Avenue S.E. and is in Area "C" of the zoning recommendations . The City of Kent has approved an LID to widen S.E. 240th Street to a five-lane highway with sewers, curbs , and sidewalks. See -.- the attached letter which takes exception with this LID. The properties on the S. E. and N.E. corners of this intersection are presently zoned for commercial use and each contain a commercial nursery. The City of Kent has recently refused to consider my property for light commercial zoning and have effectively killed a sale to develop this property into a Mini-Market and Service Station with possible retail or multi-family housing as a buffer - zone to single-family housing to the south. It appears to be arbitrary, unrealistic, and definitely not the best use for this property to zone it as single-family housing. Who will purchase or develop this property as single-family housing with a five-lane highway abutting it? All adjacent property is in larger parcels . The owners are all holding them for the investment potential and expect to sell them for their best use and at the highest price possible . This is not an ideal residential area now and will never be . We are opposed to the zoning that has been established by the hearing examiner and request that the City Council direct that this property be zoned as commercial for its best use potential. All of the property abutting S. E. 240th Street should be zoned commercial. Any other zoning is completely arbitrary and of questionable legality. Please review the attached letter and referenced LID and direct a reasonable zoning for this property Sincerely yours, Lewis A. Haak Property Owner Enclosure cc : Mr. Dan Kelleher, Mayor 11525 S.E. 240th Street Kent, Washington 96031 Ncver.,ber 14, 190 Kent City Council 220 4tti Avenue South Kent, Nashingtcn 9v032-5695 Reference : L.I.D. 331 and 332, S.S. 240th Street Improvement anc Sanitary Sewer. Dear, Ladies and Gentlemen: Wa have resided at the above address for the past thirty-four• years. The present roads are eaequate fur our use. The auaea traffic, noise, and pollution create:: by a five lane highway woulu be a burden to this property which is presently being zoned as r•asidential, single feriily housing by the city of Kent Planning Depa rt,i;ent. At the meeting of property owners on September 3, 19e7, the city representative stressed- t_1e obvious benefits of developing this property if the highway improve;:Aents were provided. However, the City r.as refused to consider light co:ep;ercial zoning; for t.iis property and has effectively killed a sale for this property whiu:, was to develop a Yini-}market with potential light retailers or «niltifatrily development as a buffer zone to eingle 'feriily housing to the South. The argu:uent that this area should not be developed in tnie _canner is not valid as we presently have eonmarcisl nurseries operating on the S.E. anci N.L. corners of the intersection of S. S. 240th Street and 116th Avenue S. S. Alec, there is substantial cvrmcercial development to the east at S.E. 240th Street and 132nd Avenue S. E. To penalize us as property owners by improper zoning, then assess us for a L.I.D. to build a highway to service these other areas, ano expect us to support these, and I quote, "improvements" to our property seem to place an unfair burden on us abutting property owners. Dice the property owners on 104th Avenue S.E. pay a major share of toe recently completea widening and having project? Did businesses and property owners on North Central Avenue north of James Street pay a major part of the costs for widening and paving this recently completed project? At least they are allowed to develop their property in the most beneficial manner. To assess the local property owners, mostly retired elderly people, amounts of `,20,000 and above (over $3b,000 if sewers are included) for a project to benefit the general public seems to be an unfair burden. The Urban Arterial Board (v.A. B. ) funds provided by the general public fail to adequately cover the costa of this L.I.D. Kent City Council -2- November 14, 1987 We are also membere of the general public and have paid gssoline taxes since their inception. We are opposed to this project for obvious reasons. If the zoning of this property was ccirected to something more reasonable to allow sale or developt%ent for the best use of this property, we mould reconsider our position. Tr.e discrepancy between zoning of property west of 1'!2t'. Avenue S. E. and property to the east and between property .located Outsicz tLIS city but adjacent to our - property appears to be arbitrary snu� unrealistic . Sin.:erely yours, Lewis & Elizabeth Haan Property Owners cc : Mr.. Lan Kelleher, Mayor ABERDE EN, WASHINGTON JANUARY 18, 1988 DEAR KENT CITY COUNCIL, RE: 11208 SE 244TH STREET KENT, WASHINGTON 98031 GENTLEMEN: THIS LETTER IS BEING SENT IN LIEU OF OUR PRESENCE AT THE JANUARY 19TH COUNCIL MEETING. TWICE WE HAVE DRIVEN OVER 100 MILES TO ATTEND ONE OF YOUR MEETINGS, ONLY TO LEARN IT (THE ANNEXATION ISSUE) HAS BEEN POSTPONED OR CONTINUED. ON JANUARY 5TH A PHONE CALL WAS MADE TO THE MAYOR'S OFFICE AND HIS SECRETARY ASSURED US IT WAS STILL ON THE AGENDA. THIS WAS AT 2:00 PM ON THAT DATE. UPON ARRIVING AT THE MEETING IT WAS ANNOUNCED THAT THE SUMMERWOOD HEARING HAD BEEN POSTPONED. ` AT THIS TIME WE ARE DISAPPOINTED TO HAVE BEEN ANNEXED TO THE ! CITY OF KENT. WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED SINCE 1981 BY THE CITY OF KENT AND KING COUNTY THAT AS SOON AS THE WATER AND SEWER NEEDS OF THE AREA WERE MET, OUR PROPERTY WOULD BE ZONED ACCORDING TO THE EAST HILL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. EVEN AS LATE AS MARCH, 1987 WE WERE INFORMED THAT AT THE COMPLETION OF THE ANNEXATION, OUR PROPERTY WOULD BE ZONED FOR 12 (TWELVE) 4 UNITS PER ACRE -- AND POSSIBLY MORE. THE 9,600 SQUARE FOOT LOTS ARE EVEN LESS THAN THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE ZONED IT AND VIRTUALLY RENDERS THIS PROPERTY WORTHLESS UNTIL SOME FUTURE DATE WHEN SANITY RETURNS TO THE CITY OF KENT. l ALL OF THIS LEAVES US WITH SOME QUESTIONS: WHO IS RUNNING THE CITY OF KENT -- THE BUREAUCRATS OR THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL? OR -- IS THE COUNCIL HIDING BEHIND THE BUREAUCRATS? IF THE COUNCIL IS RUNNING THE CITY, THEN WHY ARE THE BUREAUCRATS WRITING THE RULES AND ACTING UPON THEM WITHOUT COUNCIL APPROVAL? THE COUNCIL HAS MERELY DISCUSSED A MORATORIUM, BUT NEVER ACTED UPON IT. SO WHY AREN'T WE i n ACTING UPON THE EAST HILL PLAN? r WHY AREN'T SOME OF THE NEW FUNDS GENERATED BY NEW �? DEVELOPMENT USED TO IMPROVE ROADS AND NOT PLACED IN THE GENERAL FUND AND THEN SIT BACK AND CRY -- WAITING FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO GIVE YOU SOME KIND OF A DOLE? 7 y PLEASE CONSIDER FAVORABLY GETTING BACK TO THE EAST HILL PLAN WHERE THE LAW STATES YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE WITHOUT AN ORDINANCE DECLARING A MORATORIUM. T1(v Sincerely , Myron and Sylvia Vigoren •J u (The signed original , handwritten letter is on file with the City Clerk) LC/L'�•P�_lC.GGi.<.� l��' Jg5"�D. � 1988 gg�n� D REM D JAN 21 198B f CITY OF KENT CITY CLERK i i 7Y� City Council Meeting January 19, 1988 ANNEXATION ZONING this parcel. He noted the traffic prlems which APPEAL wo d result if multi-density zoning as given. Tom De ne stated that the se of service on 113th only ex ds half way up th�treet. Mayor Kellehe oted t�i�t this hearing would be con- tinued to March t�a'. ong with the hearing for the Zoning of the e�� r Area C properties. , There were no further c fient BITEMAN MOVED to continue the hearing. t arch 1 . Houte_ seconded and the motion carrie ANNEXATION ZONING Zoning of Area C - East Hill Community Well Annexation Area No. 2. . This is the first of two hearings to con- sider the Hearing Examiner ' s recommended zoning for the East Hill Community Well Annexation No. 2, Area C. Kathy McClung of the Planning Department described i the Hearilig Examiner ' s recommendation as follows : AREA C 1. For the area west of 112th Avenue SE extended and north i 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 rFamily 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) . She noted that the Hearing Examiner also recommended two conditions : 1. If the H. L. Bainton property is not developed as proposed under j the Walnut Park zero lot line plat, the property shall revert to R1-9.6. .. I 2. Property will be deeded to provide right-of-way widths for future street development prior to the issuance of a development permit. 6 _ i • January 19, 1988 ANNEXATION ZONING Upon Mann's question, McClung noted that the staff recommended lower densities than were shown on the Com- prehensive Plan map, but used the lines on the Plan _{ as guidelines, so 112th Avenue S.E. is the boundary I between the two different zoning recommendations. Upon Biteman' s question, McClung explained that conditions existing on the ground itself could cause considera- tion of higher or lower density zoning. The Mayor declared the public hearing open. - Al Silva, 25322 113th Avenue S.E. , expressed his con- cerns regarding the zoning in Area C and showed slides fl of the area south of S. 248th. He pointed out that the single family homes were surrounded by 12 apart- ment complexes. Stratford Arms was built in the middle of single family housing and the Margaret Ward property was sold and rezoned to expand the Stratford Arms complex. He stated that the zoning policy should be reasonable and consistent and recommended two pos- sible solutions : either stop the encroachment of multi-housing development in this area and the result- ing inconsistent, preferential rezoning of single family areas (especially the Margaret Ward property and the Bergstrom property) or designate the entire south half of Area C as multi-housing zone in this area, so that other residential areas might be saved and private homeowners could do some long range plan- ning for their property. Tom Delaney, 25420 113 Avenue S.E. , concurred with Silva. Randy Brealey, 10910 N.E. 66th Place, Kirkland, pointed out the Bainton property as part of the pro- perty for the Walnut .Park zero lot line subdivision. I He noted that at the time of the Hearing Examiner ' s I` recommendation, the conditions were acceptable, but that the situation is now quite different for the Bainton property. He stated that the developer of the project had filed bankruptcy; the Howard property has been sold and townhouses will be developed on the Wilcox property. He pointed out that the Hearing k Examiner ' s conditions would now change the zoning recommendation for the Bainton property from MRG to R1 -9 . 6. He showed sketches of how the property could be developed under each zoning designation and requested that the MRG designation be retained. The zero lot line ordinance requires a 5-acre parcel and cannot be applied to the Bainton property which is 4. 4 acres. 7 - • January 19, 1988 ANNEXATION ZONING This property now stands alone and will be developed as a short plat. He suggested a duplex condominium project with 22 units, which is a 1 /3 reduction from the number of lots in the Phase 2 proposal for Walnut Park. Brealey showed the use of a private road to avoid dedication of a 60 foot right of way for this long, narrow parcel. Leona Orr, 24909 114th Avenue S.E. , expressed her con- cern regarding over-development of the East Hill resulting in traffic problems and she stated that response time for emergency vehicles is one of the highest in the city. She urged the Council to reverse the recommendation for multi-family zoning on the small piece of property adjacent to Stratford Arms and to not allow multiple zoning for the Bainton property. Orr urged the City to consider providing for parks on the East Hill, and noted that school enrollment is expected to grow at a rapid pace. Jim Singletary, 24823 114th Avenue S.E. , noted that since the installation of a traffic light at S.E. 248th and 104th Avenue S.E. last March, traffic has doubled. He cited traffic problems, especially noting the intersections of 104th S.E. and S.E. 240th, 116th S.E. and 240th S.E. , and 104th S.E. and 256th. He statedthat these problems should be addressed before increasing multi-family zoning. Joan McCallum, 25238 111th Avenue S.E. , suggested that the undeveloped _• properties in Area C be zoned at least R1 -9 . 6 . She stated that homes built on lots of 7200 sq. ft. , would lower the value of the homes built on the larger lots . McCallum also stated that she is opposed to the multi- family zoning, pointing out that the residences on 111th are surrounded by multi-family developments . _. Charles Spurgeon, 11124 S .E. 248th, spoke in favor of multi-family housing and noted that the general area has developed as multi-family and commercial use over the past few years . He read a letter which was pre- sented tonight. He also read a letter -from Lewis A. Haak, owner of property at S.E. 240th and 116th S.E. , pointing out that 240th was widened through the LID process for which the proprty owners were assessed. Haak objected to single family zoning on a five-lane street which already has commercial zoning in some places . BITEMAN MOVED to make both letters a part of the record. White seconded and the motion carried. - 8 - January 19, 1988 ANNEXATION ZONING Jim Orr, 24909 114th Avenue S.E. , noted that 130 resi- dents of the area had signed a petition requesting R1 -12 zoning for Area C. Orr noted that the City has been seeking input and participation from the public, and urged the Council to let people know they are listening. (The petition was filed for the record on October 20 and copies were distributed with the documents for this hearing. ) There were no further comments and BITEMAN MOVED to continue this matter to the March 1 , 1988 Council meeting. Woods seconded and the motion carried. OWNTOWN (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3L) R ITALIZATION Funding for Burlington Northern De of Rehabilitat�'on. ADOPTION of Resolution 1157 supporting the P1 ning Department ' s application to obtain funding om the 1989 Washington Centennial Commission to�ystore the Burlington Northern Depot in downtown K t. LICENSING (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3D) Inter local Agreement - Kin Count AUTHORIZATION to enter into an interlocal service agreement with King County covering the licensing private security encies and employees there , as recommended by the Op rations Committee. This is a renewal of the exist- ing agreement which has b en satisfactorily handled for a past six years. BUDGET (CONSE 7 CALENDAR 3I ) 1987 Budget Adjustment Ordinance. ADOPTION of Ordi- nance 27645 for the 1987 Budget Adjustment, as recom- mended at he J nuary 15c.Operations Committee meeting. The ordinan a combines, in one place, budget amounts for previous, approved expenditures . The major items are funded with and issues and grants. POLICE DEPARTMENT (CONSENT CALENDAR EM 3M) ,Completion of the Re qdel Project of the Police De art- -ment: - ACCEPTANCE of the Police Department Remodel PrJect, by Alpine Const ction, as complete. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3N) Corrections FacilityRoof Leaka AUTHORIZATION to expend funds to resolve the ro. leakage problem to abate further water damage to th %facility and equipment. Legal responsibilities o errors and omissions are currently being research d by the City Attorney ' s office. 9 - November 30, 1987 NOTICE OF .RESCHEDULED `PUBLIC HEARINGS AND APPEALS ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS HEARINGS FOR EAST HILL COMMUNITY WELL ANNEXATION AREA 2 , AREA C (#AZ-87-2) APPROXIMATELY LOCATED TO THE EAST OF 104TH AVENUE SE AND WEST OF 116TH AVENUE SE, BETWEEN SE 240TH STREET AND SE 256TH STREET HAVE BEEN RESCHEDULED. - CHANGE OF MEETING DATES The Kent City Council will be considering the recommended zoning .,, for the East Hill Community Well Annexation Area 2, Area C ONLY, at rescheduled public hearings on January 19 1988 and March 1, 1988 at 7 : 00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, Council Chambers. This change does not affect Areas A and B. The recommended zoning for the East Hill Community Well Annexation Area 2, Area C, is shown on the attached map. There will be public ' testimony taken at these public hearings. The City Council has the option to accept or reject the recommendations of the Hearing Examiner; or may remand the matter to the Examiner for further consideration. NOTE: The appeals of Michael Bergstrom, Construction Development Service, Inc. , for property located at 25919 113th Avenue SE and William J. Carey for the area east of 112th Avenue SE to 114th Avenue SE (approximately) lying north of SE 244th, extended, will be heard on January 19 , 1988 . Marie Jensen CMC City Clerk ` FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT FILE NO: EAST HILL WELL ANNEXATION AREA 2 #AZ-87-2 APPLICANT: CITY OF KENT REOUEST: A request to apply permanent zoning designations to properties lying within the East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 boundaries. LOCATION: The annexation area consists of approximately 370 parcels and 410 acres. APPLICATION FILED: April 24 , 1987 DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE: July 8, 1987 RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: October 7 , 1987 RECOMMENDATION• AREA A 1. West of 100th Avenue SE (extended) : R1-9. 6 (single family residential with a minimum 9, 600 square foot lot size) . 2 . East of 100th Avenue SE (extended) : R1-7 . 2 (single family residential with a minimum 7, 200 square foot lot size) . AREA B 3 . O, Professional and Office, for that portion lying south of SE 244th Street. 4 . CC, Community Commercial, for that portion north of SE 244th Street. AREA C 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) . 1 Findings and Recommendation East Hill Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 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 . 61 Single Family Residential (9, 600 square foot minimum lot size) . STAFF REPRESENTATIVES: Jim Hansen, Planning Department Kathy McClung, Planning Department Greg McCormick, Planning Department Gary Gill, Public Works Department PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Various members of the public WRITTEN TESTIMONY: several letters received After due consideration of the evidence presented by the applicant, all evidence elicited during the public hearing, and as a result of the personal inspection of the subject property by the Hearing Examiner, the following findings of fact and conclusions shall constitute the decision of the Hearing Examiner on this application. INTRODUCTION The City of Kent requests various rezones herein in connection with property recently annexed to the City of Kent. The annexation area is known as East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 and covers 410 acres in 370 parcels. There are approximately 894 persons who reside within the annexation area. The annexation area is located north of SE 256th, south of SE 240th Street, west of 116th Avenue SE and east of 94th Avenue S. The annexation area is bisected by 104th Avenue SE. Further, local collector arterials such as 116th Avenue SE and SE 248th Street serve the area. The annexation area has been divided into three areas for purposes of this hearing. The public hearing regarding Areas A and B was held on August 19, 1987 . The area described as Area A lies west of a line approximately 300 feet west of 104th Avenue SE. The area described as Area B lies adjacent to 104th Avenue SE, both east and west for approximately 300 feet. The public hearing for Area C which is the easterly portion of the East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 was held on September 2 , 1987 . 2 Findings and Recommendation East Hill Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 The time for the deliberation and recommendation on this matter was extended by the undersigned on September 16, 1987 setting a deadline of October 7, 1987 . As a result of the recent annexation, all of the subject property has an interim zoning designation of R1-20, Single Family Residential, minimum lot size of 20, 000 square feet. FINDINGS OF FACT AREA A 1. The portion of the annexation area known as "Area All is approximately 135 acres in size. The location of Area A is described in the introduction. 2 . Land use in the vicinity is predominantly rural, single family. Most of the lots located to the west of 100th Avenue SE are at least one-half acre in size. Many parcels are vacant or underdeveloped. There is one lot to the west of a plat known as Link Addition which is 6, 000 square feet in size. However, the Link Addition plat contains lots which average approximately 9, 400 square feet and most of the lots in the vicinity where R1-9. 6, Single Family Residential, zoning is recommend exceed 9 , 600 square feet in size. 3 . The evidence establishes that the topography of the area is varied. The land slopes generally from east to west with an average grade of four percent. There are no significant streams or creeks. The vegetation in the vicinity is that typically associated with rural-type single family homes with residential landscaping. There are some small orchards as well as open fields and pastures containing grazing animals. 4 . All of the existing streets in the vicinity contain two lanes with narrow gravel shoulders in some areas and generally open ditches. There are no sidewalks in the vicinity. The significant streets within Area A are 94th Avenue S, 98th Avenue S, SE 248th Street and SE 244th Street. Currently, 100th Avenue SE is not a through street. The closest major intersections within the vicinity (104th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street and SE 256th Street and 104th Avenue SE) are already operating at level of service "F" . 5. The City is in the process of upgrading the water lines in the vicinity. Sanitary sewers serve some of the area and will be extended as the Comprehensive Plan Sewer Plan Map suggests. 6. The City of Kent Planning staff is recommending that Area A be zoned R1-9 . 6, Single Family Residential with a minimum of 9, 600 square foot lot size, west of 100th Avenue SE extended and R1-7 .2 , 3 Findings and Recommendation East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 Single Family Residential with a minimum of 7 , 200 square foot lot size east of 100th Avenue SE (extended) . 7 . The East Hill Subarea Plan Map designates the area west of 100th Avenue SE as SF 6 (Single Family, 4-6 units per acre) and the property east of 100th Avenue SE as MF 12 (Multifamily, 7-12 units per acre) . 8 . Considerable testimony was given at the time of the public hearing concerning the possible impact of the proposed Fred Meyer development which is located across from the East Hill Elementary School on 100th Avenue SE. Witnesses expressed concern with respect to how their property would be affected as a result of the proposed development, and whether property zoned R1-7 . 2 in the vicinity of the proposed Fred Meyer development would be marketable . The testimony from the Planning Department establishes that the Fred Meyer development has not obtained any building permits and has only recently submitted an environmental checklist. AREA B 9. The area known as "Area B" , with the location described in the introduction, is approximately 12 .26 acres in size. Land uses in this vicinity consist of a mixture of single-family residential and light commercial uses. That portion of the area which is directly adjacent to 104th Avenue SE is largely developed for residential uses, although the widening of 104th Avenue SE and development of this street into a four-lane facility with a continuous left-turn lane has made further utilization of the already developed residential uses questionable. 10 . The area is generally flat with a slight slope from the northeast to the southwest. There are no significant creeks or streams. The vegetation is typical of that associated with residential landscaping. 11. As indicated, 104th Avenue SE which bisects the site is a four- lane facility with a continuous left-turn lane and is classified as a minor arterial. The other major street within Area B, SE 248th Street, is a two-lane road with graveled shoulder and no sidewalks. 12 . Area B is now also served by City of Kent water and the City' s in the process of upgrading water lines which were part of the original East Hill Well system. by 13 • and Portions extensions newly willannexed r required si 1n a c ordancesanitary sewers with the Comprehensive Sewage Plan. 4 Findings and Recommendation East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 14 . At the time of the public hearing on Area B, there was little public testimony in opposition to the Planning Department ' s _ recommendations. One witness expressed concern with respect to limiting the permitted retail uses in the vicinity which would result, in the opinion of the witness, in further deterioration of some of the existing residential uses along 104th Avenue SE. 15. The staff is recommending that the portion of Area B north of SE 244th Street be zoned CC, Community Commercial, and the area south of SE 244th Street be zoned 0, Professional and Office. 16. The EAst Hill Subarea Plan Map designates the property north of SE 244th Street as community retail and the property south of SE 2448th Street as 0, office. The Planning Department's recommendations are in compliance with the East Hill Subarea Plan. AREA C 17 . Area C is the largest part of the East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 territory and consists of 290 acres total . 18. The location of Area C is described in the introduction hereto. 19 . Land use within Area C is primarily residential. There are two churches located north of SE 248th Street. In addition, there is an existing 86-unit apartment building located along SE 256th Street known as Stratford Arms. 20. This portion of the annexation area has the most varied topography with elevations ranging from 400 feet to 475 feet. There are natural drainage swales and seasonal ponding which occurs on the easterly portion of the site. 21. The rural, single-family development previously described has vegetation patterns which are associated with typical residential development. However, in light of the rural character of the vicinity, there are many small orchards and open fields and pastures. 22 . The significant streets within Area C include SE 240th Street, SE 244th Street, SE 248th Street, 116th Avenue SE, and SE 256th Street. Other streets, including 118th Avenue SE, SE 252nd Street, and 112th Avenue SE, could be improved and extended to serve this area. Most of the aforementioned streets, except for SE 256th Street and SE 240th Street are typical for rural development. Specifically, these roads are two-lane with narrow gravel shoulders, open ditches, and no sidewalks. 5 Findings and Recommendation East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 Single Family Residential with a minimum of 7 , 200 square foot lot size east of 100th Avenue SE (extended) . 7 . The East Hill Subarea Plan Map designates the area west of 100th Avenue SE as SF 6 (Single Family, 4-6 units per acre) and the property east of 100th Avenue SE as MF 12 (Multifamily, 7-12 units per acre) . 8 . Considerable testimony was given at the time of the public hearing concerning the possible impact of the proposed Fred Meyer development which is located across from the East Hill Elementary School on 100th Avenue SE. Witnesses expressed concern with respect to how their property would be affected as a result of the proposed development, and whether property zoned R1-7 . 2 in the vicinity of the proposed Fred Meyer development would be marketable . The testimony from the Planning Department establishes that the Fred Meyer development has not obtained any building permits and has only recently submitted an environmental checklist. AREA B 9 . The area known as "Area B" , with the location described in the introduction, is approximately 12 .26 acres in size. Land uses in this vicinity consist of a mixture of single-family residential and light commercial uses. That portion of the area which is directly adjacent to 104th Avenue SE is largely developed for residential uses, although the widening of 104th Avenue SE and development of this street into a four-lane facility with a continuous left-turn lane has made further utilization of the already developed residential uses questionable. 10. The area is generally flat with a slight slope from the northeast to the southwest. There are no significant creeks or streams. The vegetation is typical of that associated with residential landscaping. 11. As indicated, 104th Avenue SE which bisects the site is a four- lane facility with a continuous left-turn lane and is classified as a minor 248th Street, is ial two- other lane road major within with graveledshouldera and no sidewalks. 12 . Area B is now also served by City of Kent water and the City's in the process of upgrading water lines which were part of the original East Hill Well system. 13 . Portions of the newly annexed area are serviced by sanitary sewers and extensions will be required in accordance with the Comprehensive Sewage Plan. 4 Findings and Recommendation East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 14 . At the time of the public hearing on Area B, there was little public testimony in opposition to the Planning Department's recommendations. One witness expressed concern with respect to limiting the permitted retail uses in the vicinity which would result, in the opinion of the witness, in further deterioration of some of the existing residential uses along 104th Avenue SE. 15. The staff is recommending that the portion of Area B north of SE 244th Street be zoned CC, Community Commercial, and the area south of SE 244th Street be zoned 0, Professional and Office. 16. The EAst Hill Subarea Plan Map designates the property north of SE 244th Street as community retail and the property south of SE 2448th Street as 0, Office. The Planning Department' s recommendations are in compliance with the East Hill Subarea Plan. AREA C 17 . Area C is the largest part of the East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 territory and consists of 290 acres total. 18. The location of Area C is described in the introduction hereto. 19. Land use within Area C is primarily residential. There are two churches located north of SE 248th Street. In addition, there is an existing 86-unit apartment building located along SE 256th Street known as Stratford Arms. 20. This portion of the annexation area has the most varied topography with elevations ranging from 400 feet to 475 feet. There are natural drainage swales and seasonal ponding which occurs on the easterly portion of the site. 21. The rural, single-family development previously described has vegetation patterns which are associated with typical residential development. However, in light of the rural character of the vicinity, there are many small orchards and open fields and pastures. 22 . The significant streets within Area C include SE 240th Street, SE 244th Street, SE 248th Street, 116th Avenue SE, and SE 256th Street. Other streets, including 118th Avenue SE, SE 252nd Street, and 112th Avenue SE, could be improved and extended to serve this area. Most of the aforementioned streets, except for SE 256th Street and SE 240th Street are typical for rural development. Specifically, these roads are two-lane with narrow gravel shoulders, open ditches, and no sidewalks. 5 Findings and Recommendation East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 23 . Most of the area is currently served by City of Kent water. As with the other portions of the annexation area, the City is in the process of upgrading some of the lines which were formerly part of the old East Hill Community Well system. 24 . Sanitary sewers serve only portions of the area and extensions will be required throughout this section pursuant to the Comprehensive Sewer Plan Map as developed dictates. 25 . The staff recommendation for Area C is as follows: 1. West of 112th Avenue SE extended and north of SE 252nd: Rl- 7 . 2 (single family residential with a minimum 71200 square foot lot size) . 2 . Property south of SE 252nd Street: R1-9 . 6 (single family residential with a minimum 9 , 600 square foot lot size except for Stratford Arms) . 3 . Stratford Arms (an existing multifamily development) : MRMLI Medium Density Multifamily Residential. 4 . East of 112th Avenue SE (extended) : R1-9 . 6 (single family residential with a minimum 9, 600 square foot lot size) except a parcel south of SE 248th Street, adjacent to prior City limit line. 5. Bainton property, south of SE 248th Street, adjacent to former City limit line: MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential, with maximum six units per acre. The East Hill Subarea Map designates the area west of 112th Avenue SE extended and north of SE 248th Street as MF 12 , Multifamily, 7- 12 units per acre. The area east of 112th Avenue SE and north of SE 252nd Street is shown as SF 6, Single Family, 4-6 units per family. The remaining section lying south of SE 252nd Street is designated MF, Multifamily, 12-24 units per acre. 26. Numerous citizens spoke in support of keeping Area C as rural as possible. At the time of the public hearing, exhibit 41 a petition signed by over 150 citizens in Area C recommends zoning all of the undeveloped portions of Area C as R1-12 with a 12 , 000 square foot minimum lot size. The citizens who signed the petition evidenced by Exhibit 4 , and many of the other speakers in their public testimony, expressed concerns with respect to an inadequate streets system and lack of adequate fire and police protection. Further, witness after witness repeated the desire to retain the rural character of the vicinity. 27 . The evidence establishes that were the property to be zoned to the densities suggested by the East Hill Comprehensive Plan Map as 6 Findings and Recommendation East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 opposed to the staff recommendation, traffic would increase by an estimated 38 percent. Many of the intersections in the vicinity already operate at level service F. 28 . At the time of the public hearing, considerable testimony was presented concerning the disparity between multiple family and single family housing permits which have been issued by the City of Kent in the recent years. In addition, the City Council ' s resolution in October of 1986 with the intent of reducing vacant multiple family zoned lands by 20 percent was described. 29 . The staff report, with its recommendation of conditional approval, is incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full . CONCLUSIONS AREA A 1. The Comprehensive Plan and the East Hill Plan contain goals and policies to assist the decision-maker with respect to the appropriate initial zoning for newly annexed land. .2 . The Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan seeks to establish a balanced, safe, and efficient transportation system for all modes of travels. In addition, the Housing Element seeks to increase the residential population in Kent while assuring a decent home and suitable living environment for families desiring to live in Kent. 3 . Portions of the staff's recommendation do not comply with the Kent East Hill Subarea Plan Map. However, State law requires that zoning be in general conformity, and not in strict compliance, with an established Comprehensive Plan. 4 . In this instance, there are rational reasons for not permitting the multifamily density recommended by the East Hill Plan for property east of 100th Avenue SE. 5 . The streets and utilities in the vicinity are insufficient to handle the increased density which would result from multifamily zoning. 6. The adoption of Resolution #1123 by the Kent City Council has not been considered by the undersigned in connection with the recommendation herein. Specifically, the resolution is a recommendation and is not binding. Further, although the results sought by this Resolution may be desirable, the method recommended by the resolution of a 20 percent reduction in the amount of undeveloped multifamily zoned land is of questionable legal validity. 7 Findings and Recommendation East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 7 . The arguments advanced by the proponents of more multifamily or commercial zoning east of 100th Avenue SE as a result of the proposed Fred Meyer development are unpersuasive and premature. Specifically, without an approved building permit and site plan for the proposed Fred Meyer development, impacts upon adjacent properties cannot be fully evaluated. If a retail development is approved on the Fred Meyer site, and provided further that the East Hill Subarea Plan Map is not amended, adjacent property owners may be able to establish persuasive evidence in support of a rezone proposal. However, a multifamily or office and professional zoning designation in the area east of 100th Avenue SE merely because of anticipated and unknown impacts associated with the proposed Fred Meyer development would be premature. AREA B 8 . The staff recommendation with respect to Area B is consistent with .._ the Comprehensive Plan Map designations. 9. The proposed zoning of CR, Community Retail, and O, Office, is compatible with existing land uses in the vicinity. The office zoning, as proposed, will buffer residential uses from commercial uses which have more severe impacts. AREA C 10. The staff recommendation in connection with Area C calls for a density of less than recommended by the East Hill Comprehensive Plan Map. Citizens who reside in the vicinity recommend less density still. 11. The Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan seeks to establish a balanced, safe and efficient transportation system for all modes of travel. The staff recommendation would reduce traffic by 38 percent than the zoning which would be permitted if the recommendations and the East Hill Comprehensive Plan Map were strictly adhered to. 12 . Traffic is of primary concern to the citizens of Kent and the Planning staff. - 13 . Establishing a density of slightly less than proposed under the East Hill Comprehensive Plan will result in less traffic impact. Reduced traffic, and effective management of the current traffic problems will promote the Housing Element of the East Hill Comprehensive Plan which seeks to assure present and future East 8 Findings and Recommendation East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 Hill residents housing that is safe, offers a desirable living environment, and is supported by adequate community facilities and services. 14 . The evidence establishes that the emergency response times in this vicinity for fire and medical personnel is one of the highest in the City. Until such time as the density of development suggested in the East Hill Comprehensive Plan Map can be adequately served by emergency services, roads and utilities, zoning to this density is not well-founded. RECOMMENDATION For each of the above reasons, the recommendation of the undersigned Hearing Examiner to the City of Kent City Council on the East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 is as follows: AREA A 1. West of 100th Avenue SE (extended) : R1-9. 6 (single family residential with a minimum 9, 600 square foot lot size) . 2 . East of 100th Avenue SE (extended) : . R1-7 .2 (single family residential with a minimum 7, 200 square foot lot size) . AREA B 3 . O, Professional and Office, for that portion lying south of - SE 244th Street. 4 . CC, Community Commercial, for that portion north of SE 244th Street. AREA C 5. 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) . 6. For the area south of SE 252nd Street extended: R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Residential (7, 200 square foot minimum lot size) except the 4 .80 acre parcel known as Stratford Arms. 7 . 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) . 9 Findings and Recommendation East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 8. 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. 9 . Property east of 112th Avenue SE extended, north of SE 252nd extended, south of SE 248th except Bainton property: R1-9 . 6, Single Family Residential (9 , 600 square foot minimum lot size) . The following conditions shall apply: 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 . Property will be deeded to provide right-of-way widths for future street development prior to the issuance of a development permit. Dated this 7th day of October, 1987. Respectfully submitted, \ V" DI E L. 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. 10 CITY OF KENT _ planni� . O pt"oOD KIRK OnOf 3n�y = �c Q^. .r,�`,.....M4? N CURK oAYE p.., 4 AVE m++ H� 0 d S �(��, m °m NEN IN°TOH �">1�%��� AVE 000 N,H3 ! 1,S. sr Ply 6 b y (JiJ F,Y f N JASON AVE ty N 0 Om m m y •f/ t y i S �' ZVAN DE AHTEP AVE o S •Et.E•NO Nf7 L N PROSP T AVE rt �Ci �m� C y Z ?: ,�0 'pii Siti n y LENORA AVE0 MAR O yy mALENA 'DER N .IjY' +'( N HAZEL AV[ a ,rM9 YL 3 y CREST AVE r a AVE 0-'OIL z L Fpf of Tf;; .i L ORES AVE LANE y R rm- T. N m y z �r•Oa�tt_,I,(t� y ALVORD AVE A! p�SA x ° N l• sty. •7• N L AVE ~ >< ! ELLIS w. H VIEW � ^:. �' N SUMMIY HILLTOP AVE m > PL '+ y PL A 1:1� .'T m AV C PEITEN AD �� `C= d0 y t y H C,I:Lflt I \�• Z y S 12N0 PAS. , i SMAPLEWOOD AVE• ;•`�L D '�j; 1 L 11 1 w S KIMSERE` 01L.•!E/, .:'i L \\\fS•�• Ay N y �OIP '1 h W wyA AVE N.f�OO�:i`•'�Y.Y•�rL� -1 VI _ , yC'; alb^•;/<:�.1. H T4 4ty Y� �O 96TH y �/ u r „6TH AVE •SO 't t.�S�..•1 AVE S =C ..f V.rt�LT D •r u z T�. r PAWS PRY N•�!,� i a D I 0 99TH AVE S y 0 03 TOOTH AVE �A a l SE Inz �i�> " _ lST p= x M 0 v E SE Zy OOm rZ= 102NDI ;.Barricade nm 1^ >r AVE SE ci ' TA m Z m p { r> u N u Z yo IOATH AVE E N rl D 1Q6TH u ZNi �E ���' / PL SE m rn E'1= __�\ a 24 on ti ZS = I09TH AVE SE 19TH row" t = o IOSTH AVE 3 11111111111111111111 a 109TH JIM tA PL SE IITH AVE SE;`-�w� 11OTH _ a PL SE _ y 1 t�e, some w_ 113TH\ AVE SE �n 1111111,/111111 11111 vs*Sees sees vssiI Imes M M views 0: �Name emon l ee ,^ I IATH A E hE � J V♦I l T l N � IN 7E -hi _ Ir '.. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ISI11111 V N N CO —3ITT11 PL 1••' � ---- APPLiCATIE HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION — LEGEND ' l EAST HILL WELL ANNEXATION AREA 2 application site 1'111111'111E, NlIf11hB(— /� — Proposed (ZBl}lICStAI Are—l� A — Zoning bndry city limits WINIEnr SGALE = Vicinity Map 1 - 1000 CITY Or KENT .._ _ planni3 . l Q/ADD KIRK On* ,ln�y nT poj�' A/!` Mgt INCLARK oAVE 4 AVE mw• N� 3 O N S f�r ^ m^ KEN INOTON AVE OMN 1 ST My m b z OO S kf,� r N JASON O AVE -VAND ANTER AVE O 4y H f •,M�jt 1 N PROSP T AVE ua G C LENORA AVE Ko MAR Oft yy mALEXA DER u t' � t 1 D N NALEL AVE m .: PL m z m 'y D y.l' . m a TREST^AVE ^ S r N AVE n FO jm„II. C "Y j ^ O u m D ONES IRNER ^ Z r t 9 '- 9ELD LN n L C = i m y 2 y� TL}, c•.(` N ! fdA AVE E 'f oro n T. O r :Da•e� �•f j0 a ALVORD AVE A A LANE n r LI y u �: 'f Via• •? ~ u . L AVE • F 9 ELLIS VIEW _.`.':. N SUM Mfi. HILLTOP AVE w PL --1 y PL n I.Ir. �'i n �A AVE —~ y REITEN RD N .�L:f LI\\`I--! •DO -I 2 1A1 _ S SEND PV S. A y •.Lf•\ O 'A� III II1111111111� u N 5 MAPLEWOOD AVf ��af••. `• T>• . 1R .+ om y N a S KIMBERf 011�4'•'• l\�-f.4 y �ON a 4 r AVE 00 4 Y v 9 9ATH AVE S •!► _ u u y /K y qlk t>• ` 4��L y? =0 96TH �5TI1 u UTH AVE S 1 yAVE O 1 _^ •3AV�•0�'0,1 •�f1'L:.L•.f?J N_> AVE 3 � ; 1111111 S r..✓ ?i:f�-j]rll lA f Za' 7T/f u N u © z VE S ',1•f-{ * - 98TH AVE S o RAWS RRY IN O� O y t1L6. O+ n u N O 99TN AVE S y TT O 03■A n� D f�9�aMa �Ia �imm) M 100TH AVE L SE m •_ iS SE Z1 N _ IO;i 9 rl M S - N; D Oyes I01ND. ..Barricade Zm [_�+/ ar AVE SE M 8p N 103RD t r> Z y0 104TH AVE _ O •,f1 D - .1 fJ3TN u Z� PLS m r Wu m vw y 109TN AVE SE ~ u C 19T x _ u 1f - y 109TH AVIS 11111111111111111111 o 109TH PL SE 110TH ._ I1TH AVE St%''•� u \� Pt 9E ... 113TH AVE SE �n 11111111111... 1.... M IMI m _ xs 11,ITH A E ISE �IIIIII1111 �® N ` � 11 Ti w ••• INLQ. LU1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1111II11 V' N N W —I 17TH PL r . . ... APPLICATI HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION _ LEGENn ' EAST HILL WELL ANNEXATION AREA 2roVos J p p Number_ "AZ-87-2 aupfiealiu� SIIB 111111111111 IE7 oninq d Zoning bndry flequesl� — city limits ■����i rL Y SCALE = Vicinity Map I - 1000, CITY OF KCNT _ planni Ig l �� O•4.. O KIRK aDF ,Sn�y = ry� ? wAiA Z4y N CURK SAVE O- p AVE mM NA .6 O '�i S in ♦ m In_ rD KEN INOTON a AVE O040 3 A'6•H d7 Plr N 1ASON v AVE a W y zm m m j S/HQ � LAVE i S -VAND ANTER AVC O •1p LF H N PROSP C ` u EI u .p /1 s ul LENORA AVE G \H44 l ti z a•xc " yy mALEXA DER p 3Y m;:. > N HAZEL AVE a m T. O nmRESTAVEnVIa� !,�> v V. z L F aY OE Af:�ONESti -n't 0'tElOm oL a _ m z ,D:i '('< NALVORDA�AVC m n a M ;O• y .r,0 y AVE r rLLIS W u VIEW 11• l.. 4SUMMIT HILLTOP AVE m PL '( " PL m AVE C REITEN RD '�=I•\y 00 S IS N " (�.\\. S 92HO PL S. A •.11,\ •. O (6� 111111111111111- u a S MAPIEWODO AVE (li•' '1 Z> N .+ �. �l'L, �OZ N n s S KIMeE Rt OM /4^:��A\\�i, Ay y •t ON ti OO /L �.. AVE 0r .l. }•�% - 94TH AVE S •A u '60, �'Z('�f•d•#/ u AVE VE S 26TK AVE S _^ Z6T, AVE -3AV till .l.�O7tit`l'^�1�.•� u�% • �I1111II ! N 2i 7TH m N y z r l' DEW.f' (�• O N. W ti _f VE S m w " z rLL^�v j. '�• �' * s 98TH AVE S a0 RAWB RRY N r a Jpa " V IyLb O O - u .. 99TH AVE 3 � 1O 9 ONE�a 91•-�9m sa ■'n OO IDOTH v AVE ■A IIAAmm .. L SE N7t nr> v ES SE _� IPM Qm= \ _ rz- ` 102ND. ..9orritod6 V r _� n Ar AVE SE n 8p u N 103RD r Z -ui z ■ No m 9z 9NS D 104TH AVE •uni m ammi �> SIN M. •P�SH .... m v m._ m wr m m r 3 3TOOWW In r C] D N W = -( 109TH AVE SE 19TH = u -n 0 r E SS '\ m > -G IOSTH AVE S } z I to•` o -< z AjIJu - 4 H m mrn FN-I z -Z-I );p y m --I > - z -< r C = H - r I>xxx 1 yT m w Ri-9.6 a 111 Ti N -< p SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - IN ��1 VE u R1 Z y pN V N N m -I H ..... DO -117TH �L � •< - H > APPLicki HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION LEGEND ` ff I U EAST 8HILL WELL ANNEXATION AREA 2 a�plicaliou site Number_ — q roposed Request. Zoning bndry city Imils ■imiElF �CpLE = Vicinity Map 1 - 1000 HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES September 2 , 1987 The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to order by the presiding officer, Diane L. VanDerbeek, Hearing Examiner, on Wednesday, September 2, 1987 at 7: 00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, Council Chambers. Ms. VanDerbeek requested all those intending to speak at the hearing and those wishing to receive information concerning the hearing, to sign in at the sign up sheet by the door. Staff reports, agendas, and the description of procedure of the hearing were available by the door. Ms. VanDerbeek briefly described the sequence and procedure of the hearing. All those who intended to speak were sworn in. ANNEXATION EAST HILL WELL ANNEXATION AREA 2 _ #AZ-87-3 A continuation of a public hearing held on August 19, 1987, to consider a request submitted by the City of Kent Planning Department to apply permanent zoning designations to properties lying within the annexed area. Verbatim Minutes (1-197) Kathy McClung: Good Evening, I 'm Kathy McClung from the Kent Planning Department and before I start with Area C I thought maybe I should complete some unfinished business from questions that came up that we were supposed to research. One question that came up on Area B was whether the Parks Department had any plans to use the former East Hill Well site as a park. And, we did check into that and the Parks Department does not have any plans at this time to develop that lot as a park. Also, I know it has only been two weeks but I can't remember if I entered this multifamily study, I know you got this afternoon, as part of the record and I wanted to make sure that, that was entered as part of the record as well as our map. VanDerbeek: All right. Well, the recording secretary only knows what ' s officially in the record. Has it been entered, No, right. All right, we' ll enter that multifamily study as an exhibit to this hearing. I 'm asking the recording secretary to keep a list of exhibit so that, as well as the maps, will be entered as an exhibit. McClung: O.k. , thank you. O.k. , also, several people do review our staff reports, but I noticed that there were two omissions and I wanted to make that clear. On page 21, under the Staff Recommendation, the recommendation for the Stratford Arms should have been number 5 and that, it' s at the end of the report, but I 1 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. wanted to make sure that it was also added at the beginning that we are recommending an MRM, Medium Density Multifamily, allowing up to 23 units per acre for the Stratford Arms property and I will discuss that in more detail further in my presentation. It was also left out of the description of the proposal and that is approximately five acres of MRM. O.k. , with that I think I will show the view foil so that we all now what we are talking about for Area C. VanDerbeek: All right. McClung: Area C is, there is a small portion south of SE 240th, adjoining the former city limit line and it follows 116th to a line that' s approximately, it' s south, it' s north of SE 254th, it follows 114th down to SE 256th, and on the west it' s bordered by approximately 105th Avenue SE and a large portion of it is north of SE 248th. The area C is approximately 290 acres, it's currently zoned R1-20, Single Family Residential and this is an interim zoning that the City always places on all property that's annexed to the City. Prior to annexation under the jurisdiction of King County, it was zoned Suburban Residential except for a small portion next to SE 256th which was zoned RM 2400 which is a multifamily allowing 18 units per acre. The property in this area is primarily of rural- type single-family homes. There are a few small orchards, open - fields and pasture. There are also a few parcels that are heavily wooded with a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees. There are two historical sites within the area that are the King County Historical Registrar. There are two large churches, a few home occupations and an eighty-six unit apartment that is called Stratford Arms. Adjacent uses to the property include a, two major commercial nodes at the intersection of SE 240th and 104th and SE 256th and 104th. There are also several multifamily developments basically lying east of 104th and, I think in the video tape I caught most of them. VanDerbeek: All right. McClung: And, first I will go over the staff recommendation and then I will show the video tape. We are recommending a Single Family, R1-7 . 2 or 7200 square feet minimum for the area lying west of 112th Avenue SE. VanDerbeek: Excuse me, can everyone in the back hear Ms. McClung. Can you get out the microphone. McClung: O.k. , we are recommending an R1-7 .2, Single Family Residential, for the area lying west of 112th Avenue SE extended and north of SE 248th. We are recommending an MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential, with a maximum of six units per acre for the five acres known as the Bainton property, south of SE 248th Street and immediately adjacent to the former city limits. That' s designated on this map as the light brown area. 2 Hearing Examiner Minutes -~ Verbatim September 2, 1987 7: 00 P.M. VanDerbeek: That's the proposed development of Walnut Tree, Park. O.k. McClung: Park. We are recommending R1-9 . 6, Single Family Residential with a minimum lot size of 9600 square feet for the area lying east of 112th Avenue SE, north of SE 252nd extended and south of SE 248th. Actually, that is an error also, it should be all of this yellow area so it also includes the area north of SE 248th lying east of 112th Avenue SE and we are recommending Single Family, R1-7 .2 , 7200 square foot minimum lot size for the area south of SE 252nd extended except for the approximately five acre piece which is currently developed with the Stratford Arms apartment which we are recommending the MRM allowing 23 units per acre. At this time I would like to show the video tape. I think before I show it, I ' ll show basically how I filmed it. I went as quickly as I could, I mainly just panned the area to get a feel for what was there and it's less than five minutes. I started taping at SE 240th and then I have some shots of 116th Avenue SE and I have a few along SE 244th and then on SE 248th and then I went down to 256th and got the properties along here and specifically went in to the Stratford Arms development and got some more specific shots of that development as well as some surrounding property along SE 256th, 116th and 240th. VanDerbeek: All right. The video was shown at this time. McClung: This area was annexed to the City last spring as part of a large annexation that the City of Kent brought into the City as a result of the City taking over the East Hill well system. Recently, the City approved an 89-lot zero lot line plat known as Walnut Park located south of SE 248th, north of SE 252nd at approximately lllth. The applicant has plans for a second phase of this plat to include about five acres within the annexation area known as the Bainton property. Significant streets within the area are SE 240th, SE 244th, SE 248th Street, 116th Avenue SE and SE 256th Street. One-hundred-eighth Avenue SE, SE 252nd and 112th Avenue SE should also be improved and extended to serve this area. Most of the streets as shown on the video tape with the exception of SE 256th and SE 240th Street are two-lane, country-type roads. They have narrow graveled shoulders, open ditches, in some cases, and no sidewalks. As property develop, right of way for SE 252nd, 108th, 112th and 114th will have to be obtained and improved. The Public Works Department has established a plan for acquiring this right of way and that is specifically stated in the staff report. The existing street system is not adequate to serve traffic generated from current development. Many streets are substandard 3 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7: 00 p.m. and, if the area develops, improvements will be required to bring the system up to current standards. Most of the area is currently served with City of Kent water. The City is in the processing of up-grading some of the system that was part of the East Hill Community Well system that originally served the area. Phase 1 of this project is complete and a second phase is in the design stage and should be completed some time in 1988 . Sanitary sewers also serve portions of the area but main line extensions will be required throughout the section according to the Comprehensive Sewer Plan Maps as development occurs. The Planning Department has reviewed the area in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, present zoning, land use, street and utilities and comments from other City departments. And, I found, several reasons to support our recommendation. First, I would like to discuss comments under the context of the Comprehensive Plan. The City first adopted its Comprehensive Plan in 1969 and the Comprehensive Plan is made of two basic elements: the goals, objectives and policy element and the map element. The goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan are used with the Plan map to guide the mayor, city council, city administrator, planning commission, hearing examiner and city departments to guide growth, development and spending decisions. The subject property also lies within the East Hill Subarea Plan. The East Hill Subarea Plan Map designated the area west of 112th Avenue SE extended and north of SE 248th as multifamily, 7-12 units per acre; the area east of 112th Avenue SE and north of SE 252nd Street is shown as single family, 4-6 units per acre and the remaining section lying south of SE 252nd is designated MF 12, multifamily 12-24 units per acre. Under the Housing Element of the. City-wide Comprehensive Plan, one of the goals is to assure an adequate and balanced supply of housing units, offer a diversity of sizes, densities, age, style and cost. In recent years, the City of Kent has developed at a rapid pace. In 1985, the City issued . a record value of 164 million dollars in permits, second only to the City of Seattle in the State of Washington. And yet, even in these peak years of construction the number of single family permits were minimal--12 issued in 1985. A recent study on multifamily development revealed that there are almost 9, 000 apartments and condominiums units within the city limits. These unit make up 59 percent of the housing stock, single family homes make up 35 percent and the balance are mobile homes. Today, the city has 7, 000 or approximately 7 ,000 more multifamily units than it had in 1970, and increase of 358 percent. For this reason, the City now would like to increase the single family development to balance the existing multifamily development. Zoning the property in this area to single family will encourage this kind of development. Under the Housing Element of the East Hill balance, one of the policies is to assure that public facilities and services are available or will be available to support the development at the proposed densities. With the rapid growth of multifamily in recent years, it has greatly stressed the City' s ability to provide public 4 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. services to the Kent community. Zoning these lands to their highest potential would be premature when public services are not able to meet the demands of development at that level. Fire and emergency medical response time in this area is one of the highest in the City. Emergency vehicles must come from the downtown area or from the station on 140th Avenue SE. Although a recent bond issue was passed to purchase land for a new fire station in the area. It's still several years off, a few years off from construction and equipment and personnel to equip this station have not been acquired or have not been negotiated. Negotiations are currently underway for a fire station at the northwest corner, 116th Avenue SE and SE 248th Street which lies in the (unclear) area and that will, mostly likely, be the site of the new fire station when it is built. Increasing densities to their highest intensities within this area at this time would not be responsible when emergency services are ••- not adequate for the area. Traffic concerns have been the highest priority issue for the citizens of Kent as well as the staff and the elected officials within the last couple of years. The traffic counts in the area have reached unacceptable levels of service. Increasing densities in this area would cause additional traffic congestion through an area that is already overburden. By increasing the densities to those suggested by the East Hill Comprehensive Plan Map, the estimated p.m. peak hour trips generated would be 2, 164 versus an estimated 1, 563 trips generated under the proposed zoning. This is an increase of 38 percent and there is kind of an elaborate chart in the staff report which the traffic division work up that explains these figures. Under the Transportation Element, again, under the East Hill Plan, there is a goal to establish and maintain the highest feasible level of service for East Hill. This policy is to regularly monitor and evaluate the level of service of existing streets and intersections, to identify those transportation movements that will most effectively obtain or maintain the planned level of service for East Hill. The Engineering Department has determined that the intersections of -... 104th Avenue SE and SE 240th and 104th Avenue SE and SE 256th are both at level of service F for traffic service. These two intersections are major east/west arterial onto the East Hill from and too the Kent Valley and border this area on the north and south. Creating more east/west corridors to serve the East Hill area is a priority of Kent. Another problem intersection borders the subject property, is the intersection at 116th SE and SE 240th. Southeast 240th Street is four-lanes from the Kent valley floor east to approximately 108th Avenue SE. At this point, a bottle-neck occurs during the morning and evening peak hours, where the four lanes narrow to three. Since the subject area is bordered and served by this problem intersections, the recommendation for lower density than those shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map would reduce additional impacts. Another supporting argument include: there are no flooding problems in the area; however, drainage problems are 5 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7: 00 p.m. common on the easterly portion of this section. Since multifamily development typically has more impervious surface causing a runoff, single family zoning is recommended to increase ground water recharge. Water and sewer service are available in this area, but extensions may be required to accommodate future development. The County zoning of this area prior to annexation is SR 7200 for the majority of the property and RM 2400, allowing 12 units per acre, for a small portion abutting SE 256th, including the Stratford Arms property. The predominate land use in the area is rural type, single-family residential. An 86-unit apartment is located along SE 256th, near 111th Avenue SE known as the Stratford Arms. The City recognizes open, rural lots with pastures, orchards and trees as natural features to be preserved through the East Hill Subarea Plan. The subarea plan designates the area east of 112th Avenue SE extended and north of SE 252nd extended as single family, 4-6 units per acre. The City of Kent has a R1-9 . 6 zoning which permits 4 .5 units per acre. This zoning is recommended for this area in order to keep it rural with reduced densities to lessen impacts City services. The exception is a 4.8 acre parcel located south of SE 248th, adjacent to the former City limit line, known as the Bainton Property. This parcel is part of a pending zero lot line single- family development. The developer has requested an MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential,• zoning for the two previous lots so that consistent development standards can be applied to the ultimate development. We have include a condition of this zoning recommendation that should that property not be developed from the way it has been proposed to the City, it also revert to the 9. 6 single family. The City Council passed a resolution in October 1986, stating its intent that vacant multifamily zoning areas within the City be reduced by 20 percent. This resolution was passed in response to a number of citizens who were concerned about the rate of multifamily development occurring in Kent and the problems, including traffic, generated by this kind of development. Although this resolution did not specifically address how this reduction should occur, options should be left open until this matter is further studied. The Multifamily density has been prepared for the Council 's review and is currently being studied by the Planning Committee and that is report that I 've previously referred to as the (unclear) exhibit. Before I conclude my report, I think I should make clear that in our recommendation, when we are referring to the Stratford Arms property, we are only referring to the five acre parcel that is colored in light brown on our map. Within the last two weeks, the property owner has been in the office and does own the adjoining properties and had assumed by the staff report, that we have also included his adjoining lot. I just want to make clear for the record that we are only referring to the lots that are colored in light brown on our map. So, for the reasons that I have discussed 6 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7: 00 p.m. previously, we are again recommending for the area west of 112th Avenue SE extended and north of SE 248th Street: R1-7.2 , Single Family Residential. For the area south of SE 252nd: R1- 7 . 2, Single Family Residential, except for the 4 . 80 acre known as the Stratford Arms which we are recommending MRM, Medium Density Multifamily allowing up to 23 units per acre. The Bainton property, south of SE 248th, adjacent to the former City boundary, we are recommending MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential, with a maximum of six. dwelling units per acre. And property east of 112th Avenue SE extended, north of SE 252nd Street except the Bainton property: R1-9 . 6, Single Family Residential with 9, 600 square foot minimum lot size. And, as I 've discussed previously, we have recommended a condition on the Bainton property and also a recommendation that as development occurs, property will be deeded to provide right-of-way width as discussed earlier prior to the issuance of any development permit. That concludes my staff comments unless you have any questions. VanDerbeek: No, I don't have any questions at this time. I will probably have some later. Thank you. Is there any further testimony from the City, from any other department? No. All right. I see the City Engineer way in the back but he's not jumping up. All right. I will hear the public testimony at this time. I think that I will go down the list of those persons who have signed up to comment. Ms. McClung, will you leave the view foil that shows the site up so that during the public testimony people may want to refer to that to show me exactly the area they are talking about. All right. The first person to sign up is Leona Orr, but then she crossed her name out and the husband wrote his name down first. So. I think that Leona should testify first or Jim Orr. Jim Orr: My name is James Orr. I reside at 24909 114th Avenue SE. I do have copies of petitions that some citizens signed that I would like to present to the Hearing Examiner and to the Planning Department. VanDerbeek: All right. Will you pass those petitions to Chris Holden, the recording secretary. They will be marked and made an exhibit to this hearing and then I will look at them. Orr: I would like to read the petition, it says: We the undersigned are petitioning the City of Kent to rezone all undeveloped land in Area C R1-12 . These are our concerns: the present street system is inadequate. Southeast 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 the problems of this street and others on the East Hill which are already at level F for services. This is, there is not adequate fire, police protection on the East Hill, further dense development should be halted. At least, until the new 7 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7 : 00 p.m. 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 monitored before allowing any more zero-lot-line homes in Kent. By approving R1' -12 zoning for all undeveloped areas in Area C, a smoother transition will be made to existing single family homes to the east of Walnut Park Phase I and more of a natural wooded environment can be preserved. I would like to read a statement, I kind of sounds like I 've been looking over the shoulders of the Planning Department after reading this, but really I wasn't. I the precess of circulating this petition, I have found a large number of people who have become very discouraged by the way the City of Kent is dealing with the problems that affect its residents. There is a lack of information to the general public about new developments being considered because only those within 200 foot are required to be notified by mail and the signs posted are nearly impossible to see while driving and difficult to read at close range. VanDerbeek: Mr. Orr do you think that King County did a better job of that. Orr: No, but I think the City of Kent could set standards for King County. I know the City of Seattle does a better job. VanDerbeek: All right, you may proceed. Orr: Anyone living in the City of Kent will be impacted numerous ways including higher taxes for extra police and fire protection, more schools and so on. Rather that the City taking upon itself to determine what is best for the residents, it is time to listen to what the people are saying and to recognize their wants and needs. Thank you. VanDerbeek: Thank you very much for your testimony. Leona Orr, do you want to testify. Leona Orr: My name is Leona Orr, my address is 24909 114th Avenue SE in Kent. I 'm part of a group of homeowners in the area concerned with what we feel is over development of the East Hill. My husband _. and I moved here two-and-half years ago on a home on two wooded acres because we wanted a more rural home and quieter life style. The area was very quiet and we have an abundant of wildlife that share our woods with us. The homes in the neighborhoods are all on large lots, one-third to five acres in size. The City of Kent is proposing zoning of R1-7 .2 and R1-9 . 6 for most of Area 6 with MRM for the Stratford Arms apartments which are already built and multifamily zoning is obviously needed there. But MRG is proposed for the Bainton property which is undeveloped. We fail to see how the City can justify any type of multifamily zoning given the present circumstances on the East Hill with traffic in and around this area completely out of control . The City's own staff report 8 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. points that out. It is hazardous for pedestrians particularly children. Response time for any type of emergency vehicles is too long, dense development will only add more calls and add to that " problem. And tonight I witnessed first hand that that is a definite problem. On my way here to the meeting, I was at the intersection of Smith and Central and emergency vehicles came across the railroad tracks and, of course, all of the traffic was stopped. Not 30 seconds after those vehicles had crossed the railroad tracks a train came by. Now,. if they had been called 30 second earlier, which I 'm •, sure must happen, they would've had to wait for the train and that two or three minutes or even one minute even can mean a matter of life and death in an emergency situation. There were two fire trucks and two aid cars. I don't know what the situation was but it could be serious. According to Monday' s Valley Daily News, even with three new schools opening this fall the system is at maximum capacity and probably one or maybe two new schools are being r considered. We would like to see all the undeveloped land in Area C zoned R1-12 . This area already has a very large number of apartments and condominiums. Between 256th and 248th Street and 104th and lllth Avenue approximately, there are nearly 1, 000 units of housing at the present time. Most residents of this housing use the either 248th or 256th to come and go from their buildings and neither street is adequate for additional traffic. The new fire station is supposed to be built at 248th and 116th but according to the staff report it is a few years from being manned and equipped for operation. Everything in the staff report, that I 've read for the rezoning of Area C. indicates very clearly that there should be minimal new development until systems are upgraded and improved. How the Planning staff can propose making an exception for one developer is totally beyond my comprehension given the facts in this report. The developer has already stated at a previous hearing that Walnut Park Phase 1 could stand alone so I fail to see why there is a reason to add more to that development. Clearly, a large number of home owners in the area do not want any more development at this time. I think our petition will show that we have a 129 signatures, I believe it is. By zoning Area C at all R1-12 , the rural atmosphere will be maintained and a smooth transition can be made from the various multifamily developments to the west and the more traditional single family homes to the east. I attended the meeting this afternoon regarding the rezone for the proposed Summer Woods apartments. The staff representative repeatedly stressed the importance of maintaining the rural atmosphere in that area. We are asking for the same consideration. A home buyer should have the option of living near a crowded development such as Walnut Park and uniform zoning in Area C would assure that choice. Existing homeowners in the area should not have it forced upon them and disrupt a quiet life style they have chosen. R1-12 zoning for Area C will maintain the type of life style of people living near this section of the area while still allowing for controlled growth. I do have a couple of questions that I would like to ask, if that's " appropriate. 9 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7: 00 p.m. VanDerbeek: O.k. , you can put the questions on the record. I will direct staff to respond to the questions during the rebuttal period. All right. Orr: Originally the Walnut Park Phase II has been proposed and everything that I have seen at 3 .8 acres. Now, in this report we - find they are asking for five acres to be rezoned. I don't understand why. This afternoon at the meeting I attended, a staff representative. stated that Walnut Park would consist of a total of 200 homes. Eighty-nine have been approved for 14 . 1 acres that would mean III homes for the remaining 3 .8 or 5 acres depending on which report is read, giving a higher density than even Summer Woods which is being opposed very strongly by the staff. Mr. Brealey in previous hearings has stated that he is doing homeowners in the area a favor by building zero-lot-line homes when in fact he could build apartments on this property. This is not exactly true because the present zoning on his 14 . 1 acres that has been approved for Phase I is currently zoned MRG with maximum density of 12 units per acre for the western 327 feet and MRG with a maximum density of six units per acre for the remaining portion. Now this came from the Findings of Fact and Recommendation that you issued April 1, 1987. I also question why the street system was changed in Walnut Park Phase I and, I assuming if Walnut Park Phase II were to be approved, it would also be in there. In all of the staff reports, recommendations and the Traffic Engineering Department, it was recommended that they have streets, traditional streets built up to City code with curbs and gutters. Now, at the final City Council meeting, they asked that gutters be removed and a different type of street be allowed and Mr. Wickstrom who is the head of the Public Works Department agreed that that was o.k. When I was down at the Public Works Department talking to the people in there no one knew about it and it wasn't even in any of the files and it was only when I called back and told them that I had it in the City Council meeting minutes that they realized that that was indeed the case. And, I have one comment that I would like to make about communication with the public. I realize that this meeting was continued from two weeks ago. A lot of people that I talked to in the last couple of weeks were upset that no notice was sent out. I ' m wondering if there couldn't possibly be some sort of arrangements with the newspaper as a public service to have a place in the paper where if something like this happens, a lot of people that I spoke with while I was out circulating the petition, said that they assumed the whole was done because they were out of town that week and weren't able to be there and they were not notified that the meeting had been continued. Thank you. VanDerbeek: Thank you for your comments. I just have one question with respect to one of your questions, just to clarify it. Concerning your comment about the change in the proposed street system in Walnut Park Phase I, you learned about that from reading the City Council minutes? 10 - Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. Orr: I learned about from being at the City Council meeting the night it was approved, that words "and gutters" or however it was ' worded was stricken from the deal and Mr. Wickstrom stood up and said that he had approved that they could build the streets in sort of a funnel shape and all the water runs down in the middle of the street to the holding ponds. And, I was at the Public Works Department talking to them about it and they told me that, no, I was wrong, that the streets would have curb and gutters and would be built to City code and that is not the case. At the City Council meeting, the very last thing, that was changed. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you very much for your comments and questions. Orr• Thank you. VanDerbeek: The next speaker to sign up is James R. Singletary. - James R. Singletary: My name is James R. Singletary and I reside at 24823 114th Avenue SE. And, if I could use my colored view foil here, I might point out a couple of things that Mrs. Orr spoke to in her presentation. I live right, approximately at this point right here on the map and we border against the MRG zoning request here on this slide. The reason that we are speaking to the 1200, 12,000 square foot zoning request, is to allow less dense growth in this particular area. It has been stated at an earlier meeting that traffic down 240th there in front of our homes is approximately 2600 trips per day, back in March, when it was measured again in July it had increased to somewhere above 4800 trips a day. VanDerbeek: 4800 or One thousand? Singletary: 4800 on just 248th, o.k. And, I think the increase is probably due to the installation of a traffic light at 248th and 104th, o.k. Because when* they put that light in, a lot of people started using that as a short cut. I don't know from what or where, but. . . O.k. , the staff report also talks about the three intersections there at the service F level or fail level and I 'm sure you are aware the one at 116th and 240th which currently is a two-lane street from approximately 108th on out to 116th and then the other two intersections are the 104th/240th James Street intersection and also 256th and 104th with Kent-Kangley intersection there with 256th being two lanes, 248th, two lanes, 244th, two lanes and the majority of 240tji being two lanes we really have a rough road to get traffic through that particular environment. When we spoke to improvements on the streets, I realize that 104th has been improved with sidewalks and everything and that's really been a lovely addition there. It has helped the traffic some but no where near enough. I would like to think that somewhere the City has in its plans that sidewalks would also exist on 248th as well as 256th 11 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. when it is widened. And, 240th with some of rest of these cross- streets that are going to be implemented someday somewhere to, I think's its 109th, its go through the new apartment area, this right here, o.k. , they put a City-wide street in there with curbs and sidewalks on that and when you drive through there you see a lot of walking traffic on that sidewalk. It's really quite well used. The request, I guess, to increase the lot size to 12 , 000 square feet we feel ought to be considered because the staff report indicates that any increase in more density in this particular area is going to cause more problem with streets, with fire response, emergency medical responses and this just seems to make a lot more sense. From what I 've heard about the discussion this afternoon on the Summer Wood development and that' s just a review by somebody that was there was that they opposed, the City was opposed to development of more apartments right here in approximately in this area in the 112th block and the 113th block. Now, currently there are almost apartments from probably 106th to 112th with, I don't know, I don't remember right off how many units being put in there in the last couple of years. But, also, at a previous, I can't even remember I 've been to so many meetings lately, whether it was one of these hearings or a City Council meeting, the Planning Department mentioned that there was already 200 plus acres zoned MRM or MRG in the City area at the current time so we have a little trouble seeing that any more increase in multifamily zoning other than what is already current such as the Stratford Arms area is really in the best interest of the City of Kent today. And, I 'd just like to kind of speak to one issue real quick and that is where the City talks about the issuance of single family residence permits within the last several years for the city. Now, I built in this area in 1978, . o.k. , and, at that time, it was .the King County, of course, and I think if the City drew a circle within five miles of downtown Kent, and counted the single family residences that have gone into that circle in the last five or ten years they would be amazed at the number of single family dwellings that have been built. Because, they seem to complain about well there is too many multifamily dwellings and I don't necessary think that's a relevant argument. I think a lot of people like multifamily residence near metropolitan hubs and it generally works out as a better plan. I also have a couple of questions that I would like to ask and see if they can answer. On the proposed fire station for the corner of 248th and 116th, is there a reason why the City is asking for that zoning variance at this point in time and I was also interested in what the multifamily plan, I believe, is what they presented into evidence this evening, is that a City Council adopted plan or a Planning Department Plan, I haven't heard that mentioned before so I didn't know what that was. And, one other question was on the development of streets within developments--how come the City doesn't require them to meet the same standards that they use with sidewalks also. O.k. , thank you. 12 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7: 00 p.m. VanDerbeek : All right, thank you for your testimony, Mr. Singletary. The next speaker who is signed up to testify is Bob MacIsaac. Bob MacIsaac: My name is Bob MacIsaac, I live at 25001 116th Avenue SE, Kent. I had asked at the last meeting that the Planning Department give us a run down of what was going to go on the East Hill area as far as parks and the planning for it in the entire area. In the recent past, I was the secretary/treasurer of the East -.• Hill Community Well and on behalf of the people that I represented at that time, I was one of the people that was working very hard to work with the City and get the Water Department taken over by the City so we could get fire protection in the area, all the areas of East Hill. It was a fire protection issue only that had East Hill wanting to give up their good system. So far that fire protection has not happened. Many of the people that we talked to during the phases of going through and getting these people to sign annexation covenants, etc. , they're all concerned, definitely concerned about the quality of life and what is happening up on East Hill. These people want to live in a decent area, they are looking forward to good planning and good development of which they would like to be a part. They do not like to have the planning of the area dictated to them after living in the area for 25, 30, 50 years. The majority of those people, they would like to be a part of this planning and they all, a majority of them, enjoyed rural atmosphere up there and would like to see that continue to a great extent. Now, I can't speak for - all those people, you know, the East Hill Community Well is now defunct, we are out of business, but, I do know that the people up there are concerned. They are long time residents up on that hill. And, they have been concerned all their lives about what goes on up on that hill and wanting to keep a quality place to live. Many of these people are approaching retirement and would like to see, again, quality development, not something go on that makes them moves out. In other words, if we follow the (unclear) go to multifamily arrangement up there which the Planning Department is saying no, if that was to happen, most of these people would say, hey, we don't want to live here any more. And, these are people who have lived here for, many of them up to 30 years, myself, 22 years. I think these people would like the opportunity to work with the Planning Department to oversee what does go on what roads we're planning to improve, these people also donated to the City of Kent the East Hill Community Hall, this was done approximately eight years ago, I believe, maybe a little longer than that with the hopes the City would continue to keep a facility for them to have meetings and that type of community activity. That hall, incidentally, was sold, torn down, it was an old building, there has been no facilities proposed for replacing it, the City simply sold the property and used the funds for whatever. The people of East Hill are concerned about their community and think, very definitely, that we should stay in a rural atmosphere. We would like to see improvements for safety for their children, for people walking 13 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7: 00 p.m. around. You are looking at quite a few people, again as I stated, getting close to retirement age, these people like to get out and walk. You' ll see them walking up the new sidewalks along Benson, you see them walking the street through these apartments and what not. These people want to get out, get exercise, they don't want to see development such as the Brealey development where we're not putting in decent streets, sidewalks, we're making crowded areas. I think those people have a right to whatever decisions go on in their area and to help plan those decisions. I don't think that we expect the City will do all our planning. We would like to be a part of committees, etc. that would help in the development up in that area. We do not want to see a development that will drive us all out, we want see some place that we can live and. . . A decent place to live, I guess, and for our children to grow up. The East Hill Well property, again, we had hoped that when that was turned over to the City that, again, a park would be planned in that area. Evidently not. So, again, the folks, all I can rely is what these people have told us during this whole annexation period when we were out getting the covenants, going door-to-door, these people would like to stay in a relatively rural community. We are not against development and improvements, certainly not, that's why we went ahead and tried to get better fire protection, etc. We look at the area like this Brealey development coming in, these garden units, putting in streets where we cannot get fire protection in there. To me somebody isn't thinking if they are going to allow that. The City has their own requirements as to what types of right-of-way widths and that are appropriate and they are going to allow a development to come in that does not meet even the most minimum standards to an alley and people cannot set back and watch this kind of activity go on and think that we've got intelligent people running our City government. The citizens up on East Hill are interested in quality expansion up there and no just helter-skelter and little postage stamps lots. Most of those lots up there as the Planning Department has been saying are large areas. Like the piece of property I own is a three acre piece. I will not be breaking that down, it' s a single family residence. The reason that we picked that area, I just sold within the same Area C here off 109th, bought this other piece of property now. Hopefully, be moved in by Christmas or so. But, certainly we do not want to see this area all of a sudden go to a sprawling multifamily and it appears that the Planning Department also supports that. VanDerbeek: What evidence is there that the Planning Department supports. . . McIsaac: This whole thing here says that there is no way that you can do anything up there right now because of traffic, because of streets, because of fire protection, because of schools, the kids have to walk to school up there. The buses do not run through those areas. 14 Hearing Examiner Minutes " Verbatim September 2, 1987 7: 00 p.m. VanDerbeek: Right, but the majority of the staff recommendation for .,,• Area C is single family, you disagree with respect to the density, but nobody is recommending very much multifamily at all for Area C. McIsaac: That's correct. Although you have it moving right on up James Street and you have it moving right on up 248th at the present time. And, we have absolutely no plans that we've, that have been stated to us yet as to what it is the City is planning as far as development of any parks or any common areas. The area that we are talking about is certainly single family but you look around the area that the density of the multifamily around the area and you look at the number of kids running around in groups at night and so on with no place to go and you can expect is what we are going to run into is more and more problems with our youth and that's the end of my comments. Thank you. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you, Mr. McIsaac, for your comments. Does Laurie Sundstedt want to testify. Laurie Sundstedt? Oh, o.k. Joan McCallum. Joan McCallum: I guess the paper won't show. VanDerbeek:. Paper won't show. McCallum: First of all, I 'm very nervous. O.k. , I would like to get that out right up front. VanDerbeek: Don't be nervous because these are public hearings, and I 'm very gratified to see the large public turnout because half the time I hear public hearings and no one comes so I 'm more than interested the public input, so don't be nervous and tell me anything you want. McCallum: O.k. , I 'm Joan McCallum and I 'm here on behalf of my husband, Delbert McCallum, who had to work this evening and myself. We are home property owners at 25238 111th Avenue SE, Kent. We have lived at this address for five and half years. This is a question I have, first of all, according to the staff report, the map shows our street 111th Avenue SE going north from 256th Street to this point. To this point right here, when actually, our street, I believe, goes to here. Actually, our street goes north from 256th Street to where 252nd Street is to be constructed. At this time, our street is deadend and has an oil and gravel surface. We would like to know if 252nd Street is constructed will 111th Avenue SE then connect or intersect with the new 252nd. We know that our City has to grow but -• we don't feel that accelerated growth is good for Kent. The only one' s that are going to profit from accelerated growth are the property owners who build multiple family residences. We feel that our City can grow in a much more healthy way and have a better foundation for growth if we, as neighbors, chose to have the present 15 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. undeveloped properties in Area C zoned single family, one residence, for every 12 , 000 square foot of land. From what we understand, the City is asking for single family, one residence, for every 7, 200 square feet zoning on the remaining undeveloped properties for the 111th Avenue SE and the close vicinity there. They exist, from what we know, the existing homes on lllth Avenue SE are on lots much larger than 7, 200 square feet. If, in the future, homes are built on 7, 200 square foot lots, this could possibly lower the property values of the homes already built on our street. We feel that if a property owner provides homes for a multitude or a high density of people into a small land area and at the same time does not provide additional public services such as schools, fire and emergency, transportation, police, roads, etc. then the quality of the already established public services diminishes for both the homeowners already living in the area and the new families. Greater demand can cause lesser quality in our present services. The property owners on the East Hill have already experienced this happening with the large number of multiple family complexes that have been built in our area. One-Hundred-Eleventh Avenue SE is a street of 20 single family homes and our street is surrounded by multiple family complexes. On the east side, Stratford Arms apartments have 85 units and is located right next to the east side of our backyard property line. On the south, directly across 256th Street are the Quail Ridge Apartments with 435 units and the Lincoln Garden Apartments with 177 units. On the west, approximately one block away, are the Sunrise Point Apartments with 329 units. On the north, about a half-a-block away are the Kent Shires complexes. What is it like to live on a single family home street which is surrounded by multiple family development. We feel it is comparable to living right in a multiple family development. Just to give a few of the examples, its noise from a lot of people, dogs, cars, motorcycles, trucks, vehicles with faulty exhaust systems, radios, vehicle horns, television, traffic at all hours, people moving in and out, etc. It' s traffic congestion on 256th Street and other East Hill area streets. It's water drainage runoff when it rains, from paved roads and parking areas. While we were talking with our neighbors on lllth Avenue SE about the zoning on the undeveloped land left on our street and in Area C, there were a lot of important points brought out. One such point was from a couple who used to live in the Timberlane development. They started out living in Timberlane as a wonderful new idea for them. The biggest complaint was that within a short time the community started downhill. There was no diversity and it had no variety in order to grow. It just started to stagnant with so many people living so close together. When a community stops growing, then the residents stop growing also. It seems to us that future growth is an important reason that we chose to live where we do. We feel that the City of Kent can make the wise choice of one single family residential home for each 12 , 000 square feet of land for the zoning of the undeveloped properties on lllth Avenue SE vicinity and all of Area C of the East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 . We want to thank you for your 16 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7: 00 p.m. interested attention to our concerns to this zoning for this is our future. And, I would like to leave this copy with you in case anything was misunderstood. VanDerbeek: O.k. , thank you. I have a question, Mrs. McCallum. Do you know how many square feet that your lot has that you live on? McCallum: I multiplied the width by the depth and it' s 15, 026. VanDerbeek: And is your lot typical of the lot sizes on your street, the 20 houses on your street. Is your larger or smaller? McCallum: Ours is a little larger but the neighbor lady's, I believe, is a little over 10, 000 square feet. I multiplied her's too. VanDerbeek: All right, thank you for your testimony. McCallum: Thank you. VanDerbeek: Robert M. Nelson. Robert M. Nelson: My name is Robert M. Nelson. I live at 10453 SE 244th in Kent. My wife and I purchased this property some 42 years ago and we are not speculators. We have seen the growth. We own two pieces of property. Our house sits right here, we also own a long strip back of the house. What I 'm questioning is the commercial zoning. We do not question the zoning on our acre-and- half, I do question the zoning on our acre. I would request the ... Hearing Examiner to study the commercial zoning on 140th, 104th, it seems to me to be an inconsistency in the Planning Commission. Originally, where the Payless property is, they've come back 600 feet and. the next piece is about 425 by this. They've eliminated about 125 feet because of the (unclear) property. Then they drop down to 300 feet, there is three pieces of property in this 300 feet in here that extends back to 600 feet. So half of that property is zoned commercially and half of that is zoned R1- 7 .2 . So what I 'm asking for consideration is that on the Benson Highway the commercial zoning goes back 600 feet. Also, starting from 240th to 256th, now the Benson Highway is already zoned by the Planning Commission as a strip,. a commercial strip. The State just rebuilt the highway. We have sewers, water, five lanes, sidewalks, so won't affect the traffic pattern. Thank you. VanDerbeek: Thank you for your comments. Next is Brad Bell for Marry Morrill . All right. Brad Bell : I was the best she could do tonight. I would like to give you a copy of my comments and an area map, if I could, Diane. VanDerbeek: All right. Would you mark that. 17 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7: 00 p.m. Bell: My name is Brad Bell and I 'm a real estate agent representing Mary Morrill for those of you who don't have the luxury of seeing where her property lies. She basically has 15 acres, three five acre tracts that come back off 248th and adjoin the O zoned property on 104th. Mary has lived there for the last 40 year, she has been a Kent resident for 75 plus years and recently moved out to Meridian Valley Country Club. I don't disagree with anything that has been said tonight. I believe the property owners out there should be _ entitled to receive the zoning that they want but a rural zoning as it relates to this particular piece of property is no longer in the cards because of the commercial taints and multifamily taint of the property out there. The proposed zoning is in conflict with the East Hill Community Plan which was adopted in 1969 and later amended. After many hours of research and community input, the property was designated potential MF 7-12 under the East Hill Plan. I was involve in those proceedings back when the East Hill Community Plan was adopted. The reason that particular piece of property was initially zoned multifamily was because of the adjoining commercial property and for the many, many reasons that people have mentioned tonight; noise, traffic, etc. , that property should not be zoned single family. It is not a suitable site for single family development. The property owner supported annexation based on a potential multifamily zoning on her property. She. now feels deceived over the proposed changes. Up until six weeks ago, we continually went down to the Planning Department to ask what was the progress of the zoning on this property and not once did we get any indication that the property would be zoned anything but multifamily once annexed into the City. Our first notice of that is that when we received the materials from .the Hearing Examiner in the mail. The rest 639 feet of the subject property adjoins proposed professional and office zoned property. A single family development adjoining an. office development does not provide the necessary buffer to protect the quality of living, does not provide a safe or logical mix of land use. I think that the Planning Department would agree, it' s an unusual situation when you have single family dwelling zoned property adjoining office or commercial zoned property and I think reconsideration should be given to this particular piece of property. The staff report states, that typical planning practice to place higher density residential next to commercial and office in order to best utilize public services. The proposed zoning does not represent a high density residential use. I know very few homeowners who would like to live next to medical and dental offices, veterinary clinics, banks, savings and loans associations and other permitted uses within the O designation. Again, this does not present a logical mix of land use. The subject property is surrounded by multifamily development, west of 94th Avenue S. , south of SE 248th at 98th Avenue S. , and a large development directly across 248th from the subject property. This environment is not 18 r Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7 : 00 p.m. i conducive to single family dwellings. From the staff report, one of I the overall goals is to increase the residential population in Kent, assuring a decent home and suitable living environment for families to live in Kent. For many of the reasons, that have been brought up tonight, noise, traffic, congestion and everything else. You will not, this property will not be developed into a suitable development for single family homeowners. No developer in their right mind is going to go in and put a nice home next to a veterinarian clinic. And, we are very, very concerned about what' s going to happen with this property assuming that it is zoned single family dwelling. On the other hand, if it were to be zoned multifamily, there are sorts of creative things that could be done with this property that is more conducive to the surrounding area. Now, it's my particular opinion that the problem with Kent isn't that there is to many apartment units, the demand is there for apartment units, the problem is there is to many ugly apartment units and if you haven't taken the opportunity to go up and take a look at the Stratford Arms development on 256th, I think you will find that development is as quality and as nice as any single family home development in this area. And, I think, you will also find that the quality tenants you have in those units are very, very good and long term and not transit tenants. The quality dwelling unit would probably never be built on this site, that the -staff and the City desires. A quality multifamily project, more compKtible with the area, would - be much I more suitable at this location and better serve the City's stated purpose. I do not question the well-intention motives of the staff in responding to the community cries of the "traffic stinks" and "oh, no, not another army barracks" . The owner understands that any development proposed may require additional road improvements which are desperately needed. However, a multifamily development would I result in a much more quality development and quality living unit in this commercially office tainted area. One big oversight that we seem to be forgetting tonight is the lack of fire and the lack of police and the lack of everything else we talk about is the result of the fact that existing homeowners cannot afford any more and that' s why the City continues to allow for, example, the 30- million-dollar shopping center development south of this property down on 104th, the Vysis shopping center because that increases our tax bases which, in turn, increases the services that the City can provide to us as taxpayers. And, if you look at the City budget I think you will be surprised by the amount of revenue that has been generated by these new office buildings, these new commercial shopping centers and the 7 , 000 increase in multifamily units in the last six or seven years. That' s where a lot of the money is coming from to support the services that we have and by having saying we don't have enough services so we are going to stop development, you' re cutting off your right arm because you won't have new people moving into this area that will help subsidize those disparately need improvements and the property owner understands that if this property were to be developed many improvements would have to made 1 in that area but in a multifamily type environment a property owner ; 19 l Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7 : 00 p.m. can come in and afford to make the necessary improvements to 248th and other problems that so many of us are complaining about. If you decide to go to single family dwelling zoning as it relates to that property you are going to have medium to cheap price single family dwellings and I guarantee you that the developer will not do anything to 248th. That's the end of my prepared comments. I do have some other comments to make regarding some of the things that some of the other people talked about tonight. I really believe, having gone through the process of being involved with the Comprehensive Plan the first time, I really believe that we are operating from emotionalism on this issue. I really believe that a couple of the City council members have not been happen with some of the multifamily units that have been developed in this area and finally said, "I 'm sick of it, there aren't going to be anymore" . Well, that ' s fine, I have no objection to that process. f However, you can't cut in the middle of a Comprehensive Plan and start spot zoning property and that' s basically what you're doing with the particular piece of property. That office zoned property on 104th was zoned office in conjunction with the fact that the property adjoining it would be multifamily. That provides an adequate buffer for some of the rural housing that you are enjoying out deeper. But, you are never going to have a rural atmosphere at that particular intersection. Traffic concerns, they are absolutely terrible. I 've lived here for thirty-five years and it makes me sick. However, the only way we are going to get new roads is to pay for them and the only way we are going to be able to pay for them, and if we can't afford them now, the only way you will be able to pay for. them is to increase your tax base. And, you increase your tax base by putting up quality units in this particular area. VanDerbeek: How was your client's property zoned prior to the annexation. . Bell : MF 7-12 . In County, it was zoned 7200 square foot lots. However, I would like to put out there is very rarely any coordination between the County and City zoning authority so that was not a good reflection of what's with the East Hill Comprehensive Plan. The property owner requests a zoning of medium density multifamily on her 15 acre piece of property and I would like to j conclude tonight with a comment by Ray Ward who is a Council candidate and is being quoted a lot these days in the paper, he also serves on the Kent Planning Commission and I 've known Ray for a number of years. His comments are somewhat in line with ours. He says, referring to what he calls the "ridiculous thing of reducing multifamily by 20 percent" Ward said, "housing construction ought to be determined by the building and industry and the consuming public" I and we are in agreement with that philosophy. Thank you. VanDerbeek: All right, thank you for your testimony. Does Edith Lambert wish to testify. All right. 20 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim -- September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 P.M. Edith Lambert: My name is Edith Lambert, I live at 6702 34th Avenue NW, Seattle. My husband, John Lambert and I own the five acres located at 11008 SE 256th. We' re here to protest the single family zoning proposed for that property by the Planning Department. Approximately in the middle of March of this year, I contacted Mr. Hansen of the Planning Department, (tape 2 started at this point) I told him that a realtor that we had contacted told us the Planning Department was planning to propose zoning our five acres to multifamily allowing 12 units per acre. At that time, Mr. Hansen told me the Comprehensive Plan called for multifamily zoning and was allowing up to 24 units per acre. He told me that I should worry about it. He also told me there would be public meetings for input from the property owners. We were never informed of any meeting other than these two that you've had. Our property is bordered on the west by multifamily dwellings. There are three single family homes also on the west but they are also zoned for multifamily. On the north of our property we are bordered by multifamily. On the south of our property and across 256th there is a lot of -• multifamily. On the east side of us there are approximately ten dwellings right on our property line. Across the street from those homes, I think, there are about ten more homes and then there is a dental office and there' s the Stratford Arms. It would seem that we were being discriminated against because of a survey taken door-to- door by the Planning Department at which time the people in the area favored the rural atmosphere they have. We realize that no one ever wants to development but then it does happen. We don't feel it is fair to allow all this multifamily development around and then say no to us especially when the Comprehensive Plan called for us to have multifamily. I believe at the last meeting a statement was made that in the years 1985 and 1986 there were less than 20 building permits for single family residences in the City of Kent. It would seem there's really not a lot of interest in single family homes in this area. Four hundred and ten acres has been annexed to the City of Kent and there are 894 residences within that 410 acres as of April of this year. This amounts to slightly over two residents per acre which is really low density. What should be considered as the best possible use of the property and if you looked at the five acres we have, we feel that you would probably agree that it's really not suited to single family dwelling. We are requesting that you consider giving us either business zoning or multifamily zoning. If you care to go look at the property, we would be very happy to meet you at any time that would be convenient to you. Thank you. VanDerbeek: I have a question. Prior to the annexation when your property was in King County, what was the zoning? Lambert: I think it was 18 . . . We were zoned single family but we had contacted the County and they had told us, we were going to 21 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7: 00 p.m. apply for rezoning but they told us they would give us up to 18 units per acre and then we didn't do it. We lost our son and kind of lost interest in it at that time. Thank you. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you. Bert Jones. Does Bert Jones wish to testify. Bert Jones: I ' ll wait until later. VanDerbeek: All right, that' s fine. Mark Kuolt. All right. Mark Kuolt: Hi, I 'm Mark Kuolt. I live at 11003 SE 244th and I would like to just make a point about the traffic on that road and the fact it is 35 miles per hour and so is the Benson, 104th, and 240th and also 116th and those roads are a lot busier than SE 244th and I think it should be reduced to 25 miles per hour especially if it stays as a residential area. And, traffic has increased as probably not as much as 248th, it's a short cut, but we have notice the increase on 244th and it would be nice to see a police officer out there once in a while monitoring the traffic situation because many people are speeding in excess of 35 miles per hour. VanDerbeek: Do you ever call the Police Department and ask them to send a traffic officer out there. Kuolt: No, I haven't. VanDerbeek: Maybe you should do that. Kuolt: That's true. VanDerbeek: All right. Any other comments. Kuolt: That's it. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you very much for your testimony. Al Silva. Al Silva: I 'm Al Silva. I live at 25322 113th Avenue SE. A couple of years ago we bought property in this area and it was, it's an acre-and-a half between two streets, 113th Avenue SE and 114th Avenue SE. When we moved in and the reason we moved there was because it was such a rural area. That left turn off of 256th onto 113th Avenue is like going from one world to another. It' s just very quiet and peaceful. Stratford Arms was in there and they are still developing and that's all right. And, we kept hearing the buzz of chain saws and falling of trees and so on. And, then the lady right across the street from us, Margaret Ward, a long-time resident of East Hill , was in the process of getting chemotherapy and she had to move away from this area because of her expenses and she was on social security so she sold to a developer who, I think, 22 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7:00 p.m. is the owner of Stratford Arms and in one fell swoop, in one evening or two, denuded the area between us and Stratford Arms and put in, bulldozed a road in there and is now using the area right directly, looking out our front window which used to be trees and forest, is now an open parking, an RV parking lot. VanDerbeek: That was the RV parking lot in the video, correct, with the gravel. Were you here when the video tape was shown? Silva: Yes, but I didn't see that. But, it 's just a nice wonderful view of Stratford Arms now and this was just a shock, I don't mind progress. I know that we need that and we need the services but if development is taking this form, this shape, of just denuding the area of all the trees and putting, and exposing us to all this high rise, at least in our areas, Stratford Arms is a high rise, I 'm against that kind of movement. Now, I don't know what the plan is for this area immediately across the street from us and we are right in an area that if, we have to live in that area, we may as well have the option of turning our property into multi-dwelling, multi- residence, right now the recommendation and I 'm in favor of the City's plan of making that area R1-9 . 6 or preferably R1-12 . But, if we are going to selectively take, pick out little pieces which are going to affect the reason for us living in this area, then we should have the option of being able to chose that multi-dwelling zoning. I want to stand on record that I don't favor the multi zoning but if it's going to affect my property and, in fact, I 'm going to be living in a multi-residential area, I may as well have the benefit of being able to sell to my property to an upcoming developer in the future. Since I also plan to retire in the next three or four years, it was mentioned about the streets and sidewalks. And, this is one of the things that apparently everything is geared to, the automobile and the pedestrian is just playing Russian roulette every time he goes out into the street, tries to walk any where. My wife and I have been trying to get on an exercise program and we just are walking next to ditches and happen to walk up on people's lawns, there are no sidewalks to walk on, no place to really get any reasonable exercise on foot. Now, when we do find a sidewalk, like along 256th we are asphyxiated with traffic exhaust and I 'm not sure that its even safe to walk along that sidewalk. These are comments and I 've just been listening to the people talking tonight and I just wanted to get on record that these are the things that our my concern too since I live in the area. VanDerbeek: All right . Thank you for your testimony. Pamela Alamos. Pamela Alamos: I 'm Pam Alamos and I reside at 25207 lllth SE. My husband and I are new homeowners. We've just bought our home two months ago. We've spend several months researching and trying to decide the type of place we would like to live since we hope to 23 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. raise our family soon and one of the reasons we choose this area was because of the rural-type setting. It was, we live on the very end of the street which is, at present, a deadend street. One of the reasons that we liked it was that there was the deadend street so it limits traffic for children and for animals. We're hoping that it can stay that way. We like it because it is quiet and the neighbors are very quiet also. We feel if the area across from us, which is undeveloped at present, there's two lots there right now, if the present or the proposed zoning goes in, we feel it would really deter from the area that we live in now and the quality of life that we want to keep there. VanDerbeek: Across from you in what direction? Alamos: Across, east from us. Which would be on the side of the street that Ms. McCallum lives on. - VanDerbeek: Yes, all right. Alamos: Right now there's nothing there. We are strongly recommending that we can keep the zoning of R1-12 or at least R1- 9. 6 and I just wanted to go on record that we are hoping that it can stay with at least the 9 . 6. VanDerbeek: All right. Do you know how many square feet your lot is. - Alamos: I would say, we haven't measured it, but approximately 12 , 000 square feet. We have about a third of an acre. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Michael Alamos. Michael Alamos: Hi, my name is Michael Alamos and I reside at 25207 filth Avenue SE. And, after hearing everybody speak tonight on certain issues that have come up, I can see the need of growing in the area coming and it is needed for the services such as police, fire protection and medical aid but if you don't reside in that area it' s kind of hard to see the growth come. And, I would just like to keep it rural even though it is part of the City should possibly be developed later on and I would like to keep the single family dwelling. And, that' s it. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your comments. Alamos: Thank you. VanDerbeek: Lilla Raabe. Lilla Raabe: Good evening. My name is Lilla Raabe and I live at 24302 lllth SE and I would just like to say that I totally support 24 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. everything that Mr. and Mrs. Orr said and I would seriously like to ask that you definitely consider zoning single family and very large lots. And that's all. They said everything much better than I could. Thank you. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. W. J. Carey. W. J. Carey: My name is Phil Carey and I live at 11236 SE 244th and my wife and I own five acres. I don't know if you have a pointer. It 's located on 244th, south of the proposed Summer Woods and southeast of Oak, Royal Firs, Royal Oak. . . VanDerbeek: Royal Oak? Carey: Yeah, Royal Oak, new apartments, Royal Oaks. That' s an apartment they just completed, 184 units and the proposed Summer Woods is, I believe, for 164 units. Now, I sent you a letter dated August 15, 1987 and I wanted to confirm that you received it. VanDerbeek: I did receive a number of written comments and I believe that your's is among the written comments that I received. Let me just review. Yes, I have that letter. Carey: May I read it. VanDerbeek: I already have it, you can read it for the record; however, all written comments are a part of the record so it's not really necessary that you reread it unless you want to or if you want to call my attention to certain parts of it you may certainly do that. Carey: Well, there are just two points that I make in here. Number one that the Comprehensive Plan designates the areas between 105th Avenue SE and 114th Avenue SE approximately and between 100th Avenue S and 103rd approximately as multifamily, 12 units, zoning. However, the reference be, the staff report recommends a zoning of R1-9. 6, Single Family Residential with a minimum 9, 600 square feet. Since the staff report recommendation conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan, it is recommended that the Comprehensive Plan designation of multifamily 12 units per acre be approved. Point number two is that, this East Hill Plan, which I have a copy here, under multifamily residential. This multifamily, 7-12 dwelling units per acre, this is on page 87 , this designation is intended to provide areas for the low density, attached dwelling units such as duplexes, townhouses, low-rise apartments and condominiums. Low density multifamily developments of this type properly designed can serve as traditional or transition areas between commercial areas or high density multifamily developments and single family neighborhoods. Now, since the property we own is going to adjoin or right near a multifamily, then I think it would be consistent with the Planning Commission' s or Planning Department' s policies to 25 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7:00 p.m. provide a transition zone or buffer. Now, in addition to that, I sympathize with my neighbors here to restrict to single family residence but I guess that we have to face reality. When I looked at this here pictorial it reminded me, I lived in Bellevue in 1953 to 1957 and that looked just like Bellevue. I lived on 108th Avenue SE and SE 108th and that reminded me of Bellevue. But, the point is you can't stop progress. VanDerbeek: But, 108th SE and SE 108th in Bellevue is still all _ single family. I drive that to work every day, right.. . Carey: O.k. , this is SE 108th and 108th SE and that puts you right downtown. VanDerbeek: Well. . . Carey: O.k. , I live on 244th that' s SE 244th that runs north and south and the street running east and west is 108th so they- bisected there and that' s were the main the development is. Well, anyway, you have to ask yourself why so many multifamily developments or units being developed and I think the answer has already been given. It's based on the market place. It's. the law of supply and demand. I think we would all like to retain a single family residence but it's a question of affordability. I think the main price for a single family home in the United States today is somewhere around $120, 000. There's not too many people who can afford that price of a house. In addition, the Planning Department has a policy which they state very clearly, to provide adequate housing. Now, the big demand is for multifamily housing, this is what people can afford so I would just like to summarize. then and say this based on the Comprehensive Plan and based on the Planning Department's own policies that my property be zoned multifamily. That's 12 units, multifamily, .12 units. Do you have any questions or did I make. . . VanDerbeek: No, I think your testimony is relatively clear. Thank you, Mr. Carey. W. J. O'Rourke. All right. Maylo Hill. All right. Mike Rogerson. Mike Rogerson: I'm Mike Rogerson and I live at 10637 SE 244th and yes, I grew up in Bellevue, 20 years worth and I 've been out here for about 20 years now and I guess the reason that about the piece of property I live at there, about ten years ago, it's one acre, because of the rural setting and I certainly would like to see it stay that way so I 'm voicing my opinion in favor of the single family residence for that area. And, that' s all the input I 've got. Thank you. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Eugene Oades, Jr. 26 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7: 00 p.m. Eugene oades. Jr. : Excuse me, my testimony probably be spotty and somewhat emotional. I live at 25029 116th Avenue SE. I have a 24, 000 square foot lot. My property borders the MacIssac's on 116th which seems to be getting busier all the time. But, to the issues. I would like to know where the multifamily is going to stop because this spot zoning that a lot of people are trying to do at this time is forcing single family dwellings out further because who wants to live next door another apartment complex. And, when the lady mentioned that there are 890 residences in a 410 acre site. I didn't see where she included the thousands of people that are residing at all the apartments which are adding to the heavier traffic problems and so forth. And, I would like to say that my brother works at a veterinary clinic and I 'd rather live next door to a veterinary clinic which has office hours and stops at 5-6 in the evening than go 24-hours a day and kids screaming and cars racing up and down the streets. I almost bought a house in Timberlane years ago when I was 19 and I 've seen what that areas like now and it's a slum to put it bluntly. Oh, all the people too who are living next door to these multifamily zoned areas are now trying to get their property zoned multifamily also. Well, I commend them for that, I would like to make an extra buck too. But, I would rather, myself, have a little bit of a rural atmosphere around me than all this development which has taken place. I looked for a year-and-half and finally find. the area which I had, it was close-in but yet not too close to where I was stifled by all the development. And, also, I would like to ask a question to the - Committee here, when they are looking at rezoning the areas, is there an environmental statement in regards to wildlife. I know in my area, I have a large abundance of quail and I 've seen some red foxes run around, some coyotes and a lot of blue jays and so forth. With all of the, this sounds like I am a Greenpeace activist, I 'm not. VanDerbeek: It wouldn't matter to me if you were. Oades: Well, I grew up on a 1, 300 acre dairy ranch on the east of the mountains so I enjoy that kind of atmosphere and I 'm taking this off from work right now so I can be here to voice my opinion because I feel it is very important to let you know that it is very beautiful where MacIsaacs and a lot of us live and I feel it' s being really threatened right at this time. I 'm in, actually, I 'm in favor of a larger zoning than R1-12 , I would like to see the 20, 000 square foot lot but I really go with that flow. I guess, to sum it up, that you hold the future of East Hill in your hands and many families and their children that are coming up which as I pointed out, I 'm in favor of the R1-12 zoning and hope to keep this rural environment that we have. Thank you. VanDerbeek: Thank you for your testimony. Randy Brealey. 27 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7:00 p.m. Randy Brealev: My name is Randy Brealey and I live at 10910 NE 66th Place in Kirkland. I would like a couple of quick points. One is to correct a boundary line on the map that is shown. We are the developers on the proposed Walnut Park project. The Bainton parcel runs from 248th at the northend to 252nd at the southend not part way through so it runs that full depth. I have a couple of comments. There has been some discussion this evening about the Walnut Park project. It has been the subject of several public hearings, zoning and subdivision process previously for Phase I. The Walnut Park project is at this point, three-quarters approved. Phase I is approximately 14 acres that lies to the west of the Bainton parcel. Ignore the shadings, that part of the Phase I. Phase I consists of this parcel which is made up of two parcels the Howard property site and the Wilcox parcel . Our property site is zoned MRG, 12-units per acre, approved, which is a 115 units on the 9. 3 acres of that property. The Wilcox parcel was annexed to the City of Kent in, I believe, December 1985, was zoned last year at MRG with a six unit per acre limit and then the subdivision, Phase I subdivision for Walnut Park was approved by Council in May of this year. VanDerbeek: Were there any modifications to the street standards? Brealev: The street standards are per the City standards as outlined in the Zero Lot Line Ordinance for the City of Kent. Yes, the street standards of the through street has 24-feet of paving, vertical curb and gutter on both sides and a four-foot sidewalk on one side. The lead streets that service the individual homes have 20-feet of paving, concrete roll curb on both sides and a four-foot sidewalk on one side. The difference in working relates to the fact that the through street has a standard crown where the road is raised in the middle and drains to the curbs. On the lead streets is the reverse, the road is depressed in the center and it drains from the curbs to the middle so the catch basins for those streets are in the center rather than on the edge by the curb. The streets are per City standards. They will be privately maintained which accounts partially for their narrower width. They also meet other requirements for emergency vehicle assess and they have been reviewed by the Public Works and Fire Departments. VanDerbeek: Provided that on-street parking is strictly limited. Brealev• Yes. VanDerbeek: But will it be enforced? Brealev: True. Couple of things that I would like to point out. This is kind of a summary of the zoning on the site and how the property is laid out. VanDerbeek: Which site? 28 -• Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7 : 00 p.m. Brealev: This is the Walnut Park. The Bainton parcel on the far right is a piece that is now within this annexation zoning process. VanDerbeek: Right. And that's the only parcel I 'm interested in hearing testimony on. Although, I did want to ask you about the roads, of course. Brealev: The . zoning that is requested and recommended by the City is the same as the Wilcox piece that abuts it on the right. In terms of density, there has been some discussion and I would like to clarify what this project is. The total project is 115 units, that's the total of Phase I and II . Phase I, as approved, is 82 lots. A questions was raised earlier as to what was going to happen there. What we have, what we are proposing on this project, if zoned as requested or as recommended by the City. If the MRG, 6-units per acre, is applied on the Bainton parcel, what we would have is a project that, and the west half of the red portion of 9 . 3 acres is zoned MRG, 12 units per acre. The eastern portion comprising of the -- Wilcox and the Bainton parcels is approximately 8. 6 acres. VanDerbeek: How large is the Bainton parcel . Brealev: The Bainton property is 4 .88. acres. That includes the area to the north with Mr. Bainton' s house and another lot besides that. We do not include that property or the Wilcox house in our area calculations for our project. If those were included our densities would actually be a little bit lower. So the Bainton parcel and the zoning request really covers that whole area. What we refer to all the time as Walnut Park, we take the house and the other lot out and then we are dealing with the net area, south of those. The east half of the green portion of that site, as I said, 8 . 6 acres, there are 50 acres which are included in that area for a density of 5 . 8 lots or units per acre. The west portion or the red portion is 65 lots and its 7 units per acre. Overall the project when completed would be 115 lots or 6.4 per acre. I was listening to some comments and I did some calculations on what our average area per lot is. And, the green portion we have one lot per 7, 510 square feet, and in the red portion one lot per 6, 223 square feet. Overall, in the project we have one lot per 6, 800 square feet. What we are requesting or what we have requested through this whole process on Walnut Park and our Bainton property zoning is part of that request is to allow us to take the density of the unit count that is permitted outright under the zoning of the Howard property site or the red portion of the property and develop those units on almost twice as much land. We want basically to develop single family on both the single family and the multifamily zone ground. The red portion of the property under the Comprehensive Plan is multifamily, 6-12 units per acre. The green portion of the property is single family, 4-6 units per acre and we fall within those boundaries on the entire parcels and on those parts individually. 29 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. In, traffic has been mentioned as an issue on a number of occasions and one of the things that we are doing is to produce less housing units on this property than is designated either under outright zoning or under the Comprehensive Plan itself and a reduction in the number of units that develops also reduces the traffic impacts from that property. Questions raised about common areas and parks. Generally, single family projects, single family subdivisions, I believe, do not have any open space requirements within them. Under the Zero Lot .Line Ordinance that this project is being developed under there is an open space requirement and Walnut Park project includes 3 .75 acres of open space. VanDerbeek: Which is? Brealev: Just a shade over 20 percent. What we are providing is alternate single family housing for those who do not want to live in multifamily attached housing but do not want or cannot maintain large lots. It is single family detached fee simple ownership with an ease of maintenance and life style for those that want it. It also creates an economical, a more economically viable housing product. The figure of $125, 000 is an average new home price in the Country as mentioned earlier, the housing range that we are proposing is in the $70 and $801s. VanDerbeek: Wasn't it in the $80's and $90 's last time? Brealev• No. VanDerbeek: Oh, I recalled testimony $80 's and $901s. $70 's and $801s. Brealev: $70 's and $801s. VanDerbeek: All right. Brealev: I find it interesting also that staff is recommending that if this project as proposed is not developed that, in fact, the underlying recommendation on zoning would revert to the R1-9. 6 and that's not a problem for us. We have no qualms with that. I would be pleased to answer any questions. I don't know if there are any other questions from the public that I didn't cover. VanDerbeek: The only questions from the public had to do with the road and had to do with the size of the site. I think that you answered those. Any further testimony? Brealev• No. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Paul Morford. 30 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 P.M. Paul Morford: Kathy, can I get a picture of Stratford Arms complex. One that you had, did you have them on the view foil or on the video. McClung: The video. Morford: My name is Paul Morford. My address is 21264 132nd Avenue SE. I moved to the East Hill. I guess I am a new timer. I 've only been in the area 21 years and I live in a rural atmosphere and used --. to be a rural road. I have a hard time getting out of my driveway now but I guess that' s progress and part of what happens over a period of time unless you, with growth and population, kids and whatnot unless someone adopts a plan for sterilization or something like that to keep the population down. When you get in to closing the door, who's the last one in and closing the door for people to live. There has been quite a few comments about the Stratford Arms complex and I am one of the owners of Stratford Arms. I 've been in the community for a long time and tried to be a good citizen. I 've worked for Boeing for many years, I was on the Planning Commission _.. served my time there as a volunteer service for four years. I'm an engineer by profession and built lot of a single family homes, really nice single family homes in the past and in the last few years we've built some multifamily. We spent three years building j the Stratford Arms, 86-units. We didn't come in and put it up in five months, 300 or 400 or 500 units. We built 86 units over three years. We spent a lot of time on design, on planning and I guess I want to thank the Planning Department for recommending that our complex be zoned for what it was built as and not tore down. So, I 'm grateful to the Planning Department for that part of that. VanDerbeek: Well, they couldn't legally recommend that it be torn down. It might be a legal nonconforming use. Morford: O.k. , I was trying to get a little humor to this thing. But, I feel that I 'm fairly knowledgeable and I am interested in the community. The traffic problem is terrible, no question about it and I think the government agencies are seriously derelict in their duties for the many years of inaction, knowing what's happening and putting the money in the bureaucracies rather than in to some of the ,,. improvements that we sorely need. Before I get into details of my comments on Stratford Arms there was a comment made about parks and about what' s happening on the East Hill. I personally have worked with the King County Parks Department and some of the King County Councilmen have asked me to actually interface because I had been involved with the community with the Chamber of Commerce and some of the committees donating a lot of hours to the community in that area to act as an intermediary on a park project. And, I been and I have j talked with some of the City Councilmen and also with some of the top officials within the City trying to get a joint operation going to acquire the Clark Lake property, I think it's nearly 40 or 80 acres sitting up there with a beautiful lake upon it just a few 31 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7:00 p.m. blocks away from this. And this is just kind of passing for any of the people here, it's ideal, it's in the middle, it's in the path of growth and there is currently I have been told by the officials, negotiations have taken place for the County to participate along with the City, even though it's outside the City, for a park and this (unclear) , a lot of people are not aware of that and I don't think it's advertised because it's probably a quiet negotiation but people who are interested in parks may want to follow up on that and get your testimony in. Now, back to, I guess, specifics. I only here really because of an accident, I get tired of coming to these meetings, but in the mail, I got a copy of this and Stratford Arms is this parcel here, in brown, it's all built out. The map and the narrative that was sent to me, is this one right here. And it shows MRM from 113th west over to here, I don't know what that is, it is very clearly defined as 113th. 113th is about a block, approximately one block to the east of Stratford Arms but, as a matter of fact, this brown, here's Stratford Arms and here's 113th. Well, the literature, well it's the next road to the east, is 113th, so it's more than twice the distance shown here, over to the line that was sent to me in the mail as a property owner and it shows it as MRM. And, also it refers to Stratford Arms, it has been built on that rectangular section as MRM additionally going over to 113th. And so, therefore, our area was, the recommendation were exactly what we had built. In the meantime someone talked about Mrs. Margaret Ward, she had cancer and came to us and asked us if we would purchase her property, she couldn't keep it up any more, it was adjacent to, and it happened to be right centered on the Stratford Arms property and we had laid out for future expansion, because being knowledgeable and knowing how the planning process works with my experience and professional background, the Comprehensive Plan. . .Kathy, are the Comprehensive Plan and East Hill Plan here? Seems to me there is one underneath here. The East Hill area, now this is taken many, many hearings on the East Hill Plan. Do we have the Comprehensive Plan, no you have another one, the overall general Comprehensive Plan and the East Hill Plan in the Planning Department office. I went to the Planning Department office and I was told they would be here. But, anyway, the East Hill Plan has had lots of hearings and whatnot and was developed with an overall planning process with a lot of hearings and a long period time. I (unclear) found out at the Planning office today, I was looking at the drawings there. The East Hill Plan was adopted, the date on that was 1984 , fairly recently. The General Comprehensive Plan was developed in 1972, revised in 1978 and 1984 . And, what I'm _.. going to try to, sometimes I get emotional when I come to these meetings, try to deal just with facts because that's basically the issue here. Both of those plans have been in existence for quite a while and yet they are current. They have been currently updated and they show this area over to 113th and passed as multifamily property. When Mrs. Ward came and asked us to buy the piece next door to her, bought it based on looking at what the Comprehensive Plan was, the East Hill Plan. Also, familiar with (unclear) 32 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7: 00 p.m. Plan was, the East Hill Plan. Also, familiar with (unclear) background, sewers, water, City of Kent currently has a surplus water situation. Fire mains were put in that area. LID was put in to Mrs. Ward' s property that we purchased a year ago for expansion of Stratford Arms and currently using for the, we did clear it and we did put some recreational vehicles there and we do have a playground for children. VanDerbeek: Do you have any buffering from adjacent single family _. residence, landscaping. Morford: Yes, we bought her home and the home is currently still there and faces on 113th. So, what we've cleared is between the residence and that and the trees we took down. Now, I love trees, we took down all the old alder trees, lot of them had fallen down, we kept the evergreen_ trees, some of them are dying now. But, anyway, the Comprehensive Plan shows multifamily. The East Hill Plan shows multifamily. The LID was put in and Mrs. Ward, even though a senior citizen, not very much money, like some other people on the street, a new sewer line was put, another LID, based on all these plans. 256th is proposed to be widen because of these widen because of these plans. A new fire station on the corner of 248th and 116th is being put in based on these plans. 248th is eventually planned to be widen. . A new fire - station was put in 33 blocks from here, straight to the east on the corner of 140th and 256th, much closer than a lot of other multifamily. Response time cannot be that much from that corner, down to 113th, 30 some blocks. Anyway, the plan that was sent out in the mail shows MRM, the narrative talks about Stratford Arms being MRM, which was, we purchased this other piece for future expansion following the land use planning that had been taken care of over years and all of a sudden, (unclear) , the ballgame all of a sudden changed. About the time we purchased it, I talked to the County, because it was in the County, about a rezone and they said it was in the process of being annexed and recommend that we wait for the annexation to go through before any rezone because that is the logical way to do it. And, that's kind of standard procedure when something is in the mill, sometimes they like to drag their feet or wait for an overall plan and annexation takes place. I also talked to some of the City planning officials before I purchased because, we didn't, we weren't interested in purchasing single family property in the middle of, as a matter of fact, all of that property has been there for years and there hasn't been a new house built in there. MacIsaacs are building a new house down the street and I think there 's another one on 248th, but very, this rural land that everyone's talking about has had plenty of opportunities for single families (unclear) and -, some of these other people who had lived here for 30 or 40 years, it just not in the cards. In fact, I want to say so again, the planning has taken place over the years, the Comprehensive Plan, is for that area to be multifamily. I think the City is seriously flawed in this plan and their recommendations at this point in time. 33 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7 :00 P.M. to loose my train of thought here, the, all the utilities are there, the water is there, the fire hydrants are there, the sewer is there, they make an issue of the fire thing and I think there may be a little bit error there. And the, roads are in the process of being updated and this is the one I keep drifting off on, is the City Council all of a sudden they realized there is a lot of apartments being built. I don't know why it took them so long to come to that conclusion because it has been taking place for quite a while. In December of this year, a resolution was passed, resolution 1123, this referred to in the planning report and this is kind of a policy statement and in here it refers to, the City Council hereby declares its intent to establish the goal of achieving an average density reduction of 20 percent on all undeveloped multifamily zoned land throughout the City. This density reduction would be achieved through revisions. And, this I think is very, very important, from a factual standpoint, through Kent's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. And, you have to deal with the Comprehensive Plan and the community plans or else all your other planning goes out the window. But, also another section in here, it refers to proposed zoning, Comprehensive Plan changes which would help to create additional opportunities for single family residential development. The .issue here is, I guess, if the ballgame is going to change after all these years of planning, a new school was built about four blocks from here, just, it's going to be opened this week be of this growth. The school 's have planned, they've called me and they've planned for all this multifamily. Everything is planned for this until December of this year and even this resolution, it's not law but all of a sudden, because, I think, the staff is reacting to a political situation here and not dealing with facts like they use to when I dealt with them, the Comprehensive Plans and the community plans . carried a lot of weight and here they are throwing all that planning out and recommending something entirely different. And, this even says, what you have to do is go change the plans through due process and talking spot and reacting, in the last eight months because of this, is the only reason, in my opinion, knowing some of the staff and knowing the Council people and knowing some of the executives in the City and the County, that is why we've got this sort of a hodgepodge here now, rather than going with this thing that was developed over the years and, I think, there is some, I detected it from a couple of other people that testified here. I had talked with the Planning Department and I had talked with King County and everybody said that when this annexation took place, the normal process with the annexation you adopt the zoning per the Comprehensive and community plans and I think that has to be given a lot of weight. Thank you. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. You can direct a question to the chair when you testify and I can ask Planning staff or any witness to answer the question. All right, 34 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. the next speaker is Sheila Ridings. All right, I will call the next speaker. Bob Stewart. Bob Stewart: I 'm Bob Stewart. I 'm here as a representative of the Kent United Methodist Church which is located at 11010 SE 248th. Its a five-acre parcel approximately here in the Comprehensive Planning zoning situation. We have two concerns that are probably reflected by a lot of members in this room. We moved to the East Hill 17 years .ago from a location, which at that time, we felt the traffic problems were awful 17 years ago at Central and Meeker and we moved out to the East Hill to get away from that. We are concerned that the density as stated in the Plan, the 7 . 2 is not great enough, we are in favor of R1-12 . Two reasons for that: Number one, traffic. We appreciate, like everybody else, a smaller amount of cars travelling the highways. It doesn't particularly interfere with our business as a church because we are there on Sundays, mostly. But, we do like to be accessible and available and it's hard if people are having to fight traffic to get to the building. The second thing is that we spent a great deal of money, seven or eight years ago, installing a parking lot and paving it and our drainage system was interrupted severely when the Kent Shires project was allowed to dump their storm water into the same creek we were, that side of 248th. The south side of 248th was in the City at the time and we were not and the City allowed that to happen. We are concerned that any further development on the hill will upset the drainage problems even more so we are in favor of larger -• density. Thank you. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your comments. Tom Sharp. Tom Sharp: My name is Tom Sharp. I reside at 24254 143rd SE in Kent. I 'm also one of the owners of Stratford Arms apartments, for good or bad, here. One, I used to be on the Planning Commission and back before the Hearing Examiner. In fact, the Planning Commission when I was there, we were the ones who recommended the Hearing Examiner and we sat through years of changes to the Comprehensive Plan for The Lakes project because we could not have the zoning for The Lakes for multifamilies, single-family use with a mixed use without a change to the Comprehensive Plan. At that time, it was an agricultural zone in there, something like that and I always labored under the impression and for also my education, I 'm an urban planner by education, that you had to change the comprehensive plan before you could change zones. After all, why would the State, I think "- it's the Environmental Policy Act, I think that says that, why would it be required to have a comprehensive plan if the staff or whoever, even as a developer, we could go in and say the comprehensive plan is no good therefore we would like to have the zoning changed. I would kind of like get the emotionalism out of this whole issue and it really gets down from what I can see is the Comprehensive Plan, the East Hill Plan which was just amended three years ago, states that the property, Stratford Arms and the property adjacent to 35 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7: 00 p.m. Stratford Arms to the east to 11.3th is to be multiple family and then, all of a sudden here, a couple of weeks ago, it was, this staff comes out with a recommendation that it be single family. Well, the recommendation is fine except we have to change the Comprehensive Plan first. That' s my understanding. I may be a little bit wrong or something but that's o.k. too. But, I cannot understand why we haven't gone through, they are recommending that we have a single family residential other than in those areas as stated in the Comprehensive Plan and the East Hill Plan that we have not gone through the change in the Plan before we get into zoning here. And, also, I would like to state that we are not a kill the hill, pave the grass, developer and I think our developments in Kent which we have four state that fact. We 've, Stratford Arms, as a matter of fact, we've changed the plan. We originally bought the property as a series of four-plex apartments. We completely changed the plan to save the trees, to save the environment as we had seen it and to make it a more workable project and I take very much of an exception to anyone who states that we are a kill the hill, pave the grass, that kind of an attitude went out in the 19401s. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Sheila Ridings. Sheila Ridings: My name is Sheila Ridings and I live at 25003 114th Avenue SE. I 've heard a lot about the Comprehensive Plan tonight. I do not believe it is really effective and may be three years is really long for it, they should look at it again. And, maybe they should have looked at it before all this rezoning was, all of a sudden, thrown on a bunch of people that were not aware of things that have gone on in the past and didn't know that City government, what they have to do, what the steps were, all I know is that I 'm going to have a bunch of little houses that are going to be right up my back door .and I don't what to live there. I 'm not a fact, I 'm a person. I bought the house that my husband and I live, we spent a lot of money for• that land because we didn't want to live next to an apartment building or a bunch of, they say they are going to be in the 701s, 801s, 1, 1, 00 square foot houses for $70, 000. I don't know of anybody who really has that kind of money for that kind of property. Phase 1, when we were here, they said that we could not bring in Phase 2 because it wasn't what we were talking about so I think that we should talk about Phase 1 it has already been approved, it has already gone in and I do live next to Phase 2, I do not want it to go in and if I 'm going to be like all the other people who come up here, I can say that well, I 've got multifamily right next to me, I want my five acres multifamily too. What am I going to do with my five acres. I 've already made that choice. The people on our street have made that choice and we don't think that a developer coming in when there' s nothing on that property, I think what the City Planning Department has and what the developer has, is that we are going to be that buffer zone between the Kent Shires, then these small houses, and then all of a sudden we are going to be 36 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7 :00 P.M. the buffer zone between, you know, they will put some nice houses, then we will have the acreage. And, I don't want to be a buffer zone, I think that that transitional phase should be the five acres between what Mr. Brealey is proposing and what our acreage is. We decided where we want to live, let someone else decide whether they want to live next to small houses or not. I don't really want that. Also, it was brought up in the staff report and one of the meetings, that excluding the house, that is on that property, if you take away that house, I believe they are only going to develop 3 . 8 acres of -. that land. VanDerbeek: I though Mr. Brealey said 4 .9 acres or 4 . 8 acres. Ridings: I think that, I don't know, I think there is a discrepancy in that. VanDerbeek: 4 . 8 acres that was Mr. Brealey' s testimony. Ridincts: That's what I thought. I believe that in the last, when it came up last time, I don't think it was that much acreage, it was less. I would have to look at that. And, we are emotional, I mean, you know, everybody says that we should keep our emotions out of it. I don't think so, it's got to start some place and you know, I can understand the people that have been up here and they want multifamily are not living on this property, they either, they either want to develop it or it' s just land that they bought and all of a sudden now, what they want to do, they want to sell it and they want it multifamily. Well, the people next to that, it' s going to go on and on and on. And, we need transitional areas, we need buffer zones between, you know, the apartment houses, but what am I going to do with my five acres if I have multifamily right next to me. I 'm going to come up and say, I don't want to be there, I want the same thing that the land next to me is having and that' s going to be multifamily and I don't think the people around me are going to want that but I don't think it would be fair as, to myself as a landowner. And, I don't know I 've looked at the plan and it looks like a monopoly board to me, that' s 115 homes on less than 20 acres of land. I don't think that's what the people, I mean, it's obvious that's what the people don't want here, and I think that the City of Kent should look at it again. Because we are already taxpayers, we are already here and a lot of older people that are in our community will need better streets. They say that they are coming. When are they coming, these developers that are already in King County within a five mile radius. All these people that are already building houses, you know, we' re going to upgrade the streets, the only upgrading that I 've seen it to reasphalt. There aren't any gutters being, or sidewalks really being but in, not on all the streets, there are a select few and most of them are brand new developments. When are they going to put in these in, in ten years when they are outgrown and then we're going to have to dig them up and redo it again. I think they ought to plan for these and then 37 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7 : 00 p.m. let the developers develop the land or build the houses, not after the fact because they are going to be out of town, they aren't going to be around, they don't have to walk the streets or, you know, wait for the traffic to clear up or wait for the sidewalks to be put in and I think that, you know, you should listen to the people and maybe the City of Kent should take a little bit more time in rezoning this and make it what they thought. The one lady, I can appreciate what she's saying, you know, they want to put it single family and she.' s right next to commercial . I mean, I can understand that so I think maybe it should be a little bit more organized and the issues looked at. What the Comprehensive Plan was and then look at what's happened the last three years. I think it' s grown quite a bit and I think that people have also changed their minds that have bought the land and that, the reasons why we came out here is for that. Thank you. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony., I don't have any other speakers signed up. I believe at this time, I 'm going to take a recess and following the recess I will hear any additional public testimony that there is and then, if time permits, I will permit staff to offer rebuttal testimony and answer the questions raised by the witnesses. Can I ask whether staff has been taking sufficient notes on what the questions are or should I review the questions for the record? You' re prepared. McClung: I think I have the planning questions, probably not .the public works. VanDerbeek: Well, I 'm sure. Oh, Mr. Gill is back there. Did you write down the public works questions? No, yes. All right, I don't think I will take the time to go through the questions, I have taken thorough notes in the event that some of the questions are not answered then I will direct that they be answered. At this time we are going to take a recess for approximately ten minutes. I would remind the audience about the rule on ex parte communication. As a hearing officer, I am prohibited by the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, and the Rule on Ex Parte Communication from discussing any matters which come before me for hearing except for in a formal form by listening to testimony on the record, everyone can hear. Accordingly, during the recess period I would ask that no one approach me and attempt to discuss any of these issues which come before me because then I would have to disqualify myself after having sat here for several hours this evening and several hours on the 19th of August and I would not like that to happen and so I would ask that be kept in mind, I cannot discuss these matters with anyone off the record, nor can I place myself in a position where I 'm overhearing comments about these matters off the record. So, at this time we will take a recess for approximately ten minutes. All right, we are back on the record following a brief recess on the East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 public hearings, file #AZ-87-2 . 38 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 public hearings, file #AZ-87-2. The date is September 2, 1987 . I am Diane VanDerbeek the Hearing Examiner. Prior to the recess, we completed the public testimony on any interested member of the public who had signed up on the speakers list to speak. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify who did not sign up. All right, Ma 'am, you can go first and then the gentleman in the back with the glasses and then, we' ll just figure out some order. All right. Marilyn MacIsaac: My name is Marilyn MacIsaac. My address is 25001 116th Avenue SE. And, I just wanted to make two points about the zoning request of the Walnut Park development. The Walnut Park people tried to present themselves as a single family housing unit. But, in reality they are really apartments as far as I can see. My address I gave you is 116th Avenue where we are building a house but we really live at the Stratford Arms apartments, isn't that a good one and they are lovely. And, we live in a 1, 150 square foot apartment and the single family houses that Walnut Creek is proposing, they keep calling them houses, are 1, 100 square feet with no yard or any much to speak of, and I think they are just trying to rezone this single family for apartments as far as I can at look at and while living in this apartment, which we haven't lived in apartments for a long time, I realize how much it takes to keep up a facility as nice as it is at the Stratford Arms. It's a lot of work and they have to do it to make it marketable, they are having people come in and out often and these houses that will be Walnut Park, they will be sold as houses and they will have substandard streets, they are not going to be like you could have on your block if you were building a house and I keep thinking how many years down the road is it going to be before .the community club or whoever is supposed to keep these up decides they won't chip in to pay for them, and then what's going to happen. Now, it was the County road, they would take care of it starting today or the day they put it in and it would be the right size road. Another thing that happens, I have been investigating this, I have a friend that lives at Timberlane and she said that one of the problems with these type of houses is that they are inexpensive, that's wonderful, and what happens in a lot of cases is that people buy them for rentals, well then, the owner comes back every two or three years when the renter _.. changes, he doesn't have to care what happens in between like you would if you had an apartment house. Those are just some of the concerns I have. The other think was that gentleman who spoke who had to leave to go to work, Kirk, and he, you didn't realize it, but he's a single person and he investigated for a year-and-a-half to find a house that he bought on 24 , 000 foot lot with a little space around him and, some of the people who think they are planning for us leave us to believe that single people don't want houses or they can't afford them which is neither of things are true. If you can afford the payments that Kirk is making on his house, it 's about a $100 more a month than the apartment rents so it's not that much different so I think that some of the, need to look at all the 39 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7 : 00 p.m. legibly that single family can only afford apartments because people have come up and said that we owe it to the people starting out because they can't afford anything more than these less expensive houses. But, really what they are doing I think they are buying an apartment. Thank you. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. The next speaker, the gentleman in the back. Mike Bergstrum: My name is Mike Bergstrum. I 'm with Construction and Development Services, Inc. , 311 1/2 Occidental Avenue S. , Seattle, 98104 . I 'm here representing a property owner in the annexation area, a Mariner Holding, which owns property at 25219 113th Avenue SE which is identified as tax lot 29. I 'm here, again, representing Mariner Holding' s interest in the property. Basically, their interest is in objecting to the City' s proposal for single family initial zoning on the property and in support of a multifamily designation. My client is one of apparently a few people who, before purchasing this property, looked into the Comprehensive Plan status for the area. At the time he purchased the property, the Soos Creek Comprehensive Plan was the governing County Plan, showed a potential RM 2400 density on the property which is about 18 units to the acre, present zoning in the County was suburban residential which is a single family zoning. The current East Hill subarea plan for the City of Kent showed 12-24 units per acre. If I understand the City's zoning ordinance and the historical process for establishing zoning upon annexation, the zoning is to conform with the current Comprehensive Plan of the City and upon the initiation of an annexation, the Planning Director is to determine whether or not there is a current Comprehensive Plan for the annexed area. If there is not a current Comprehensive Plan, than rather coming to the Hearing Examiner we would be in front of the Planning . Commission trying to develop a current comprehensive plan and then on to Council. If it is determined that the Plan is current, then go through the process which we are here for tonight which is to the Hearing Examiner and then to Council. The zoning ordinance also states that the Hearing Examiner really has no option but to establish zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. I 'm sure there can be debate as to which recommended zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as the staff has acknowledged, the Plan contains more than one element, it contains a map element plus it contains a set of goals, policies and objectives. It is obvious what the map element of the Comprehensive Plan suggests for this property. Somewhere in the range of 12 to 24 units per acre. The goals, objectives and policies of the plan speak to a number of concerns which should be addressed with growth of the area. The staff has reviewed those in their staff report and basically they discuss roads, intersections, walkways, housing, balance in diversity, public services, drainage and preservation of the rural character and I would like to address each of those concerns in a moment. It sounds like the testimony tonight is, 40 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7:00 p.m. becomes somewhat two dimensional. It' s a single family versus multifamily issue. The staff report in it's discussion of potential multifamily development in this area, again, they are limited in scope. It speaks to highest potential, density under multifamily scheme of things. So, it would be irresponsible to zone to the highest density given the state of public services, etc. I don't think the staff report has looked at other alternatives for setting zoning perimeters. The Comprehensive Plan, again, for the East Hill says, 12-24 units per acre. There are two Kent zoning designation --• which fall within that range. There is the 23 unit per acre and the 16 unit per acre. Analysis of traffic impacts of zoning to the highest density appears to be based on an assumption of 23 or 24 units per acre or the highest end of the range as expressed by the Comprehensive Plan. That's not necessarily the case that has to occur. Some of my concerns have been addressed by earlier speakers soI will try not to get repetitious over what's been presented. It's obvious there is some very valid concerns about growth in Kent and in the East Hill area. The concerns that have been raised by the public as well as by the staff are real, they are very real traffic problems in the area, there are lack of walkways and the other concerns that have been raised. I think where I would dispute some of the analysis is how those concerns should be addressed. Thinking that zoning the property as single family will answer our problems is not the case. A lot of the development in that area has been single family and yet the problems persist. As pointed out by one of the earlier speakers, is higher intensity development which tends to subsidize the cost of public services, roadway improvements, etc. for lower density development. If the City has done a cost benefit analysis of various zonings. . . VanDerbeek: Which would be entirely irrelevant since State law prohibits such consideration of economic, consequences of zoning in land use decisions. Berastrum: But, if they were too, it becomes clear that public. services are more supportable by higher intensity development. VanDerbeek: Well, if that were the case, why don 't we just pour cement all over the whole world. Berastrum: I don't think that's what I 'm proposing at all. What I 'm saying there is a relationship to the type of development and the types of services which can result from that. I also think there are things that need to be looked at such as, which enters in to whole development whether single-family or multifamily or other such as use of SEPA authority, use of local improvement districts, road improvement districts, traffic mitigation benefit areas to address some of these concerns which often times, the higher density development is more able to contribute to either physical _ improvements or monetarial to an overall benefit program. I think three of the, in particular three of the concerns raised by staff in 41 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7: 00 p.m. the staff report are related. The road conditions, intersections and walkways. Obviously, some of the roads need upgrading, they are shoulderless, open ditch, just asphalt. Zoning the area for single family is not going to fix that. It appears that staff, and correct me if I 'm wrong, that the real crux of the matter occurs at the intersections. That's where you are experiencing the level of service E or F conditions. That obviously needs addressing somehow, that can be addressed through a road improvement district or a traffic benefit mitigation area, traffic mitigation benefit area, as can walkway improvements and road improvements. The Comprehensive Plan speaks to the desire for a housing balance, the staff has presented percentages of multifamily versus single family versus mobile home development which has occurred in the City showing, I believe, it was 59 percent of the housing presently is multifamily. Repeating briefly a comment by an earlier speaker, that's obviously where the demand has been, what the consuming public is demanding. By zoning large areas single family and the demand is there for multifamily, the City is trying to create an artificial market which doesn't exist. Obviously, there is some need, some desire for single family but obviously there is a stronger need for multifamily at this time. There is a concern about lack of public services in the area. Again, this is a very valid one. However, through Building Code enforcement and SEPA authority, multifamily development can be required to install more life safety accommodations than single family is, such as sprinklering, alarm systems which are monitored on an off-site 24-hour location, etc. VanDerbeek: Sprinklers? Bergstrum: Sprinklers in the building can be required. VanDerbeek: Through SEPA authority? Bergstrum: You have under SEPA authority, you the ability to look at public services and if they are not adequate, to require mitigating measures and one possible mitigating measure, if there is a lack of response time for fire departments, you can require sprinklering. If that can shown to be an effective mitigating measure through the SEPA process. Another concern was drainage in the area, and the staff ' s conclusion was that multifamily development often has a lot more impervious surface than single- family development and single-family, therefore, encourages, can encourage better ground water recharge. That' s not necessarily the case. With an impervious surface allowance or a building lot coverage allowance of 35 percent plus roadways which are normally associated with subdivisions, you can get pretty close to multifamily development coverage. Multifamily developments and the developments I have been associated with, normally cover around 45 to 50 percent of the site with all the roadways, garages and/or 42 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7 : 00 p.m. carports and structures. Multifamily developments are easier to cluster away from sensitive areas of the property. If there is a sensitive area on the site, again, you have all the authority under SEPA to tell people to stay away from that site, do not impact it with development. The final concerns was the preservation of rural character. The staff report acknowledges that the natural amenities will be lost to any development over some period of time. The conclusion of the staff report is that they will be lost at a slower rate with multifamily, excuse me, single family than with multifamily development. That' s not necessarily true. If you get large single- family subdivisions, they can be developed as poorly as a poor multifamily development . Multifamily, again , multifamily development again is often subject to more stringent reviews and, again, to the SEPA processes and can be grouped away from significant strands of trees or significant specimen trees. A lot of it comes down to an enforcement problem and/or an enforcement issue and how far the City is willing to push their authority under SEPA and other codes available to them to protect and address those concerns. In summary, again, our request is that you follow the mapping of the Comprehensive Plan for this property, adopt zoning consistent with that mapping and find ways that you have available to you to address the concerns which have been raised in the staff report. This can be addressed with either single-family or multifamily development. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Bergstrum. I have a question. You indicated that the County's Soos Creek Comprehensive Plan recommended your client's site as RM 2500, is that correct. Bergstrum: 2400. VanDerbeek: How was the area actually zoned as opposed to what that Plan recommended. Bergstrum: The actual zoning was suburban residential. VanDerbeek: And, how long had it been zoned suburban residential . Bergstrum: I imagine for it' s entire history. VanDerbeek: Do you know why the County did not bring the zoning into conformance with the Soos Creek Plan. Bergstrum: The County doesn't always do that with the Comprehensive Plans. They wait for privately initiated rezones. Also, they had the concerns with sewer availability for the site which was recently addressed through a local improvement district. This was one of 14 43 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7 : 00 p.m. lots which participated in an LID to bring sewer, through the City of Kent, to the properties. VanDerbeek: How long did, when was the Soos Creek Comprehensive Plan approved, recommending RM 2400 for your client' s site. Bergstrum: The Comprehensive Plan was adopted in either the very late 60's or the early 701s. I don't know if the RM 2400 designation appeared at that time or in some update. As far as I know the County has not updated the Soos Creek Comprehensive Plan until recently they are starting to get into that process. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Bergstrum: Thank you. VanDerbeek: Any further public testimony. I will hear from the gentleman who has not previously testified first, please. Delbert McCallum: My name is Delbert McCallum. I came in late. I was sworn in at the meeting had two weeks ago, I don't know if you want to swear me in again. VanDerbeek: No, that's all right. You're still under oath. McCallum: O.k. The address that I live at is 25238 lllth Avenue SE. I don't think the issue here, that we are going after is the fact that we are raising cane with the apartments that are already there because they are already there and we're going to have to live with those but we, the issue that I think we are after is the idea of the zoning of the new property or the property that can be developed and our feeling, or I think the majority of the people here, the feeling is that they would like to keep it the way it is or at least have it as 9. 6 development or 1,200 square feet or 12 , 000 square feet. I think the growth of the property changes over a period of time. We talked about the Comprehensive Plan and where that's going. The thing that happens with the Comprehensive Plan it is usually designed several years in advance and many of the people who probably designed that are no longer with the Planning Board or have changed, so I think that things have to change with the people themselves. If they didn't, we would all be driving with 1960 fords and chevrolette's because times do change and we going to have to change with them. The other thought I wanted to bring in to life was the gentleman that was just up here and talked about the development of the area. If we went multidwelling how it would develop. I don't think that's quite true because maybe it has been with the one's he has been associated with, but in the past experiences we know that when an area is multi-unit developed it, unless everything else is developed at the same time, you don't have those kind of advantages and the biggest example of this might be, is when a tall building is put up, the City can stop that building 44 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7: 00 P.M. unless that building contractor has enough parking spaces for all the cars that would be going to that particular building. I think . , the City could also have it if they want to do something like that, that if they were going to put up an apartment building, that they would be the one's that would develop all the curbs and gutters and pay those expense as part of the building itself. The only thing that I would like to make a comment on this, there ought to be a time when we say enough is enough and there should be a time when we could say that we have enough apartments around us right now and this area here could be developed with 12 , 000 square feet per residential unit. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Further public testimony. Myron ViGoren: I arrived late and didn't swear in but I swore in earlier this afternoon so I guess that still stands. VanDerbeek: All right. Will you state your name, please. ViGoren: My name is Myron ViGoren. I represent the property at 11208 SE 244th Street. We current are contiguous with Royal Firs on the northwest corner of our property and we're interested in doing something with the ;property. The property has been in the same ownership for 50 years and at this point in time we feel that we want to quit paying the taxes we are paying. We are paying in excess of 1500 bucks a year and, which amounts to more than $200 an acre. But, I was just back here doing a little bit of calculating and came up with the fact that Royal Firs per acre is paying about $11, 000 an acre. We are paying 200 and they are paying about 11, 000. What' s Kent going to do with all those extra bucks. They should have some money to solve some of the street problems. I was here this afternoon when they were trying to zone this, I don't remember the name of it now, which would be directly north of our property. And, they are zoning it for a little bit less density so let' s say they are paying $8, 000 a year plus. . . VanDerbeek: Mr. ViGoren. I 'm going to make the decision, please address your testimony to me. ViGoren: O.k. Fine. They're are probably going to pay $8, 000 per year per acre in taxes. If I understand my reading your statement that they intend to put a light in at 240th and 112th. They also " intend to supply some of the funds to improve 240th and this is the way to solve the traffic problem. It's not to go and stick your head in the sand. I, we could not at this time develop into 9,200 square feet. I talked to the bank and I talked to several other developers and I talked to several realtors and they all say, no, you can't do it, you can't do it economically. If we want to give the property away, we can do it but that's the only way that we are going to be able to do anything with that property and so, it' s 45 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7: 00 p.m. unreal to zone it to 9, 200 square feet because what you're say it, that nothing is going to happen till that zoning changes because nothing can happen economically. We'll just have to keep putting taxes out, our $200 buck a year, when the thing would probably bring $12, 000 a year, $10, 000 a year per acre; $200 bucks a year versus $10, 000, makes quite a difference. I think for the economics for the City of Kent, they're going to hurt themselves enormously. I 'm quite involved in the City of Aberdeen and they've had a no growth policy in Aberdeen and if you know anything about Aberdeen, hey, they're starving to death. Because ten years ago they had this no growth policy and they did everything they could to thwart growth and I want to tell you there are some poor people in Aberdeen who lost thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars on their property because of the no growth policy of the City. And, I don't think Kent's that way. Thank you. VanDerbeek: Thank you for your testimony. Further public testimony. Sir, in the blue. Bill Dimsdale: My name is Bill Dimsdale. I live at 137100 266th in Kent and I 'm also involved with Stratford Arms apartments. Just a couple of comments that I wanted to make. I guess they are really directed to the Planning Department. The whole presentation that they made kept referring to what had happened in Kent since 1970 as far as single family building permits and multifamily building permits. And, the thing that I keep thinking of, it's been about 15 or 16 years since I have been associated with Kent and I think Kent is a heck of a lot better place than it was 15 years ago. When I first came here, it was kind of a little place out in the country with a lot of problems. There were a lot of problems in the school systems, there were problems with police protection and one of the most significant things in the area was Springwood Apartments out here and I feel that Kent is a heck of a lot better place now and I raised my kids here and I 'm pleased with the school system, I 'm pleased with the services, my kids don't have -to go to south center to shop, they don't have to go to Auburn to go to a movie, they don't have to go to Renton to shop, the Kent area in general has improved a lot and all of this has happened while we have been building apartments instead of single family houses. So, I don't think its all negative. At Stratford Arms we have numerous school teachers who live in our apartments, we have head librarians for the school system, we have attorneys, we have Boeing engineers, and many other professional people including quite a few military officers who are in the area temporarily and we turn away people every day that want to rent apartments. We feel very fortunate that we are in that situation but I think that the main point I want to make here is that from a planning standpoint, the thing that we have to get back to is this Comprehensive Plan, we can't take and squeeze people out of Kent and make them go out to Black Diamond and live. They're still going come right back through Kent to get to work and they are going to clutter up our roads and these people are going to live in 46 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 :00 p.m. this area. You're not going to chase the away, they want to live here. I've had people come in from Denver, from Houston and South Carolina and they want to live in Kent because we have a good Parks Department, we have good police protection and we have, even with our traffic problems that everybody keeps harping on, I came from Bellevue and the traffic problems when I lived in Bellevue many years ago, were much worse than they are in Kent now and I think staff has to handle those problems. They have to deal with traffic, they have to deal with the storm drainage runoff, that' s one of the other things that everybody keeps talking about but in the apartment complexes with the retention system, they release into, the actual drainage requirements of the valley are probably better controlled than they were on the original property or at least equal to it. That's what the Engineering Department is supposed to be doing and we have a retention system with massive pipes and pond areas at Stratford Arms and we release the water through a little orifice from that whole complex. So the services can handle the multifamily development and so if we put all this stuff off to the side about people covering the ground with concrete and all of those things and deal with the fact that we've got a requirement in this City to provide multifamily housing somewhere. Now, where are we going to put them. Are we going to put them close in to Kent or are we going to squeeze them out to the perimeter or outside in to King County. People want to live here and I' don't think that just because we are here and the next person who comes along, that the next person who comes along has to be left out. I think we kind of have those requirements as a member of the human race to let the other people have a share of what we have. One of the other things I don't think there is anybody here who would, one of things that just happened here, just talking about moving .all of Plant 2 down to Auburn, I don't think there is anybody in Auburn, any resident in Auburn down there who' s saying, hey, I don't want Boeing to put 2 , 000 employees down here and there's nobody here in Kent that ever said that either, that they didn't want these industrial developments down here in the valley. They want those jobs here because they want to work in Kent and they want to live here and if we are going to let people create jobs here. I think we have a requirement to stick with our comprehensive plan and develop our property in a way that makes it agreeable to everybody. One of the things that we keep talking about are these buffer areas and a lot of people don't realize that that's the way the Comprehensive Plan is done. You keep your concentrated growth closer in and as you get farther out you have the buffer areas to keep the multifamily separated from the single-family areas and that brings up my final point on the Stratford Arms property. We've spent an awful lot of time and a lot of energy figuring out what we are going to do with the project when we buy a piece of property. And the piece of property in question is the Ward property that abuts Stratford Arms and which we consider to be a portion of the Stratford Arms project. Originally, Stratford Arms was four lots, we bought the Ward property which makes it five lots. Since that time we have eliminated the lot lines on the 47 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7: 00 p.m. larger parcel and eventually we would eliminated the lot lines connecting the Ward property if it's zoned multiple family so it becomes part of our project that we invested a good portion of our finances in and a big part of our life. So, all I 'm asking for is that we give the Comprehensive Plan the consideration it deserves and make that property part of the multifamily zoning. Thank you. VanDerbeek: Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Dimsdale. Further public testimony. All right. I 'm normally not inclined to let people testify more than once. (Person spoke) . All right. Well, I 'm going to let the gentleman who has not previously testified, testify first. Douglas Walker: My name is Douglas Walker. I reside at 10727 SE 244th. Clearly what we have here is an adversary situation between land owners versus homeowners. I think clearly the majority of the citizens here tonight have indicated their wishes, their concerns. And, their concerns relative to the environment that they live in, their way of life. Concern about what could happen to it. And, I am concerned about that and my concern is multifamily housing. I don't think. . . I think that within the past few years, the City of Kent, King County have provided adequate number of multifamily housing for individuals. I think Kent now has to look toward providing single-family houses to this area that they have recently annexed. It' s a beautiful area, people have lived there for quite some time. They're concerned about what is going to happen to that area. They grew up in that area. They've made homes there and they've raised their families there. There's a lot of emotions involved in this area. They don't want to see it turned into an asphalt jungle. All we have to do is look eastward, look at Detroit, look at L.A. to the south. This is what they're concerned about. This is what I 'm concerned about. I think that the Planning Department has down an adequate job and has expressed the concerns as they view it of the City and as it now exists. It will be my recommendation and hope that they adopt the single-family housing in this area. Thank you. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Is there any further public testimony from anyone who has not previously testified. All right. If you had one additional comment, if would please make it very brief and not repetitive. Orr: My name is James Orr and I'm truly sorry about getting up but there is one fact that I think should be brought to your attention. In Findings and Recommendation from the Hearing Examiner on March 18, 1987, . . . VanDerbeek: On which case? 48 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7: 00 p.m. Orr: On page 2 . I 'm sorry, Walnut Park Phase 1. VanDerbeek: All right. Orr: I 'm not trying to address this to Phase 1 but I have to go through part of Phase 1 to get there. Phase 1 of which primarily subdivision approval is requested hereon will consist of 82 lots on approximately 14 . 1 acres. Further to the east, Phase 2 will include 33 lots on approximately 3 .8 acres. The entire development includes 115 lots on 17 . 9 acres. Now, I know they are rezoning 4 . 8 acres is what is asked for. But, indeed they are only developing on 3 .8 acres and I 've not had any formal education but every calculator that I 've done this on, 3 .8 acres, 33 lots go into 8 . 5 units per acre and it's not 6. units per acre. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Any further public testimony. All right. I would ask staff at this time with respect to your rebuttal testimony. If you assume that it's going ... to be fairly limited in nature, I will hear the rebuttal testimony and conclude the hearing this evening. As you know from previous hearings, I am inclined to limit rebuttal testimony very strictly in time and to avoid repetition. However, I don't want to not allow staff sufficient time to respond to this hearing which has been • three-and-a-half hours long. So, if the staff feels it cannot sufficiently give their rebuttal comments, five minutes. Mr. Hansen. Jim Hansen: Jim Hansen, Kent Planning Department. I think we could do it between five and ten minutes. VanDerbeek: All right. I will indicate from the evidence before me that I 'm not going to close the record because I 'm going to ask for the preparation of another exhibit from the Planning Department. And, the exhibit I 'm going to ask for the preparation of is all of the East Hill Comprehensive Plan Maps that I ever see or are ever provided to me half of them see to require some sort of amendment or factually incorrect and the Comprehensive Plan Map which is in the back of the East Hill Plan is difficult for me to interpret sometimes so I guess what I would like for an additional hearing exhibit to be prepared by the Planning Department is a copy of the East Hill Comprehensive Plan Map with the subject Area C with an overlay which shows the staff recommendation that goes over. Do you understand what I 'm asking for? Hansen: Yes, would you like to have it at a scale similar to the map on display for clarity or larger than that. VanDerbeek: About like that. 49 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7 : 00 P.M. Hansen: If you want we could prepare one or a couple of them. The one down on the floor, Kathy, is much larger scale and might be easier to depict property lines. VanDerbeek: That might be helpful. Hansen• O.k. VanDerbeek: But, I don't want, I want it to be something that I can roll up and take with me. Because, I don't want to haul around that thing. Hansen• O.k. VanDerbeek: All right. After the staff' s rebuttal testimony. I will establish some time deadlines for the preparation of that so that we can be it clear to the record when the 14 day period will commence. All right, at this time I will call upon staff for rebuttal. McClung: Kathy McClung from the Kent Planning Department. I guess part of these, part of what I wanted to say in five minutes are for public information and then others are for answering questions. I wanted to respond to Mrs. Orr's statement about public, what we do to inform the public of developments in the area. It's true that we post the area as a result of the SEPA process, we also post it as a result of anything that requires a public hearing. We also publish all those notices in the Kent News Journal. We also do not notify everybody of a typical development, we only notify people within 200 foot radius if there is going to be a public hearing. So, that two ways that people would know about potential development would be through posting on the property and publishing in the newspaper. I also wanted to bring up the fact that there are 202 acres approximately of currently multifamily zoned property that is undeveloped or underdeveloped on East Hill. So there still are potentials for multifamily development. Under Mr. Singletary's comments, he had a question about a zoning variance for the fire station. We currently, under our zoning code, allow fire station or other public buildings in a wide variety of zones including single family zones but they do require a conditional use permit. That property has not been acquired by the City. Once it is acquired by the Fire Department, they will be having a public hearing for the conditional use permit. I wanted to explain further that a red folder, a red copy of the report that I was entering for the record. There seem to be a question about what exactly that was, that is a report that has been submitted to the Planning Committee, which is the subcommittee of the City County for review in response to their multifamily reduction ordinance that we have referred to many times during these hearings. It has not been passed at this point. It's only for their review. There was a question about parks that are planned in the area. Oh, good. I guess Mr. Hansen got a copy of 50 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7: 00 p.m. the Comprehensive Park Plan so he can address that question. In response to the comments of Mr. Bell. He was talked about 15 acres that are adjacent. . . VanDerbeek: Just a minute you skipped a question. Mrs. McCallum asked about the connection of lllth and 252nd in the future. McClung: O.k. I will leave that to Mr. Gill, because I 'm not sure. VanDerbeek: All right. McClung: Mr. Bell was talking about twenty acres adjacent to an office zone and referred to that as commercial zone and would be undesirable for residential use next to it. Office zoning is not the same as a typical commercial zone in that it is designed through the development standards to be complementary with residential. It's maybe not the most ideal but we do require additional landscaping, we do not allow any lighted signs and typically the hours of the business allowed in the office zoning would not be late in the evening or, in most cases, open on the weekends. He also made a comment that a single family development would not be making any improvements along S. 248th Street and I just wanted to clear that up. Any plat that came through the City would have to go through SEPA review and it's the City that determines what improvements will get required along any street, looking at the impacts of that particular development and adjacent public facilities. Mrs. Lambert was, stated that she thought the Planning Department had down a door-to-door survey and that she had only been notified of these two meetings. These are the only two meetings where zoning has been discussed in this area. There will be further meetings at City Council . But, these will be the only two meetings. The Planning Department has not done any door-to-door survey, we rely on the Comprehensive Plan information and the things I discussed throughout this report for our recommendation. There may have been some confusion, the Planning Department was out in the area taking a census shortly after the annexation. That' s the only _.. door to door contact we've had. Mr. Silva brought up a concern about the clearing of trees. I just wanted to bring up for public information that the City of Kent does have a tree ordinance in place and that, if someone sees an area being clear-cut, they call the City and we will make sure, we require people to submit a tree plan before they can do any clear cutting of trees over six-inches in caliper and the reason I bring that up because that did happen, not within the area but very close to the area a couple of years ago and we found out about it after it was all done. There was a question about whether wildlife is considered through environmental checklist. we did submit an environmental checklist as part of this rezone, as part of this zoning hearing and wildlife is one of the elements within that environmental checklist, one of the (unclear) elements. As far as the Stratford Arms question, I apologize for the error in the map. The person who worked on the map had a very 51 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. small scale map to work with and missed the lot, that's all I can say. I 'm very glad that Mr. Morford came into the office so that we did clear up a misunderstanding. It never occurred to me that those two lots adjacent to Stratford Arms, that he considered that as part of the Stratford Arms property. I never considered it as such. They are separate tax lots. And, when I asked one of the property owners, he told me they were not included in the plans that were submitted to King County as part of Stratford Arms. Finally, I just wanted to, well, o.k. One more thing about sprinklers. We have a sprinkler ordinance in the City of Kent which says that any building over 12 , 000 square feet has to have sprinklers in it. They have a lot of 11,999 square foot buildings usually the developers will do anything in order not to put in a sprinkler because they are very costly. We have, however, required sprinklers on one case, isolated case, that I can think of through the SEPA process because fire access was limited. And, then. . . VanDerbeek: That would be an interesting legal issue for appeal if someone appealed that issue before me 'on a SEPA, the result would be interesting. Mccluncf: Finally, I just wanted to reiterate something that I stated at the last hearing on this annexation area and that is that this, these zoning hearing will not preclude anybody from applying for a rezone at a later time. Advantageous of doing, looking at this total annexation area is that we can look at the area as a whole in making zoning decisions. The disadvantage is that we haven't spent twenty pages on staff report on each individual lot and there may be a time in the future when some of the issues we discussed tonight have been resolved and we can look at a rezone consideration favorably. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your rebuttal comments. Hansen: Jim Hansen, Kent Planning Department. We are probably over our time limit but there were two brief ones and I believe Mr. Gill may have a couple of items to respond to on Public Works questions. There was one person who raised a questions regarding proposed parks. At the break I checked our East Hill Plan that was adopted September 7, 1982 . At that time, two parks in a very generalized fashion were shown to be generally within this annexation area. Each of them are shown at ten acres and again, these are quite generalized. Generally in the area of north 252nd and west of 113th. The second area is south of 242nd and west of 108th. If people want further information they may check with our Parks Departments because they are no in the processing of updating the plan that we drew our information from and one second issue that came up, there had been questions on that multifamily study and coincidentally the City Council , next Tuesday night at 7: 00 under a regular workshop meeting is scheduled to discuss some recommendations regarding implementation of Resolution 1123 . So, 52 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 :00 p.m. for those members of the public that will be 7: 00 next Tuesday night. Now, I believe, Gary Gill will have a couple of responses. Gary Gill: Gary Gill, City Engineer. I 've got a few generalized comments to make first and to cover some of the overall questions because a lot of the questions were not very specific, they were general comments on the traffic congestion and problems. As far as the Comprehensive Plan development process that the Public Works Department takes into account , the developed plans for transportation, for storm drainage, for water and sanitary sewer. All those plans were, the most recent was storm drainage, and they have been developed since 1980, the early 198o ' s up until 1983 or 1984 . The development criteria that was used in the development of those plans, we took into account the most current Comprehensive Plan that was in effect at the time, so we used the East Hill Plan and the Soos Creek Community Plan as, for our growth projections for when we were determining the potential traffic impacts, potential storm drainage impacts, etc. So anything that is either consistent with those plans or has a less intense growth, development plan _.. growth, planned growth development for the area will not conflict with our comprehensive plans. If, as far as the development standards, this was discussed several times, we, the public streets whether it is a single family residential subdivision or a multifamily subdivision our standards are the same. We look at the actual classification of the street whether it is residential collector, local access street, arterial, etc. An example of that ~ would be 109th Avenue SE as it has been extended from 256th to 248th and that street was built entirely by the developers of the Sunrise Point and the Shires development and that has been constructed to City of Kent standards with curb and gutter, sidewalks and street lighting and storm drainage and all the other normal appurtenances that are part of the street improvements. Now, on the Walnut Park site, the major difference there is that those are private streets. Those are not public streets so the City will not be maintaining those although the developer is putting in a curb and gutter, sectionless sidewalks on one side but they are narrower streets than what would be a required under a public improvement. There was a general questions regarding the connection of 111th Avenue with SE 252nd Street. I believe that the right of way actually extends all the way from 256th to the potential 252nd right now. It is a partial right of way for a portion of that distance. There is only 30 feet on one side. The eventual improvement of S. 252nd would be linked with all existing public streets. It might tie into that, for example, 109th, 111th, 113th if it were extended or 114 . However, we would have to take into account, at the time, specific factors such as the condition of the existing roadway and whether it was developed to take into account, whether it was constructed to take, to adequately handle the increased traffic that would be generated from linking that street into 252nd. So we can look at it at the time when 252nd is improved and if we were to decide that 111th would be connected to 252nd to allow that connector between 53 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. 256th and 252nd, we would require the developer to also overlay or improve lllth at the time. It is a substandard street, like an oil mat street, we may restrict access. We would have to look at the condition of the roadway, potential safety problems and then take into account other factors at the time. There's been some general, there was a speed limit question regarding 244th Street and, I guess, I can direct the suggestion that if the residents in the area wish to see the speed limit reduce, they should contact the Engineering Department and talk to the traffic engineer and mention what their concerns tare we could arrange to have a speed study taken and possibly recommend a speed limit reduction if it looks like it was warranted. That would take into account the actual character of the roadway, the conditions for safe driving in that particular area, the actual traffic volumes and other factors. As far as the general questions regarding why haven't all these streets been improved and on, and on, and on. I guess I should make some general comments regarding the process that we go through for identifying specific roads, improvement projects that are needed. Each year the Public Works Department develops a six-year transportation plan. That Transportation Plan takes into account a - number of factors . For example, traffic volume, accident statistics, road conditions, we look at the arterial road systems throughout the entire City. At that point in time, we prioritize projects based on these factors and make a recommendation for a plan that goes to the Council for approval. once that plan has been approved, then we go through a process of trying to acquire Federal or State funding to help pay for these needed improvements. There seems to be a general impression that with all these tax dollars we are getting every year, that they can't understand why these roads are not all being improved. An example would be for the year 1988, the estimated road tax money that will be collected for the City of Kent amounts to less than 500, 000 dollars. This, I would, for example may pay for about half of the asphalt overlay requirement that we have in any one given year. An example we have a project proposed to improve S.. 240th Street between 108th and 116th to a full five lane section, the estimated cost of construction for that project is over a million and a half dollars. So you can see that the road tax money from three years of taxes for the entire City would pay for one improvement project over a three year period, so it doesn't go very far and that's why we look at a lot of other alternatives in trying to finance these improvement projects. one of those alternatives, or several of those are Federal and State funds which are pretty difficult to obtain. The other processes include the SEPA mitigation agreements which we require. We evaluate each development project to determine what the impacts are and then require the developer to mitigate those impacts either through specific improvements at that time or commitments to participate in a larger improvement project that would benefit a larger area at maybe a future point in time so we are getting a commitment or we are getting specific hard improvements put in at the time. For example, Shires development, that built the 109th 54 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7 :00 p.m. road improvements within their actual site, was also pledged to commitment to participate in the S. 248th Street widening improvement project when that project goes into effect, so we have specific agreements that are signed by the developers too that actually pledge a commitment to participate in the cost of constructing those improvements. I think that covers the major questions with regard to roadways. And I think the drainage problems are being identified through our Comprehensive Drainage Plan. I believe that multifamily development obviously does generate a little runoff than single family. The characteristics of the runoff are a little different but as I mentioned in the early comments as long as the overall development' s scheme in the area is consistent with the East Hill Plan and the Soos Creek Community Plan, then that' s what we use as a planning background for developing the storm drainage utility master plan. Are there any other questions that the Hearing Examiner has noted that I have covered. VanDerbeek: No, I don't think so. Gill: There was one general comment regarding the City's purchase of the old East Hill Community Hall up on the Benson Highway and I believe it was an old structure and the City recently or in the not to many years ago sold that property to a private party. But since that time we have to take into account the City has also built the Kent Commons facility, they have built a new senior center, developed the Earth Works Parks facility so there have been a lot of other improvements that were City-wide benefits not necessarily the East Hill only but large community-type projects have been funded through the Parks Department. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Gill. All right at this time I 'm going to indicate that I will leave the record open on this hearing until Wednesday, September 9, 1987. I would ask that Planning staff submit the exhibit that I requested to me prior to that date and the 14 day period for my decision will then commence on September 9 , 1987 . I will also indicate that if any citizen wants to submit any further written comments or if staff wants to submit any further written comments, that they may be submitted to me, care of the Kent Planning Department at any time prior to September 9. Are there any further questions regarding the submittal of additional material or any questions at all, I should say. All right, there appearing to be no additional questions at this time, this hearing will be in recess. END OF VERBATIM MINUTES. Hearing ended at 11: 00 p.m. 55 HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES August 19 , 1987 The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to order by the presiding officer, Diane L. VanDerbeek, Hearing Examiner, on Wednesday, August 19 , 1987 at 7 : 00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, Council Chambers. Ms. VanDerbeek requested all those intending to speak at the hearing and those wishing to receive information concerning the hearing, to sign in at the sign up sheet by the door. Staff -- reports, agendas, and the description of procedure of the hearing were available by the door. Ms. VanDerbeek briefly described the sequence and procedure of the hearing. All those who intended to speak were sworn in. SUMMER WOODS REZONE #RZ-87-2 The first item on the agenda was a public hearing to consider the request submitted by Steven P. Elkins Architects, 610 Market Street, Suite 201, Kirkland, WA 98033 , to rezone approximately 9. 28 acres from R1-7 .2 , Single Family Residential, to MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential. The site includes two parcels located at 11223 and 11325 SE 240th Street. A letter was received from the applicant requesting this matter be continued to September 2 , 1987 . Jack Nelson, attorney representing the applicant, 601 W. Gowe, Kent, WA 98032 , requested the continuance of the hearing to give the applicant time to prepare a presentation before the Hearing Examiner. ( 1 - 214 ) Jim Hansen , Kent Planning Department , 220 Fourth Avenue S. , Kent, WA 98032 , stated that the applicant was, from the earliest date of contact with the City, the applicant was aware of the City' s position of denial . There has been sufficient "time for the applicant to prepare a response. There was no public testimony. The hearing was continued to 3 : 00 p.m. on September 2 , 1987 . 1 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 EAST HILL WELL ANNEXATION AREA 2 ANNEXATION #AZ-87-2 The second item to be heard was a public hearing to consider a request submitted by the City of Kent, Planning Department, 220 Fourth Avenue S . , Kent, WA 98032 , to apply for permanent zoning designations to properties lying within the East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 . Verbatim Minutes - (1-304) Kathy McClung: O.k. on the overhead projector, I will 90 over the three different areas and the areas are also delineated on the map that is behind me. Diane VanDerbeek: All right. Ms. McClung could you identify yourself for the record. McClung: Sure. Kathy McClung from the Kent Planning Department. O.k. , Area A is all the property lying west of a line that is approximately 300 feet west of 104th, and I wish I had a better way of describing it, but if people really are close to that line, they can come up and look at the map that has the individual lots on it and that will tell them more specifically which area they are in, if they are at a dividing point. Area 2 is a point lying adjacent to 104th at it is approximately 300 feet both east and west of 104th with the exception of one extra lot north of 244th that extends a little bit further east. And then, Area C is all of the property lying east of Area B. So it would be all of this. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for that explanation. Obviously, this is a public hearing and anyone who is interested in staying for the entire hearing is certainly welcomed to. My goal in attempting to divide the hearing into three sections is merely to avoid citizens having to sit and listen to hours of hearing on areas which they may not be interested and I so I would ask preliminary which persons are interested in testifying or own property in the vicinity described by the Planning Staff as Area A. All right, could I have an indication by hands of which persons are interested in testifying with respect to Area B. Either one, testifying or if you own property or you are somehow interested in Area B. All right, how about Area C. All right, it appears by far that the largest number of citizens are interested in Area C. There weren't too many people interested in testifying with respect to Area B. Does staff have any good feeling about 2 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 how far we are going to be able to get. I don't, I 'm not inclined to think that we are going to be able to get all the way through this hearing and I 'm inclined to order initially that the whole hearing with respect to Area C would be two weeks from now. (1-425) Jim Hansen, Kent Planning Department, I think that would be advisable given the number. I would like to stress that staff would like to give an initial presentation which is kind of an overview of the entire report before getting into Area A so those that they may wish to leave are requested that they stick around for the first portion. I think it will be beneficial. VanDerbeek: All right. At this point there were several citizens who expressed concerns about the continuation of the hearing. However, the Hearing Examiner determined that a continuation would be necessary and ruled that Area C of the East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 would be heard on September 2, 1987 at 7: 00 p.m. (1-627) Kathy McClung: Kathy McClung from the Kent Planning Department. As the Hearing Examiner has stated, this evening I will be giving a brief overview of the total annexation area. We are here tonight to discuss the initial zoning that will be attached to this annexation area. I will go through brief, opening comments and then I will go directly into the specific discussion of Area A. First, I will show an overview or view foil of the general area and give a brief description of the location. The annexation area is generally south of 240th, west of 116th, north of 256th and east of 94th Avenue S. The total annexation area contains approximately 410 acres and in our last census estimate there were 894 people residing in the area. Its primarily a single-family area. There is one multifamily development north of 256th at approximately 112th. Bordering 104th Avenue SE there are a few businesses within the area and some home occupations. To reiterate the different areas; Area A is the area lying west of a line 300 feet west of 104th; Area B is generally the area lying 300 feet east and west of 104th; and Area C is all the area east of Area B. All of this property is now zoned R1-20, 000 which is an interim zoning which the City of Kent attaches to all annexations as they come into the City of Kent. An environmental checklist was prepared for these proposed zonings and, again, this was issued on July 8, of 1987. A summary of the staff recommendation is, I ' ll try to shout. The area west of 100th Avenue SE is recommended R1-9. 6, that's a single family designation with 9, 600 square feet minimum lot size. The area east of 100th Avenue SE still within Area A, we're recommending that R1-7 . 2, Single Family with a minimum lot size of 7 , 200 square feet. In area B, the area north of SE 244th, we are recommending CC, Community Commercial and the remainder of Area B lying south ._ 3 + Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 of SE 244th, we are recommending O, Professional and Office. In Area C, the area west of 112th Avenue SE extended and north of SE 252nd, we are recommending R1-7.2 . Oh, I 'm sorry, west of 112th, we are recommending R1-7 . 21 that's single family with minimum of 7 , 200 square foot lot size. The property south of 252nd, we're recommending R1-9 .61 Single Family with a 9, 600 square foot lot size except for the Stratford Arms property which is an existing multifamily development which we are recommending MRM, Medium Density Multifamily. The area east of 112th Avenue SE we are recommending R1-9 . 61 with a minimum of 9, 600 square foot _. lot sizes except for the five acre Bainton property which we are recommending an MRG, Garden Density Multifamily with a maximum of six units per acre. All of the property owners within this area as well as the property lying within 200 feet of the annexation area were notified of this annexation hearing. That concludes my overview of the annexation area. VanDerbeek: All right, thank you. You may start with your description with respect to Area A. AREA A• McClung: Again, for Area A, we are recommending an R1-9. 6, Single Family Residential for that area lying west of 100th Avenue SE - extended and R1-7. 2 , Single Family Residential, for the area lying east of 100th Avenue SE extended. This area contains approximately 135 acres of land and, again, is zoned, currently zoned R1-20, 000, Single Family Residential, as an interim zoning. Area A is bordered by SE 248th on the south, 94th Avenue S. on the west, except for a small portion to the north which extends further to the west. It lies south of SE 240th Street and lies west of a line approximately 300 feet west of 104th Avenue SE. Area A was annexed as part of the East Hill Well Annexation 2 in the spring of 1987. The annexation occurred as a result of the City taking over the Old East Hill - Well Company. The area is predominantly developed with rural, single family homes. A majority of the parcels are over one-half acre or more. Land use in the area is predominantly rural, single family. Most of the lots exceed the 9, 600 square foot recommended lot size except for a few lots within the Link Addition which average about 9, 400 square feet and one lot that is west of this plat which is 6, 000 square feet in size. I think that, at this time, I will show the video tape we have of the area. VanDerbeek: All right. Yeah, please. Hansen: During the viewing, if you are interested in this video, you may wish to temporarily shift to your left. We apologize for the inconvenience. At this point, the video of the area was shown. (940-1200) . 4 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 McClung: Significant streets within the area are 94th Avenue SE, 248th Avenue SE, SE 248th Street and SE 244th Street. One- Hundredth Avenue SE will also be improved to serve the area as it develops. All the existing streets are two lanes, they have narrow gravel shoulders in some areas and most are bordered by open ditches. There are no sidewalks within the area. As properties develop, right of way for 94th Avenue SE and 100th Avenue SE will have to be obtained by the City of Kent to widen the street and make improvements. The Engineering Department has come up with a plan for acquiring right of way and it is spelled out in the staff report under Streets System Section. Increasing densities within the area will burden the street system because these are substandard streets already. They are immediately, within the area, the closest the major intersections are already at a level of service F. Most of the area is presently served by City of Kent water, the City is in the processing of upgrading some of the old lines that were part of the East Hill Community Well System that originally served this area. These improvements should be completed sometime next year. The sewer system will have to be upgraded along 94th, 98th, 100th, 244th and 248th according to the Comprehensive Sewer Plan as they develop. At this time, I would like to go through our reason for recommending the zoning that we have and I will start with the context of the Comprehensive Plan. The City of Kent first adopted a Comprehensive Plan in 1969. The Comprehensive Plan was made up of two basic sections: the goals, objectives and policies or the text of the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan Map. Together, these represent an expression of Community intent and aspirations concerning the future of Kent and it is to be used as a guide for the Mayor, City Council, City Administrator, Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner and City departments in making land use decisions. The subject property is also within the East Hill Plan subarea. Under the East Hill Plan subarea map, the area west of 100th Avenue SE is designated Single Family, 4-6 units per acre and the area east of 100th Avenue SE is designated as Multifamily, 7-12 units per acre. (2-00) (Unclear) one of the objectives is to provide adequate trafficways for both local and through traffic separating the system when possible. The existing street system is not adequate to serve traffic generated from current development, many streets are substandard and as the area developments, improvements will be required to bring the system up to current standards. Under the Housing Element, one of the goals is to insure an adequate and balanced supply of housing units, offering a diversity of size, density, age, style and cost. In 1985, the City of Kent issued a record value of $164 , 000, 000 in permits, second only to the City of Seattle in the State of Washington, and yet, even in these peak years of construction, the number of single family residential permits were minimal, only 12 issued in 1985 for the whole City of 5 Hearing Examiner Minutes -- August 19 , 1987 Kent. A recent study of multifamily development revealed that the City of Kent has 8,950 apartment and condominium units. These units make up 59 percent of the housing stock. Single family homes make up only 35 percent and the balance are mobile homes. Today the City has about 7 , 000 more multifamily dwellings than it had in 1970 an increase of 358 percent. (Unclear) articulated recently. For this reason, the City would now like to increase the single family development to balance the existing multifamily development. This was articulated recently in the adopted of Resolution #1123 by the City Council which calls for a 20 percent reduction in the amount of multifamily zoned land. Under the East Hill Plan, Housing Element, one of the policies is to ensure that public facilities and services are available or will be available to support development of proposed densities. In an effort to implement the Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies and others found through the document, it is necessary to consider a reduction in potential densities represented in the Land Use Plan Map. In other words, the City cannot provide all of the needed public services in a timely manner should densities .go as high as the Comp Plan designates. The fire response time in this area is one of the highest in the City. Emergency vehicles must either come from the downtown area or 140th Avenue SE. Although a recent a bond issues was passed to add additional fire stations and one is actually (floated?) for an area, within Area C of the annexation area. This construction of this fire station is still a few years off and the equipment and personnel to man this station has been secured at this time. Increasing densities to their highest potential in this area would not be responsible when emergency services are not adequate for the area. Traffic concerns has been the number one issue for citizens and staff the past few years. The amount of growth that has occurred in the East Hill area has increased the traffic to unacceptable levels of service. Increasing densities in this area would cause additional traffic congestion to the area that is already overburdened. By increasing densities to their highest potential as shown under the Comprehensive Plan Map, the estimated p.m. peak hour trips generated would be 864 versus is an estimated 675 trips generated under the proposed single family scenarios. The Planning Department has also reviewed the proposal in relation to the present zoning, land use, street systems, flood control problems and comments from other departments and finds that: The primary streets serving this area are: 94th, 98th, and SE 248th Street. These streets as well as others in the area are not improved to minimum City standards and are not adequate to serve the traffic generated in the area. As development occurs, street improvements will be required to accommodate any increase in density. Water and sewer service are available but extensions may be required to accommodate future development. As I stated before, Fire and emergency medical response to this area is one of the highest in the City. Increasing densities dramatically in this area would add an additional strain to the existing services. 6 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 The property is now zoned R1-20, 000, Single Family Residential . This is an interim zoning given to all land annexed within the City of Kent. The predominant land use in the area is rural type, single family residential. Most lots are one-half acre in size or greater. The Kent East Hill subarea plan designates the property west of 100th Avenue SE as single family, 4-6 units per acre. The property east of 100th Avenue SE is multifamily, 7-12 units per acre. The City classification of R1-9 . 6, provides for a maximum of 4 . 5 lots per acre which is consist with the East Hill Plan Map. In keeping with the residential character and large rural lots typical of this section, this zoning is an appropriate designation for these lots. The property east of 100th Avenue SE abuts property, the City is recommending for Office and Commercial zoning. A typical planning practice is to place higher density residential next to commercial and office areas in order to best utilize public services. R1-7 . 2 is the highest single family development in Kent. By recommending single family zoning for all of Area A, the City will encourage single family development to balance the housing types that have occurred in the last few years. The Comprehensive Plan goals and policies call for a variety of housing types. Due to permit activity in recent years, where nearly 70 multifamily permits were issued to every one single family permit, existing multifamily units exceed the single family in the City by approximately 25 percent. Increasing multifamily zoning strains the ability of the City to provide the needed utility, transportation, recreation and emergency services these densities require. It would discourage a balanced social, economic population that can be achieved through a diversity of housing types. The City Council passed a resolution in October, actually in was December 1986, not October, stating its intent that vacant multifamily zoning within the City be reduced by 20 percent. This resolution was passed in response to a large number of citizens who had concerns about the amount of multifamily development occurring in Kent and the problems including traffic generated by this kind of development. Although this resolution did not specifically address how this reduction should be accomplished, it is reasonable to assume that land should not be zoned multifamily until the City Council has had time to study this issue in more detail. A multifamily density report has been prepared for the Council 's review and is currently before the Council 's planning committee. That concludes my staff report. If you have any questions? VanDerbeek: All right. Did you have the Comprehensive Plan map up there on the easel before. Would you put that back up there for me, please. All right. I have a couple of questions, they don't relate specifically to the map, but I just like to have it up there so I can look at it during the hearing. Is it your testimony that all of Area A, prior to the annexation was zoned Suburban Residential, SR 7200? McClung: Yes. That ' s correct. 7 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 VanDerbeek: All right. And so, the only nonconforming lot in the area that is being recommended for R1-9 . 6 zoning is that 6, 000 square foot lot. McClung: I 'm sorry, what was the question again? VanDerbeek: Well, if the currently County zoning was 7200 square foot lots, a portion of Area A is being recommended for 9600 square foot lots, I believe in your testimony you indicate that, that the vast majority of lots in that area are conforming except for the one small 6, 000 square foot lot. McClung: That's correct. VanDerbeek: I don't have any other questions at this point. Thank you for your testimony. Will there be any further staff presentation from any other City department. No. All right. Was there a sign-up sheet that was circulated for the public testimony. Thank you. All right, I think what I will do with respect to the public testimony is, I will call upon the persons who signed up to testify in the order they signed up and then I will hear any other testimony from members of the public who desire to testify. Again, at this time, with respect to Area A. Well first, it looks like Edward Angevine. Edward Angevine: No, no comments right now. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you. Gerald Price? Voice: She just gave an overview of Area A, right. I thought she was going to give an overview of all three areas. VanDerbeek: She did that at the very beginning, but it was so brief maybe you missed it. Voice: So, if we are interested in C, we have to come back in two weeks, right. VanDerbeek: That' s correct. Voice: Thank you. VanDerbeek: Although you are perfectly welcome if you want to stay for the rest of the hearing on the other area. All right, are you Gerald Price? Price: Gerald L. Price. VanDerbeek: All right, Mr. Price, could you state your address for the record? 8 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 Price: Yes, the City has taken over the East Hill Well District and put in new water lines, why is the water pressure down to nil practically. VanDerbeek: O.k. , do you want to ask a question instead of testifying? Price: I 'm asking a question. VanDerbeek: All right. Do you have any other comments you want to make? Price: I think the pressure should be brought up. But, how? VanDerbeek: All right. I ' ll ask the appropriate City staff to respond to those concerns and any concerns raised by the other speakers after the public is done testifying. So, we' ll put that down as a concern that the water pressure has dropped, all right. Bob Robertson, here, all right, did you decided to give any public testimony in respect to Area A. All right, please step forward and offer your testimony. Robertson: My name is Bob Robertson, I 'm a Master Senior Appraiser and a real estate consultant. I would like to bring to the attention of the. . . VanDerbeek: Excuse me, would you state your address for the record. Robertson: Excuse me, I 'm at 5015 S 380th in Auburn. VanDerbeek: And, do you own any property in Area A. Robertson: No, I do not. VanDerbeek: I will let you testify if its brief. I 'm trying to defer first to property owners and then other interested citizens. But, if you have some brief testimony I will let you offer it at this point. Robertson: Thank you. I do have some brief testimony I would like to bring to the attention of the Hearing Examiner the United States Supreme Court ruling in May of this year in the case of Luther Glen vs. the County of Los Angeles and in that case the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that any down zoning of property whether for the good of the City or other government agency did constitute a taking of property and the cities or agencies would have to reimburse the owners for the taking of that property if they did down zone from the date that the down zoning was accomplished and this appears what seems to be happening in Area A going from the County zone of 7200 to the City zoning of 9 . 6 . 9 Hearing Examiner Minutes - August 19, 1987 VanDerbeek: All right. Are you speaking on behalf of any property owner in that area. Robertson: Yes, I am. I 'm speaking for Mr. Thuringer. VanDerbeek: All right. So, Mr. Thuringer objects to the down zone, Mr. Robertson. Robertson: Yes, Ma'am that's correct. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Peter Curran. Peter Curran: Thank you Madam Chairman. I 'm Peter Curran, I 'm an attorney, my office address is 213 South Fourth and I 'm here on behalf of three separate property owners: Number one is Mr. Bill Goodman who owns Tract 15 of R O Smith Orchard Addition; next to him is Mr. Bill Ruth who owns Tract 16 of R O Smith and across the street from Mr. Ruth is Mr. Jack Gwen who owns Tract 17 of R O Smith Addition. I was asked to assist these gentlemen only this afternoon so fortunately for all of us perhaps I can keep my remarks very brief. But, I want to make a record at this time as to what these owners feel about the recommendations that have been made by the Planning Department with respect to their property. These properties are each five acre tracts, actually just under five acres, because of the loss of frontage for roads. Tracts 15 and 16 are located on the north side of what would be the extension of 244 and essentially compose the northeast corner of 244th and 100th Avenue. Tract 17 . . . VanDerbeek: Just a moment, I want to find that on the map here, so I can picture what we are talking about. Curran: O.k. , if you can located East Hill School, 100th Avenue runs right along side, and if you move to the south along East Hill School you will see where 244th would extend down and intersect. VanDerbeek: Right, o.k. , I understand the area we are discussing. Curran: Tract 17 , would then, in effect, be the southeast corner of that same intersection, lying directly across from Tract 16. These parcels are going to be impact with the Fred Meyer development so substantially that it is not reasonable for the Planning Department or for this City to suggest that there is a potential for R1 development on these properties. In effect, what is happening is a denial of potential use of these properties because, in fact, anyone could travel to any shopping center and particularly, any Fred Meyer development and readily see that is the last place they would elect to locate in an R1 single family development. So, I think, essentially the point that we would 10 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19 , 1987 make to you, Madam Chairman, is that this area that is lying adjacent to the Fred Meyer shopping center development is not appropriate for R1 under any circumstances. Now, let' s just look at what is going on with R1 in the City of Kent in the last three years. In fact, it goes on back further than that but particularly since, in 1984 there were 23 building permits for R1 residences in the City of Kent, in 1985, according to the Planning Department's own writings that we reviewed before we came tonight and most of us have, there were 12 building permits, in 1986 there were 10 building permits. I don't have any information for 1987, because the year hasn't completed. This has to clearly point out to all of us that the wishful hope that we could reverse the desires of people for housing is not one that anyone lend any credence or rely upon. We can't turn back the tide of housing cost or secondly, a substantial element of lower income people who are locating in our south end communities. They deserve housing and they are occupying the apartment dwellings that are being developed in this community. The comments and the resistance that has been expressed by people in this community, some people in this community and by the City Council in adopting the resolution that was recited to us and printed in the Planning Commission brochure, was not realistic. This is housing that should be respected and the criticism that is developing about the use of this housing, the kind of housing that many of us used when we didn't have sufficient funds to locate ourselves in R1 property and goodness knows, at this time, the cost of R1 property is far more substantial than it ever was when many of us used apartment dwelling in our younger days or many of us may be back in those apartment dwellings if we can't afford the kind of cost that Rl, ., single family residences, are set upon us. So. I guess that I would suggest to you Madam Chairman, that this expression of concern about multifamily development in the City of Kent is not well directed. Essentially, the upset that has been expressed has been about the aesthetics. To some people, these locations, these developments do not appear attractive. Unfortunately, we can't located people in broad, huge lots any more because of the cost, and so, I guess what I 'm saying to you is that to suddenly decide the multifamily is not appropriate kind of housing for the City of Kent, for the Council to say that we are going to down zone by reducing 20 percent of the multifamily area. I guess we down zone it to R1 and have no building permits, so the owner' s of those properties are left in an impossible position, they can't find people who want to develop R1 in our town and they can't develop multifamily. The roads that would serve this property, that my clients own, are going to be developed as part of the Fred Meyer expansion. Those roads essentially would be. . .that road would be essentially 100th Avenue and I would urge that there is not any prospect towards expansion of James Street. James Street has been substantially expanded over the years and would be the service W 11 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19 , 1987 road that would serve this property. There's nothing going to happen to assist that road in guiding people to that property, to expand it in any way. I guess the other comment I would make is that we, as a society, must recognize that density is what we should be looking for, we have created the traffic (unclear) problem of the East Hill region, out to Black Diamond by reason of encouraging substantial housing development out beyond Lake Wilderness , that is, all the way from downtown Kent to Lake Wilderness to Black Diamond. This kind of sprawl which permits people to locate and developers to develop without taking the responsibility to create roads as part of that development investment is what has created the mess that we have for people who elect to go out there and, I guess, one might add, the election to go out there one knows when you elect to locate out there that you going to have a traffic problem, the traffic problem is not going to be solved soon. But, the way to cure that kind of sprawl is to intensely develop downtown locations and to intensely develop around the downtown and to encourage multiple development and multifamily units around the towns, wherever the roads are, wherever, possibly if it happens, a railroad connector is going to be developed between Seattle and Tacoma, where the busing is already, where we don't have to build these substantial roads to serve. So, I would urge that you follow the East Hill Plan which was, in fact, carefully prepared and just reviewed within the last two years as part of the ;discussion wherein substantial commercial zoning was added to the East Hill area. During those discussions, many comments were made about the multifamily segment up there and nothing was ever said about changing this forecast, that multifamily is appropriate for this property owned by the people I represent and we are asking that in fact you zone this property as part of this rezone that you are going to recommend into an MRM classification. It is not the intention of my clients to build to the density allowed by MRM because, in fact, each of us know that it is not even practical to develop to that intense of a density but, in fact, we are asking that you use the wisdom that you have to recognize that development close to the core of this community is the very thing that should be encouraged and impress that zone upon this property. Thank you very much. VanDerbeek: Thank you, Mr. Curran. The next speaker that is signed up is Leonard Oaken. No comment, Mr. Oaken? All right. Phil Gomes, Phil Gomes here. Gomes: My name is Phil Gomes, address is 522 S. Fifth and I 'm representing my folks who own property up on 100th Avenue SE. In regards to the statements that the gentleman before me made, I agree with him and also would ask that MRM zoning be extended to 98th Avenue S. because of the Fred Meyer shopping center, the area along 100th Avenue SE probably won 't be suitable for R1 zoning and I think it would be much more appropriate to have that area, 12 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 _. rather than cut it or stop it on the east side of 100th Avenue SE, extend it to include the west side of 100th Avenue SE. VanDerbeek: All right, thank you for your comments. Gomes• Thank you. VanDerbeek: Wes Francis, is Wes Francis here? Francis: I 'm Wes Francis and I live off of 98th, on 245th Place and it. . . VanDerbeek: I 'm sorry, Mr. Francis, could you state your address for the record? Francis: Yes, 9819 S. 245th, according to the comments of the last two gentlemen, it sounds like it could be a possibility that I could be surrounded by apartments homes. And, of course, that doesn't make me or my family feel very well. We bought into this area because it is an area of wide open spaces, we have a half- acre lot, it is a lot to take care but we still enjoy it. Another concern that we have with the area around the Fred Meyer store being zoned multifamily is that I question why a Fred Meyer store was placed so close to a school and also, if we have multifamily, it looks to me like there would be an awful lot of traffic and my concern is how much is the life of a kid worth. VanDerbeek: Bill Goodwin. Goodwin: I ' ll pass, thank you., VanDerbeek: All right. Vernon Birklid. Birklid: I 'm Vernon Birklid, and I live at 10206 SE 244th Street. My wife and I own the west half of the lot 14 of the R O Smith Orchard Tracts and I 'm also concerning with the R 72,00 zoning for this reason. My north line abuts the south line of the Fred Meyer development. Talking to developers in the past and just also recently, I find that being able to move my property on an R 7200 would be almost impossibility. I do not especially like the .•_ higher zone MRM or a CC zoning, I like the residential life, I 've had but I feel that I 'm squished in basically between these types of zoning, commercial and professional zoning. Being the fact, that at a later date, if I were zoned R 7200 and I would inquire or try to pursue a higher zoning, I would find the cost would be prohibitive to me and I doubt if I could ever challenge that. So I would not like to see a 7200 zoning for our property, I would -,• let the zoning be upgraded to CC or MRM. Thank you. VanDerbeek: All right, is there further public testimony with respect to Area A at this time? 13 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 Ridings: My name is Sheila Ridings and my address is 25003 114th Avenue SE. The area you are talking about, apparently they want acreage in five acre lots right around East Hill Elementary School, is that correct, is that the same area, within a couple of blocks that they are. . . VanDerbeek: Yes, it's in the general vicinity. Ridings: O.k. , what I would like to know from the Planning Department is exactly how many acres are they talking about and if multifamily housing goes in, their intentions are good but once they sell the land to a developer, intentions are out the window we could have 600 units or 800 or another 1, 000 or whatever. I would like to know how many maximum could they put in. Are we looking at another Sunrise Point or are we looking. . .how many exactly are we looking at, are we looking at 10 or we are looking at 15 or 1, 500 maximum. VanDerbeek: Which area specifically are you worrying about. Ridings: In Area A. the areas that these people are asking to be rezoned from the single family dwelling to multi. . .the ones that were just up here requesting those and have the five acre plots. VanDerbeek: All right, the staff can respond and will describe the maximum units permitted per acre under MRM zoning. Ridings: O.k. Because I think that will have a lot to do with the impact of traffic, the staff has already felt that we can't handle that much more and that' s going to be a lot of taxes going in for the roads to be redone, the sewers to be redone and we've already got enough apartments around there and I think that should really be taken into consideration because I know they will put the maximum they can on that property. They are going to put the minimum. VanDerbeek: Thank you for your testimony. Further public testimony. Schriber: Patricia Schriber, 24402 94th Avenue S. We are in the process of building a house in this area, we have two-thirds of an acre. The reason we bought in this area is because it is rural, we like it, we want to keep it that way. The apartments keep moving down and they are going to be moving up and then all of us that own a little bit of property are going to be out, surrounded by apartments and I 'm just voicing my opinion that we would like to keep it rural . Also, if you widen 94th Avenue, you need to do something about Kent-Kangley. Because when you go south on 94th Avenue, a lot of people are turning left on Kent-Kangley and they're actually trying to commit suicide out there, there' s no lane to go into and there' s no way to just scoot across unless you go about 11 o'clock in the morning. So, if you are going to widen 14 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 94th Avenue or do anything more to get more traffic, I wish you would think of Kent-Kangley and also, keep an eye on the speed limit on 94th, its 25, but most people go 40. Thank you. VanDerbeek: Thank you for your comments. Further public testimony? Olson: Hi, I 'm Leonard Olson. I live at 31529 8th Avenue S. Federal Way, I 'm a land owner of Smith Orchard Tract, four and one-half acres, the address is 10018 S. 248th, and I bought the property with the intent to build multifamily dwellings on it and I talked to the Planning Commission and they said that there wouldn't be any problem getting it rezoned. And, why should I loose money and loose interest in my property because the City of Kent wants to annex it. And, that's all I was going to say. VanDerbeek: All right. Who did you talk to Mr. Olson, someone at the City or someone at the County. Olson: The County. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Further public testimony. Myron DeGoren: I 'm Myron DeGoren. I represent property that's at 11208 SE 244th, but I want to speak early in this whole hearing process because reading through, I read every word that was in that report and they say the problem is traffic and yet that report does not address traffic in any way, shape or form. Let' s address the problem not make pipe dreams or hide our head in the sand. That's what this thing is doing, hiding our head in the sand. These apartments are going to come, let's get ready for them, let's get at it. Every day we waste is another day that we've got more fatalities, we got more traffic jams, everybody is getting home another half-hour later. Let' s address the problem, let's get down to addressing the traffic problem instead of beating around the bush and trying to zone the problem away. It isn't going to happen. VanDerbeek: Further public testimony on Area A. Phil Gomes: Phil Gomes, 522 South Fifth, I have one question. I 'm a bit confused, perhaps it has been gone over already, and that is how were these zonings come up with; how did the County come up with the zonings that covers Area A at this time. I don't recall reading in the staff report as to how the County came up with those zonings. VanDerbeek: You mean the. . . Phil Gomes: The existing zoning. . . 15 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 VanDerbeek: The previous zoning, prior to the annexation into the City of Kent. Gomes• Right. VanDerbeek: All right. I can direct staff to attempt to answer that question. Any further public testimony on Area A. All right. Any rebuttal comments from staff, I 'd just like to briefly go over some of the questions raised by citizens that should be answered during the rebuttal period. There was a concern expressed with respect to water pressure, that perhaps Planning staff could answer or if there is someone from some other City department who can answer that, Engineering or something. Although this is an evening hearing. And, then we had some questions about the appropriateness of some of the recommendations considering the Fred Meyer development. We also had a question about the maximum number of units per acre permitted with an MRM zoning and then we had a question about how it was that King County initially zoned the property prior to the time it was annexed into the City. I would invite staff to give any rebuttal comments that they would like to but also ask that those questions from the citizens be addressed. McClung: Kathy McClung from the Kent Planning Department. Gary Gill from the Engineering Department is here and I will let him address the water pressure question. I wanted to state that although the staff is recommending single family for this area now, we are not recommending a 'change to the Comprehensive Plan, I don't know if that will be something the city Council will address when they review the multifamily reduction issue or not, but should the situation change and the area, and City services improve in that area there is nothing to preclude the property owner from asking for a rezone at a later date. There is currently a 100 acres of vacant multifamily zoned land up on the East Hill now, there is 102 acres of underdeveloped multifamily zoned land which leaves 202 acres of multifamily zoned land currently on East Hill that can be developed in multifamily zoning and I wouldn't want anybody to walk away thinking that the City thinks that multifamily is not something that the City wants to have. We' re just saying that we have our share and we want to have a diversity of housing types. As far as the Fred Meyer issue goes, first, maybe I should show exactly where it is going in. Are you aware of where that' s, where that proposal is? VanDerbeek: Well, I 'm generally aware of it. I believe that whole issue was heard by the Hearing Examiner previous to myself, might .be why she resigned. But, I would be interested in knowing, exactly, you can point it out on the map, I believe I know where it is located. 16 Hearing Examiner Minutes - August 19, 1987 McClung: O.k. I should point out that Fred Meyer was an issue abut two years ago and they do not have a building permit at this time. They are, they have submitted recently for an environmental review and Greg McCormick who is reviewing that environmental checklist is here and maybe can shed more light on some of the mitigating conditions are going to be for that project should it ever be built. The Fred Meyer property is right here, where it says East Hill Elementary School. The elementary school is actually across the street on 100th Avenue SE and, I 'm not sure of the acreage--Greg would probably know, but it' s quite a large parcel. Let's see. Densities--I decided that I would figure out three different densities based on five acres because that is something most people can visualize, a five acre parcel. Under the Comprehensive Plan, it calls for 7 to 12 units per acre if it were 12 units per acre and there were five acres that would be 60 units on five acres. If it were an MRM zone which allows up to 23 units per acre, that would be 115 units for a five acre parcel and if were zoned MRG zoning which is a little closer to the Comprehensive Plan designation that would allow up to 16 units per acre which would be 80 units on a five acre parcel. That's assuming that they got the maximum amount of units on the property and still able to meet all the other development standards. The last question on the County zoning, I can't answer that. Maybe Jim can address that. VanDerbeek: All right, thank you. Did you have any other rebuttal comments. McClung: No, I don't. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you. Hansen: Jim Hansen, Kent Planning Department. The question relating to the County zoning effort. This occurred, I believe, in the late 70 's and around 1980 the existing Soos Creek Plan was adopted and then the zoning was established by the County to implement that Plan. Incidentally, the Soos Creek Plan is currently being updated. The process just began and probably go on for two years. The County uses a very similar process to the City in determining appropriate zoning and through a series of meetings with the citizens, evaluating the land, the capabilities of the utilities in the area, water, sewer, transportation system, a whole collection of those things, they determine the most appropriate zoning and go through the procedures that we have. It is important to note that the land that is annexed to the City, we, among other criteria that we review, we examine the existing zoning but the City is not necessarily bound to that nor are they bound directly to the Soos Creek Plan. We take all those into consideration but the final recommendations which we develop and which are being reviewed tonight are drawn from many, many factors and not the Soos Creek Plan or the County zoning in existence alone. 17 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19 , 1987 VanDerbeek: Thank you. Mr. Gill, would you mind answering the question about the water pressure, please. Gill : Gary Gill, City Engineer, I ' ll try to be brief on this since it isn't really a major issue concerning zoning of this area. Several years ago the East Hill Community Well which serviced this area or a good portion of this area with water for many, many years was experiencing some fairly serious problems with respect to meeting fire flow requirements, adequate water supply, their water system was generally in pretty poor condition and was in need of some major improvements to upgrade it to meet the State Department of Social and Health Services standards. At that point in time, there were in negotiations between the Community Well Company and the City to take that system over and upgrade it. At this point in time, we are in the process of redoing that. We are rebuilding the mains, we should have the system completed by next year and the East Hill Community Well System was originally under one pressure zone and the City of Kent's water system is in three different pressure zones. So some of the parcels that lie along 98th Avenue and some of the mid- areas on the East Hill are in our middle water pressure zone so when we rebuild the water mains along those streets and connected it into our system the water pressure dropped because they were no longer being serviced by an elevated reservoir at the same pressure or the same elevation as the previous system. We are in the process of checking some of the properties where the owners have been concerned about this pressure loss and we are still going to have to look into it in a little more detail but the figures that I have so far indicate that most of the homes have a minimum static pressure of 50 pounds per square inch and normally this is adequate and it could be a combination of problems, sometimes its the domestic plumbing in the house, sometimes there is a pretty good fluctuation in the water surface level in the reservoir serving the areas. So, that' s the reason why the pressure is lowered in some cases. As far as resolving the problem, we are going to have to work with the property owners and the only other possibility would be to connect that area into our upper 590 pressure zone and then some of the properties would have to put there meters or equip their meters with pressure reducing devices because the pressure would be too high and they would probably experience leaks in their plumbing and possibly damage some of the appliances if the pressure was too high. So, we have to try to do a little balancing act and try to get it in the normal range so that it meets adequate flows for domestic use. One thing that has, this isn't working too well here, the one thing that has improved drastically in the area is the fire protection and in a lot of cases, in the past, those areas were served with two inch and four inch diameter water mains which were totally inadequate to meet any fire demands so at this time most of the areas are supplied with eight and ten inch diameter mains which are more than adequate to meet those fire demands. 18 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19 , 1987 VanDerbeek: All right. Who, the citizens who have concerns about the water pressure, who at the City should they talk to or how should they express those concerns to City personnel? Gill: I believe some of the owners have been talking with Ken Miller who is the construction engineer that was supervising the . - project that was recently under construction. However, I believe that it's pretty much out of his hands now and they probably should address their comments in writing to the Public Works Director and myself so that we can take up the issue on a larger basis. If we know there are several property owners that are experiencing problems, it will help us out information wise than if we are just getting one or two isolated complaints from areas that are maybe blocks apart. Because sometimes, if that's the case, it could be a plumbing problem. A lot of these older residential homes have galvanized steel water lines and once those things, you know, 30 or 40 years old, they start to corrode a lot and the effective volume that can be passed through those types of pipes is reduced drastically when they start to corrode and decompose. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you very much for your comments, Mr. Gill . Gill: I had just a couple of comments with regard to the zoning issues that are pertinent to what is being discussed tonight. I should emphasize that the Public Works Department is responsible for four major plans that effect the services for this particular area as well as the entire City and that' s the Comprehensive Plans for Transportation, Water, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drainage. Particularly the transportation concerns that have been expressed. When the Comprehensive Plan was adopted several years ago, the City used the current East Hill Comprehensive Plan and the County's Soos Creek Plan to guide them in making forecast for future traffic flows in the area and for trying to determine the arterial road system that would be necessary in the future to meet the demands that would be placed on that system at saturation development and, under all cases, when proposals have come before the Hearing Examiner for rezones or any other actions, where they have been requesting a higher use than what was recommended under the Plan, the Public Works Department has raised those concerns that additional traffic is going to be generated that was not part of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, we did not take these additional trips into account when looking at the arterial system that is necessary to service the area. So, when we start taking some of the single family residential and up zone it for ,•. multifamily, the future arterial system which we are looking at, three major east/west arterials, isn't going to be nearly adequate to handle the additional traffic flow that is going to be created from the continuous upgrading or higher density development in the East Hill area and this correspondingly goes right into the water, 19 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 sanitary sewer and storm drainage facilities. The more intense the development, for example multifamily, the greater the site coverage, more storm water runoff takes place, you've got increased flooding, you've got higher flows, you've got to provide for additional storage to meet the flooding, you ve got increased water quality problems, water demand increases with the higher density development and all along we are trying to provide for more and more sources to meet these increasing demands but we have some serious water supply problems in the past and we have been planning for this growth and we've been able to meet the demands as they have been growing here over the last several years but when we start to deviate from these plans we are going to have to take another look at it and redo our Comprehensive Plans more often than we already do. If there are any questions, I will be happy to answer them. VanDerbeek: All right. No, I don't think I have any questions concerning your testimony. Thank you very much. Any further public comment. Marilyn McIssac: My name is Marilyn McIssac and my address is 25001 116th Avenue SE, Area C, I would like to put this in the public record. I know Mr. Gill is doing a wonderful job in converting all of the old East Hill Well Company' s water system to the City of Kent. But, at no time did the East Hill Water Company ever had any problem with the Department of Social and Health Services standards for water quality. The only reason why we are out of business today was because we couldn't meet the current fire flow standards and we didn't have the money available to revamp our whole system to provide for that. So, we, I 've read that before in the newspaper and that is a complete untruth. We've never had any problem with our water. In fact, it was the best water around here. . . VanDerbeek: All right. Any further public comment on Area A. Sir? Vern Birklid: My name is Vern Birklid and I live at 10206 SE 244th. I am the President of the East Hill Community Well Company as it was taken over by the City of Kent. I 'm talking about pressure systems that the gentlemen was talking about recently. Mr. Price commented that they were having problems in the 98th, 246th Place and down in that area. When the City of Kent took over the East Hill water system, one of the criteria for our agreement was that the areas that had low water pressure was to have a priority and be taken care of just as soon as possible. Some of those areas have had new lines put down like as of 98th Street and the water pressure is still very poor in that area. At no time did the old East Hill Water Company have any water pressure lower than 50 pounds at their longest lines. We - served the community very well and the implication is that the 20 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 City worked toward annexation because they had to take over the East Hill water system to improve it. VanDerbeek: All right is there any further public comment with respect to Area A. McCormick: Madam Hearing Examiner, Greg McCormick with the Kent Planning Department and I would like to briefly address the concerns regarding the possible Fred Meyer development. The City has received an environmental checklist for the Fred Meyer development which is the first step in the permit process. Upon reviewing the checklist, it has been taken into account the property to the south being zoned R1-7 .2 and mitigation measures in the form of increased landscaping and a buffering wall to try to lessen that impact on the development on the single family residential areas to the south will be recommended once that report goes before the City's SEPA review committee. Also, additional landscaping and a buffering wall will be provided along the westerly boundary of the site which is adjacent to the East Hill Elementary School to lessen the impact of the development on ,... the school as well . VanDerbeek: What are you talking about, like an acoustical wall? McCormick: Yes, probably it would be a masonry brick wall and to the south there would be a ten foot landscaping strip and to the west along the school boundary which is on 100th Avenue it would be a 40 foot landscaping buffer strip. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Any further public testimony. Sir? Bob McIssac: Bob McIssac, 25001 116th Avenue SE. I would like to address a question to the Planning Department to explain the zonings in the areas adjacent to and around this entire area so the people here can understand those zones are as looking to what kind of zoning we are trying to put in there now. VanDerbeek: Adjacent to and surrounding Area A? McIssac: Area A, B and C, the whole. You know, we are trying to talk about a Comprehensive Plan and what the zoning is. I would like to know what the zoning is immediately around the area at the present time. There' s nothing addressing that in our handout. VanDerbeek: All right. I will direct staff to answer that question. Hansen: Jim Hansen, Kent Planning Department and I think that I will ask Greg. There 's a map illustrating zoning behind the sheet right there and perhaps Greg could, very small scale, but he could 21 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19 , 1987 review generally just what the zoning is there and attempt to speak into the mike. You can lift the mike off the podium. McCormick: O.k. The area that we are looking at tonight is generally this area here. O.k. Areas to the west here are zoned multifamily, MRD, which is a duplex zone. To the southwest would be an MRM designation with developed apartments in there now. I believe that is just off of the Canyon Drive. To the south of Strawberry Lane or 96th is another MRM designation. I believe that is also part of the High School area. Moving east, to the south of 244th or 248th, excuse me, the area is zoned Office, to - the south of that, near the intersection of 256th and 104th, it's zoned Community Commercial ; moving east, we have a small pocket of R1-7 . 2 , south of that is an MRM designation and then we have a designation of MRG, Garden Density Multifamily. Down on 256th, across the street from the annexation area is a MRM zone. At the corner of 116th and 256th, there is an MRD as well as an MRG zone. Across the, on the east side of 116th, southeast corner of 116th and 256th is an R1-9 . 6 area. Moving up to the north, to the north of the annexed area is an R1-7 . 2 designation. To the north of 242nd is an MRM, Medium Density, zoned area. To the north or around the 240th and 104th Streets intersections is the CC, Community Commercial, zone. To the north of that is a small pocket of 0, Office. There is a newly annexed area north of that which is zoned R1-9 . 6 and then some small areas of MRM and a small pocket of MRG adjacent to the 240th near where the Fred Meyer property near the East Hill Elementary School. I don't know right off hand what the County designations are; the east side, I believe they are single family residential, 7 , 200. Hansen: Jim Hansen, Kent Planning Department, there's a mixture. We don't have that information here, only speculative, it varies in single family densities as you go easterly and it only changes to higher density, multifamily when you get to the intersection of 132nd and 240th. There's an apartment complex in the northwest corner of that general area. But, the area between 116th and 132nd, generally, low density, residential . VanDerbeek: All right. There was a citizen who passed up two written questions, that I 'm going to address to staff at this time, before starting on Area B. One questions is: How much will the taxes go up on a property that's rezoned commercial or retail. And then, the other question is, what is 24245 104th Avenue SE going to be zoned as. This is north of 244th and west of 104th. Do you want to answer these questions, someone. Hansen: I will take the first one and defer to Greg, perhaps, on the second. The question, if I understand, was, the question specifically on how much taxes would go up if the property was rezoned to multifamily or commercial of a given type. VanDerbeek: Commercial or retail . 22 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 Hansen: Indeed, it would eventually go up at the time it was reassessed by the County Assessor. How much, of course, would depend on the property size and location and the appraisal that was done on the property. I don't know how else I could answer that. - McCormick: Could you read the description of that property again, please. VanDerbeek: Yes, north of 244th and west of 104th, 24245 104th SE. McCormick: Well, if it is lying north of 244th and adjacent to 204th on the west, it would be zoned CC, Community Commercial, or proposed to be rezoned to CC. VanDerbeek: Thank you. Are there any further comments with respect to Area A. Chopin: My name is Frank Chopin, and I live on 116th Street, 24425 116th Avenue SE and I also looked over the Zoning Code and the area that surrounds me and I am satisfied with what the Planning Commission had done. I hope that they don't change it. And, also, I would like to put into the record that the City of Kent has the largest vacancy "in the entire state 'which is 30 percent and I brought this up at the last Council meeting that _. they had there and it should be in the minutes. And, I think, that we have to down zone this from multiple to less density than we have right now. Thank you. VanDerbeek: Thank you. Other public comment. Gomes: Phil Gomes, 522 S. Fifth, I would like to see personally that I feel the City is trying to put a band-aid on a nose bleed in regard to Fred Meyer' s buffering zones. The property owners in the immediate area of Fred Meyers are going to be devastated by Fred Meyer going in there because property value will drop drastically, I feel, that if the properties are zoned single family dwellings. The only hope those people have of eventually selling their properties and realizing their full potentials is that the property on both east and west 100th Avenue SE is rezoned multifamily so that the appropriate housing can be put in there for that type of an area. VanDerbeek: All right, thank you for your additional comments. I 'm not going to allow a bunch of speakers to get into a debate _. about around the Fred Meyer area because I have actually been quite liberal about allowing Mr. Gomes to speak three times and, while this is a public hearing, and I will allow public comment, I don't need repetitive public comment. So, is there any additional public comment on Area A at this time. 23 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 All right it appearing to be no additional public comment on Area A at this time. Prior to the time, we start with the staff report and public testimony on Area B. we will take a brief recess for about ten minutes. Area B Greg McCormick: Madam Hearing Examiner my name is Greg McCormick and I will be presenting the staff report on Area B. Now, this portion of the annexation is composed of approximately 12 . 28 acres of land and this proposal recommends that approximately 7 . 46 acres be zoned O, Professional and Office and 4 . 82 acres be zoned CC, Community Commercial. The location of Area B on the overhead is bordered to the south by SE 248th Street, extends approximately 250 feet north of 244th Street to the old City limits, extends approximately 300 feet west of 104th Avenue SE and approximately 300 feet east of 104th Avenue SE except for the area north of 244th where the line is approximately 420 feet east of 104th Avenue. The property is currently zoned R1-20, Single Family Residential, as an interim zoning. Prior to the annexation, the area was zoned R 7200 under the jurisdiction of King County. The City's Comprehensive Plan provides policy statements that offer guidelines for future land use decisions. The City of Kent has also adopted a subarea comprehensive plan which addresses concerns of a more specific geographic area. This area as well as Area A and C are under the East Hill Plan. Now the East Hill subarea plan map designates the property north of SE 244th as Community Retail and the property south of 244th as O, Office. First, I would like to discuss an element out of the City-wide Comprehensive Plan that deals with some of the issues tonight on this area and then going to the East Hill Plan for a discussion of some of those elements that are relative. Now, the Economic Element in the Comprehensive-wide Plan has an overall goal of promoting controlled economic growth with physical development, resource conservation and preservation. And a subgoal under that is to assure retail and commercial developments are in suitable locations. The policy being to encourage planned retail business development. Now the area is being recommended for commercial and office zone lies on either side of 104th Avenue SE. The area north of the 244th Street line is recommended for Community Commercial. In 1984 the Planning Department completed the East Hill Zoning Study at the request of the City Council. The study examined land use and zoning in the vicinity of the intersection at 104th Avenue SE and 240th or James Street. This area included portions of what was, at that time, King County and part of the area under consideration this evening. The results of the study indicated that the East Hill community or commercial area at the intersection of 104th Avenue SE and 240th was approximately 80 percent developed. The report then recommended that certain areas of the City be rezoned to commercial designations and areas within the County be designated community retail on the city' s 24 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19 , 1987 Comprehensive Plan Map. This, the area recommended for commercial is a logical extension of the shopping center area to the north and would not create a strip commercial development. The area proposed to be zoned O, Professional and Office, will offer an interruption in the commercial uses at the intersection of 104th and James Street and the commercial uses at the intersection of 104th and 256th which is south of the subject site. In the East Hill Plan under the Transportation Element the overall goal being to establish a balanced, safe and efficient transportation system linking the East Hill with internal and external housing, employment, service and recreational opportunities. The transportation system should be designed as both multi-modal and a multi-purpose system that can be economically implemented through joint efforts of local jurisdictions, state and transportation providers. Goal 3 under that element is to establish and maintain the highest feasible level of service for East Hill. Traffic has been a major issue in this area and the areas that are recommended in this proposal for office and commercial are fronting on 104th Avenue which has been recently improved to a four-lane facility with a continuous left-turn lane. Also, as part of that _... project a traffic signal was installed at the intersection of 104th Avenue and 248th. These recent street improvements have created a situation on 104th that has resulted in properties abutting 104th Avenue have had their front yards reduced and in some case quite substantially to the point where,. excuse me, some of the structures are within 15 feet of the public right of way and the video that I will show in just a few minutes I try to depict that very clearly the close proximity of the dwellings to the street there. A lot of these houses are still in good condition and demolition might not be economically feasible and although these structures may not be highly desirable as residential units with the reduced front yard setback and the increased traffic on 104th, it is anticipated that they will convert into small office type of uses in the near future. Now many of these lots extend, are fairly deep of 104th and have plenty of lot in the rear for any off-street parking requirements or improvements that need to be required as the use changes. O.k. , at this time I think I will go into the video of the area and point out some of the issues that have been raised so far. At this time a video of the area was shown. As I mentioned land uses in Area B consist of a mixture of single family residential and light commercial, home occupation types of uses. A majority of the land immediately adjacent to 204th Avenue is developed to a large extent with residential uses. Minimum lot size requirements in the recommended zoning district is 10, 000 square feet and it appears that most of the lots in the area meet the minimum lot size requirement. This area is bisected by 104th Avenue SE which is a State route and is classified as a minor arterial. As I mentioned, and as you could see in the video, it is a four-lane facility with a continuous left-turn lane. Southeast 248th intersects 104th on the south end of the 25 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 site and 248th intersects the northerly portion and services as a the boundary for the recommended Community Commercial area. The Planning Department has reviewed this proposal in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, present zoning, land use, street system, flood control problems and another comments that the departments within the city and agencies consulted have made and draws the following conclusions: 1) that the Comprehensive Plan Map designates the property as CR, Community Retail and 0, Office. And the proposed of CC, Community Commercial, and 0, Professional and Office, is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Map designations. The property is currently under an interim zoning designation of R1-20, Single Family Residential . This designation is given t all newly annexed areas into the City until such time as an initial zoning designation is determined for the property. Land uses in the area include a mixture of residential, light commercial, and offices. Many of the residences in the area are used for small businesses in the form of home occupations. Office zoning is designed to be a buffer between residential uses and higher intensity commercial _uses and in this particular instance being used to interrupt and preclude the development of a strip commercial area along 104th Avenue. The streets in the area of 104th as I 've mentioned have been improved. The other streets in the area, SE 248th Street and SE 244th, are generally narrow, two-lane with gravel shoulders and open ditches which are on either side. The street system in this area with . the exception of 104th Avenue SE is inadequate for any other use other than low density single family residential. As a result of the widening of 104th the front yards, as was shown in the video, in a lot of the homes, particularly on the east side of 104th, have been reduced to, some as little as, fifteen feet and making this area, I would assume, less desirable for residential use and more appropriate for office or light commercial uses. And, there are apparently no flood control problems in this area. And, that concludes my staff report. May I answer any questions? VanDerbeek: No, I don 't have any questions about the recommendation at this time. Thank you. McCormick: Thank you. VanDerbeek: I will allow the public the opportunity to ask questions during the public testimony period. Is Glenn Crow here? Glenn Crow: I 'm Glenn Crow, I live at 13616 SE 251st Street in Kent. I also own property within the area designated as Area B. First, I would like to comment as to the process the City has been going through for a number of years with this original Comprehensive Plan. The original Comprehensive Plan involved long hours of study and groups and a lot of input. A lot larger magnitude than a hearing like we have here tonight. The amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that the Planning Department speaks about was handled much like this hearing. I 've attended everyone 26 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 that I 've known about. It's simply been a quick little hearing where people discuss pros and cons and then they changed the Comprehensive Plan based on the desires of the Planning Department and I 'm concerned about that process. Mainly because I know what went into that original Comprehensive Plan and every time we go through this we get involved in some sort of a down zone whether it be an (changed tapes and lost) . In the original Comprehensive Plan that involves this study this Area B, the part that they are now, they want to zone office was originally designated as a limited commercial which was a quasi-community commercial and not just professional office. I look at that as a down zone. I also have problem with the Planning Department's goal statement that they want to assure retail and commercial developments are in suitable locations. If that is truly the goal, then the obvious location for commercial property is this area that they are designating as O, Office. It's got a four-lane state highway with the inside turn lanes. It's a very appropriate plan for commercial. I have all arguments about buffering over the years and its always trouble me when the talked about buffering to retail areas. Are they buffering one retail area from another retail area. To me, if they are going to buffer something we would buffer between a retail area and a residential area but maybe we would start to work our zoning down from commercial until we ultimately got to the residential. To me, that' s buffering. In, I 've got a quarrel with their worry over strip commercial _ development when in their recommendations here, they are recommending that these houses in Area B designated as O, Office. -- You converted to, these houses be converted to offices. I would much rather have strip commercial zoning. If you convert these houses to quasi-offices then you are going to have areas looking much like Wats. I have some problems. VanDerbeek: Wats, as in Los Angeles? Crow: Wats, slum district, that's exactly right. If the video would pan in on the bulk of the houses on the east side of that street. I own some of them. They are bulldozer houses. I 'm also troubled with some of the things that are going on within the City and the Planning Department that go beyond what we see here tonight through the hearings I have attended. And I know, and they state so in their report, that we have a shortage of retail property. That ' s true and we're going to have a bigger shortage as soon as Fred Meyer gets in. And it troubles me, that the plans that I have heard for expanding retail area to the south of the 256th intersection retail area and that believe me is a nightmare from a retail operating standpoint. I 'm a CPA and I 'm involved in many businesses. That is such a congested area, very difficult for people to make a success out of a retail business in that area. A lot of people avoid it just because of the congestion and the problems of getting in and out of that area. And I feel that if the O, Office, area in this designated map were commercial, I 27 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 think that we would be offering better property for our retail establishments and, I think, it would be much better planned than what I see. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Cliff Hulk? Hulk: No comments or questions at this time. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you. Bill Goodin/Goodwin? He left. Chuck Rumpf? Any further testimony on Area B or questions? All right, please step forward, sir, and state your name and address. Bob Mclssacs: It' s Bob Mclssacs, again, 25001 116th Avenue SE. My questions again is of Planning Department--liking to know what the Parks Department has in mind for any future parks in that East Hill area. Part of the basis for this question is the fact that East Hill Well itself adjoins the water department, the City's water department property and at the time the East Hill Well was in negotiations with the City there was discussion that, that parcel or those two parcels might be made into some sort of a park. Is , has, anything gone on from that or is that a dead issue or what does that stand as far as parks on the East Hill area. And, I mean not just that area, but if that area is not going to be a park, where are we going to put parks for people, kids to get out and play and so on because that area definitely in needs of some kind of recreation facilities. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your question. I will direct staff to answer that. There any other public comments on the Area B at this time. All right, at this time, I would ask staff for any rebuttal comments and also respond to Mr. Mclssacs question with respect to parks. Hansen: Jim Hansen, Kent Planning Department. I 'm sorry I can't respond specifically to your question on Parks. We don't have a copy of the Parks Plan with us and I think that we should have that general information on hand but we don't, sorry. We certainly can find that information and will be glad to contact him and answer him, perhaps tomorrow. Mclssacs: It would be fine to answer it, (unclear) . Hansen: The other comment, if I could make, would it be appropriate at this time on a rebuttal? VanDerbeek: Yes, you can make rebuttal comments at this time. Hansen: Mr. Crow addressed the previous planning efforts and we both participated in those some time ago. They were lengthy and very comprehensive. One of the most important issues that came 28 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 out of that process and resulted in the designation shown on our Comprehensive Plan and thus, the proposed zoning for office, was a concern by the staff, Planning Commission and Council, over the strip commercial potential between the intersections of 240th and 104th and 256th and 104th and probably one of the most important premises for the recommendation for office was the means to accommodate the business 's desires and needs of the community in that area but not at the same time encourage an intensive strip development that will allow continuation of the types of services offered, currently fast food restaurants, etc. at either of the two intersections. So as as compromise during that process, office zoning seemed to be the most appropriate recommendation and that's carried forward herein. That' s all . VanDerbeek; Is there any further public comment on Area B at this time. All right there appearing to be no further public comment on Area B, I would indicate that we will be prepared at the next hearing on the second of September to proceed with the staff report and public testimony, comments and questions on Area C. Its impossible for me to predict, at this time, whether or not we will be able to conclude the hearing on September 2 given the amount of public interest on Area C, I don't know whether that is the case or not. Will there be any other item on the agenda that evening? No. Perhaps we will be able to conclude it then because we will have about three and a half to four hours of hearing time available. Right, I would indicate that I have received some written comments in letter form. I believe what I will do at this time is defer marking these as exhibits and I will at some time prior to the time that I close the record mark and identify all the exhibits. I will not do that at this point, I will just retain these exhibits. All right, is there any questions at this time concerning the further hearing procedure. Voice: On Section A and B will you move on that or make a decision on that before Section C? VanDerbeek: No, because they are brought 'as one zoning action under one file number, procedurally I am required to make my findings and conclusions in one report and so I will do that following the hearing on September 2 on Area C. Any further questions. Voice: Would further questions or comments be able to be made on Section A or B. VanDerbeek: Yes. Obviously the main opportunity for comment was this evening but if this is a public hearing and I 'm more than willing to hear the public' s comments. So, if there are areas that people feel it necessary to add further discussion then I will be happy to hear those comments. Do you have a questions, sir? 29 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 Voice: I just would inquire as to the time frame involved once the September 2 hearing has taken place. VanDerbeek: As I explained at the beginning of the hearing, the - ordinance requires that I render written findings of fact and conclusions of law in a recommendation to the City Council within 14 calendar days from the date the hearing concludes. Under extraordinary circumstances, I am given the opportunity to enter an order which extends the time for making findings and conclusions. Some times where the issues are complicated and there is a lot of testimony where I require a written transcript of the hearing or else verbatim minutes, the recording secretary who has to prepare those documents simply cannot meet that deadline and so its possible that I may have to extend that deadline. However, after my findings and recommendations are issued then there will be several hearings before the City Council to further consider the issue. Voice: How can you make an honest, in Section A, with the Fred Meyer thing that has come up and the (unclear) , they haven't asked for a building permit, this thing has apparently been going on for a lot of years, how can you rule on that area if this Fred Meyer. . .Now I can understand if it goes in, then you would want to do one thing but if it doesn't. . . see what I mean. VanDerbeek: Well, it would be considered improper for me to comment on the possible rationale behind any ruling I might make prior to the time that the hearing is concluded and all the evidence is in. So, I guess, my answer to that is I can't answer it at this point. Are there any other questions. All right there appearing to be no other questions, we' ll adjourn this hearing for tonight anyway. 30 KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF AUGUST 19, 1987 FILE NO: EAST HILL WELL ANNEXATION AREA 2 #AZ-87-2 APPLICANT: CITY OF KENT RETEST: Staff recommendation to apply permanent zoning designations to properties lying within the East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 annexation. I. INTRODUCTION The proposed zoning actions contained in this report seek to rezone recently annexed property known as the East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 . The annexation area consists of approximately 370 parcels and 410 acres. A census conducted in April 1987 by the Planning Department, counted 894 persons within the annexation i area. The annexation area is generally located north of SE 256th Street, south of SE 240th Street, west of 116th Avenue SE and east of 94th Avenue S. Bisecting the subject area is 104th Avenue SE which is classified as a state route minor arterial. Other significant streets serving the properties are 116th Avenue SE and SE 248th Street which are both classified as local collector arterials. y Although much of the area is suburban in character, there are many parcels that have remained rural with large tracts of land being retained. For the purposes of this report, the area has been broken into three areas: Area A: Lies west of a line approximately 300 feet west of 104th Avenue SE. Area B: Lies adjacent to 104th Avenue SE, both east and west for -.- approximately 300 feet. Area C: Is the easterly portion of the East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 (see attached maps) . This report will discuss each area specifically regarding unique land features and concerns while at the same time recognizing that it is important to consider the annexation area as a whole. Currently all of the East Hill Well Area Annexation 2 has an - interim zoning designation of R1-20, Single Family Residential, minimum lot size of 20, 000 square foot. 1 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 II . ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An environmental checklist was prepared on the subject zoning proposals which describe any impacts of the proposed zoning. A Declaration of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued on the proposed zoning action on July 8 , 1987 . III . SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION Area A: 1. West of 100th Avenue SE (extended) : R1-9 . 6 (single family residential with a minimum 9 , 600 square foot lot size) . 2 . East of 100th Avenue SE (extended) : R1-7 .2 (single family residential with a minimum 7,200 square foot lot size) . Area B: 1. North of SE 244th Street: CC, Community Commercial. 2 . South of SE 244th Street: O, Professional and Office. Area C: 1. West of 112th Avenue SE extended and north of SE 252nd: R1-7. 2 (single family residential with a minimum 7 , 200 square foot lot size) . 2 . Property south of SE 252nd Street: R1-9 . 6 (single family residential with a minimum 9 , 600 square foot lot size except for Stratford Arms) . 3 . Stratford Arms ( an existing multifamily development) : MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential. 4 . East of 112th Avenue SE (extended) : R1-9 . 6 (single family residential with a minimum 9, 600 square foot lot size) except a parcel south of SE 248th Street, adjacent to prior City limit line. 5. Bainton property, south of SE 248th Street, adjacent to former City limit line: MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential, with maximum six units per acre. 2 �. Mtn AVE 14ILLTOP AVE 94TH AVE Lf an AW r •• AVE Nr mz xv 01 an om:r dame �►1:11111111♦ ��i01i1i1<i:'i�i/i1i1i�►'sli/i�i�i/i 11111�11111►^Ii`.e���1��1�1�1�����1 �1111111111�Yi►1•��r111��1/111111111 �1111111111:1�'f11111111��11/11111111 3•,•,•,•,•,�,•,.,.,., ,/,/ ♦1111/11/1111�?1111 - 31111111/111♦ /111♦ ;Y r ~Ijlj/j1,11111a1L/s?�!a*��►�1.11111111 r >��i��1'�����'.f1.i� �IIII�III�IIIi1�1•i°I•iTi1�1�1�1/111/1 `�•a?II�I�A�?��•1111.�{ �1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1111/11/11.4,51IM �1/11 ♦IIIIIIe �1♦ �Ii1i1i1i0�i1i/00i Fi01i ges•►00 ♦11111111111►.1�111 N s �1a111�111a111a111a111a1+4�IM,�,+,�,,,' 1?�A.Z�.14�3a1�1��Ai.T. �11111 111�1N� wIII�7wf�.v��1�Ir1I1i1F1/OIi1•111•111 �'1�J��jli�i•1•jf��jIj1,1,1,1,1,1�ff�1��1�1.��•1/111111<�1�i�1>I�i1111�►Ij/1/j/1T i'i�'w!°!+°`�Iif/i�i1i1i1i�ilii0�i1i1i�iji�i�!i/i�i/i/it'�ii`�.�►0�1101010�1�1 .��i1e'��_�i1i1i�i1i�ili/iii1i1i1i/ii►i�i1i1i0�a•'i�Di/i/i�i��i1i1i1i�i�i/i/i�i�i�i�i . �. .►IIIIi� '1/11111111111111,11111111111i1i1i1i1i: l 111111��11111111111n. • .f��.T•'31?At1 t4f!TAAt��A?AQ? PQ'► . A IAII/1111♦IIA. r ■r ►a IrA Lr !y• it ar a1. a �►s!?►.fdj�•}{1 .f.,�,„ � . Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 IV. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES The following departments and agencies were advised of this rezone application: City Administrator City Attorney Chief of Police Fire Chief Director of Public Works City Clerk Parks and Recreation Director Building Official In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies within 200 feet of the area were notified of the application and of the August 19, 1987 public hearing. 3 CITY Or KENT ...�. ptanniEg . KIRK Df V w A )r Ml C 10 `^+D a?' 9E` y Y m pp= 1� PI 2 N CLARK AVE 9 AVE m+� N� N S (g(1 j KEN IHDTON ram'AVE OMµ3 O i SPy :JA n^ w N n p0 S 'fF•V mr N SON AVE m m m > s�hO . •.11: n2 S VAHD ANTER AVE o S '�y •: N PgOSP CT AVE r1 6C iMAR ON 1^ D �' C y Z nD ;' ;l y LFMORA AVE >r PL yT mALEXA DER w T = > ya S p CREST AVE , T a AVE O-' `e� '1•\" N HAIEL AVE M ,C•D� ONES)FINER +� % 2 I F xf Dl t j i•-1 L r��c ��'T 'IFlO LN m Z C 0 j y • O ..i:1',r1 ft N c9f AVE LANE y R P F y w w r-r..O��l�� <•aO y ALVORO AYE Ar 'e(� ._ x 4 AVE o S ELLIS :•, w VIEW ••.1:' N SUM Ml7. HILLTOP AVE r PL y y PL m I:I�..'i n A c REITEN RE) y �E.CL1` i�O y i Ny AVE N •1 S MAPLEWOOD AVe 1a•A`11'\�' D O� IIIIIII11111111= O i7MOyIl S. S KIMBER<A �OM 'I AVE ,(tOO�• l� {�`�• '' y y w 1 9 -wlT ({ (,� 94TH AVE 1 •E� w w y . ,t. on 0,\\Y^(•�(' `ey r1� �0 96TH - w 'SAY.�o n"C''(�''�1} u-% • AVE S L6TH AVE 9 _^ �•6T11 SAVE }•\\an owrj•T .(�:' 2x_ TTHw C} ~ S C(ff�lt nq D VE S� m > 98 TH AVE S x t O0 y O RA RRY N •• - jb 0, O ^ w �T 99TH AYE S y O -q "O �� •rS�—M——ar i. 00 100TN AVE 1TE -z A L _ xM V • E SE I i r; O3V)-11 _ ' O Z nm w ;J - r-=Ir 102ND• :.89t ric9Oe Ip m - '-' �r VE SE w • wu N•103RD r> y w u tO/TH �1�—t�hifi —r•- y AVE E • En rm oft ra iiiiiii ow r. - nD Ln rr 1OSTH W W . u 4 109TN AVE SE N W i 19TH y IOSTH AVE S� w y S III IIl11111t11t III II � /�h 109TH - Pl. SE t ITH AVE 9 MOTH = PL SE _ y ,.l 111TH AVE SE �n lltIt Illf1...11 11111 ---•nl-- "'--r_ ■— —— = I LATH A E SSE w ' T IIIII II111 • ® m " 11 T I N ;PE • 1 1 1 1 t tJz 1 1 111111 v' N N r APPLICATION Name EAST HILL WELL #2 ANNEXATION LEGEND Number AZ-87-2 Dale August 19, 1987 application site II IIIII IIII1.11 roposed Request.Annexation Zoning Zoning bndry city limits ■ININir- SCALE o Vicinity Map 1" = 1000' Staff Report _ East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 REPORT ON AREA "A" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: R1-9. 6, Single Family Residential, for that area west of 100th Avenue SE extended. R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Residential, for the area east of 100th Avenue SE extended. I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Description of the Proposal This portion of the annexation area is composed of approximately 135 acres of land. This proposal recommends approximately 90 acres be zoned R1-9 . 6, Single Family Residential (minimum lot size of 9 , 600 square feet) and the remainder to be zoned R1-7 . 2, Single Family Residential (minimum lot size of 7 , 200 square feet) . Upon annexation to the City, all land is automatically designated R1-201 Single Family Residential . This designation is an interim zoning which remains with the property until the Hearing Examiner and City Council establish appropriate zoning on the newly annexed area. B. Location Area A is bordered by SE 248th Street on the south, 94th Avenue S on the west (except a small portion to the north which extends further to the west) . It lies south of SE 240th Street and lies west of a line approximately 300 feet west of 104th Avenue SE. C. Size of Property The size of Area A is approximately 135 acres. This is a portion of the original 410 acre annexation known as East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 . D. Zoning The property is currently zoned R1-20, Single Family Residential (minimum lot size of 20, 000 square feet) . Prior to annexation, the property was zoned SR-7200 under the jurisdiction of King County. 4 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 E. Comprehensive Plan The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 1969 . The Comprehensive Plan is made up of two basic sections; the goals, objectives and policies and the land use map. 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 goals, objectives and policies are used with the Plan Map to guide the Mayor, City Council, City Administrator, Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner and City departments in growth, development and spending decisions . The Comprehensive Plan Map is to be used together with the text of the Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is within the East Hill Plan subarea. This Plan also includes goals, objectives and policies which apply to the area and complement the overall City-wide Comprehensive Plan. The following is a review of each of the above Plans as they relate to the proposal for initial zoning. The area west of 100th Avenue SE is designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map as Single Family, 4-6 units per acre. The area east of 100th Avenue SE is designated MF 12 , Multifamily, 7-12 units per acre. CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISH A BALANCED, SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR ALL MODES OF TRAVEL. GOAL 1: Assure the provision of safe and efficient routes and terminal facilities for vehicular traffic moving within and through Kent. Obiective 1: Provide adequate trafficways for both local and through traffic, separating the systems when possible. Planning Department Comment The existing street system is not adequate to serve traffic generated from current development. Many streets are substandard and, as the area develops, improvements will be required to bring the system up to current standards. 5 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 HOUSING ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL POPULATION IN KENT, ASSURING A DECENT HOME AND SUITABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT FOR FAMILIES DESIRING TO LIVE IN KENT. GOAL 3 : Assure an adequate and balanced supply of housing units offering a diversity of size, densities, age, ' style and cost. Planning Department Comment In recent years, the City of Kent has developed at a rapid pace. In 1985, the City issued a record value of 164 million dollars in permits, second only to the City of Seattle in the State of Washington. And yet even in these peak years of construction, the number of single family residential permits were minimal (12 issued in 1985) . A recent study on multifamily development revealed that the City of Kent has 8 ,950 apartment and condominium units. These units make up 59 percent of the housing stock. Single family homes make up 35 percent and the balance are mobile homes. ' In 1970, one year following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, this situation was reversed. At that time, multifamily units accounted for less than a third of all dwellings. Today, the City has 6,994 more multifamily dwellings than it had in 1970, an increase of 358 percent. For this reason, the City now would like to increase the single family development to balance the existing multifamily development. This was articulated recently in the adoption of Resolution #1123 which calls for a 20 percent reduction in the amount of undeveloped multifamily zoned land. Zoning the properties in this area single family would encourage this kind of development. EAST HILL PLAN OVERALL GOAL: ASSURE PRESENT AND FUTURE EAST HILL RESIDENTS HOUSING THAT IS SAFE, OFFERS A DESIRABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT, AND IS SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES. GOAL 1: Residential development that is related to the availability of community facilities and services. Objective 1: When making decisions concerning land use, consider the adequacy of and impact 6 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 upon roads and other public facilities and services including utilities, police and fire protection , public transportation, schools and parks. Policy l: Ensure that public facilities and services are available or will be available to support development at proposed densities. Policy 2 : Locate new single-family detached residential development in areas and at densities which permit roads, utilities, public transit, schools and other public facilities and services to be provided in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Planning Department Comment In an effort to implement the above Comprehensive Plan goals and policies (and others found throughout the document) , it is necessary to consider a reduction in potential densities represented in the land use plan map. In other words, the City cannot provide all of the needed public services in a timely manner should densities go as high six units per acre. A discussion of several public services follows: Fire response time in this area is one of the highest in the City. Emergency vehicles must come from the downtown area or from 140th Avenue SE. Although a recent bond issue was passed to provide a fire station closer to this area, construction is a few years off and equipment and personnel have not been secured at this time. Increasing densities to their highest potential in this area would not be responsible when emergency services are not adequate for the area. Traffic concerns have been the number one issue for citizens and staff the past few years. The amount of growth that has occurred in the East Hill area in recent years has increased the; traffic to unacceptable levels of service. Increasing densities in this area would cause additional traffic congestion to an area that is already overburdened. By increasing densities to their highest potentials under the Comprehensive Plan Map the estimated p.m. peak hour trips generated would be 864 versus an estimated 675 trips generated under the proposed single family scenarios. 7 Staff Report .� East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 II. HISTORY A. Site History Area A was annexed as part of the East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 in the spring of 1987 . The annexation occurred as a result of the City taking over and improving the water system for customers of the East Hill Well Company. The area is predominately developed as rural single family homes. The majority of parcels are one-half acre or more in size. A few County short plats are scattered in this region with the largest subdivisions being the two 16-lot plats known as Kennedy Lane and Link Addition. These two plats were approved in the 1970's and are located adjacent to each other at the northwest corner of 98th Avenue S. and SE 248th Street. B. Area History The East Hill area was first settled in the early 19001's. Since that time residential and commercial developments have grown tremendously. Property near this area is primarily residential. The exception is the commercial areas adjacent to 104th Avenue SE. Major commercial nodes occur at the intersection of SE 240th and 104th Avenue SE and at the intersection of SE 256th and 104th Avenue SE. Many multifamily developments have been built near the area. Several units lie west of 94th Avenue S. , south of SE 248th at 98th Avenue S . and more recently several developments have been built on the east side of 104th Avenue SE, south of SE 248th. .411. LAND USE Land use in the area is predominantly rural single family. The lots west of 100th Avenue SE vary in size but the majority are at least one-half acre in size. All lots exceed the 9 , 600 square foot recommended lot size except for a few lots within the Link Addition which average about 9,400 square feet. Also, one lot west of this plat is 6, 000 square feet in size. The lots east of 100th Avenue SE tend to be larger parcels with the majority exceeding one acre in size. Most of these parcels are vacant or underdeveloped. 8 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS A. Significant Physical Features Topography and Hydrology The area' s topography is slightly varied. The elevations range from 300 at 94th Avenue SE to 425 at 103rd Avenue SE extended. The land slopes generally from east to west at an average grade of four percent. A shallow ravine occurs east of 100th Avenue SE extended. The area does not have any significant creeks or streams. Vegetation The property is mainly developed with rural type single family homes. These homes have typical residential landscaping. Many small orchards are in this area as well as open fields and pastures where grazing animals can be found. A few parcels are heavily wooded with mixtures of evergreen and deciduous trees. B. Significant Social Features Street System Significant streets within this area are 94th Avenue SE, 98th Avenue SE, SE 248th Street and SE 244th Street. One-Hundredth Avenue SE should also be improved to serve this area but currently is not a through street. All of the existing streets are two lanes. They have narrow gravel shoulders in some areas and most are bordered by open ditches. There are no sidewalks in this area. As properties develop, right of way for 94th Avenue SE, 98th Avenue SE and 100th Avenue SE will have to be obtained to widen these streets to make improvements. The following criteria will be used prior to the issuance of any development permit on properties abutting these streets: 94th Avenue SE 60 feet in width as centered on the easterly line of the westerly one-quarter of the NE 1/4 of Section 19-22-5 . 98th Avenue SE 60 feet in width as centered on the westerly line of the 9 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 ' easterly one-quarter of the NE 1/4 of Section 19-22-5. 100th Avenue SE 60 feet in width as centered on the easterly line of the NE 1/4 of Section 19-22-5. Planning Department Comment Depending on the development proposal additional street improvements may be required. Increasing densities will burden the street system because substandard streets are immediately within the area and the closest major intersections are already at level of service "F" (104th Avenue SE and SE '240th Street and SE 256th Street and 104th Avenue SE) . Water System Most of the area is presently served by City of Kent water. The City is in the process of upgrading some of the old lines that were part of the East Hill Community Well system that originally served this area. These improvements should be completed sometime next year. The major water lines serving this area exist along 94th, 98th, 100th, 241st, 242nd, 244th and 248th. Water lines would have to be extended to serve development where existing lines are not adequate. - Sanitary Sewer System Sanitary sewers serve portions of the area. Main line extensions will be required along 94th, 98th, 100th, 244th and 248th according to the Comprehensive Sewer Plan Map as the area develops. Storm Water System Storm drainage systems service portions of the subject area. Extensions will be made as the area develops. LIDs There are currently no LIDs in this area. V. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW The Planning Department has reviewed this proposal in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, present zoning, land use, street system, 10 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 flood control problems and comments from other departments and finds that: A. The primary streets serving this area are 94th Avenue SE, 98th Avenue SE, and SE 248th Street. These streets as well as others in this area are not improved to minimum City standards and are not adequate to serve the traffic generated in the area. As development occurs, street improvements will be required to accommodate any increase in density. B. There are no flooding problems in the area. C. Water and sewer service are available but extensions may be required to accommodate future development. D. Fire and emergency medical response time to this area is one of the highest in the City. Although the Fire Department is currently in the process of obtaining a station site closer to this site, construction will not occur for another few years and equipment and personnel remain unsettled to supply this station. Increasing densities dramatically in this area would add an additional strain to existing services. E. The property is now zoned R1-20, Single Family Residential. This designation is the interim zoning given to all land annexed to the City of Kent. F. The County zoning of this area prior to annexation was SR 7200 (Suburban Residential--7 , 200 square foot lots) . G. The predominant land use in the area is rural-type single family residential . Most lots are one-half acre in size or greater. H. The Kent East Hill Subarea Plan Map designates the property west of 100th Avenue SE as SF 6 (Single Family, 4-6 units per acre) and the property east of 100th Avenue SE as MF 12 . (Multifamily, 7-12 units per acre) . This proposal is recommending R1-9. 6 (Single Family, 9, 600 square foot minimum) for that property lying west of 100th Avenue SE and R1-7 .2 (Single Family, 7 , 200 square foot minimum) for that property lying east of 100th Avenue SE. The City's zoning classification R1-9 . 6 provides for a maximum 4 .5 lots per acre which is consistent with the East Hill Plan Map. In keeping with the residential character and large rural lots typical of this section, this zoning is an appropriate designation for these lots. The properties east of 100th Avenue SE abut property to the City is recommending for office and com mercial zoning. Typical planning practice is to place higher density residential next to commercial and 11 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 office areas in order to best utilize public services. Rl- 7 .2 is the highest single family development in Kent. By recommending single family zoning for all of area "A" , the City will encourage single family development to balance the housing types that have occurred the last few years. The Comprehensive Plan goals and policies call for a variety of housing types. Due to permit activity in recent years where nearly 70 multifamily permits were issued for every single family permit, existing multifamily units exceed the single family in the City by approximately 25 percent. Increasing multifamily zoning strains the ability of the City to provide the needed utility, transportation, recreation and emergency services those densities require. It also discourages a balanced social, economic population that can be achieved through a diversity in housing types. I. The City Council passed a resolution in October 1986 stating its intent that vacant multifamily zoned lands within the City be reduced by 20 percent. This resolution was passed in response to a large number of citizens who had concerns about the amount of multifamily development occurring in Kent and the problems (including traffic) generated by this kind of development. Although this resolution did not specifically address how this reduction should be accomplished, it is reasonable to assume that lands should not be zoned multifamily until the City Council has studied this issue in more detail. A multifamily density report has been prepared for the Council's review and is currently being studied by the Planning Committee. VI. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION On July 30, 1987 , the City of Kent staff represented by James Harris, Planning Director; Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director; Jim Chandler, Building Director; Mike Evans, Assistant Fire Marshal, and Kathy McClung, Associate Planner, met to review this initial zoning proposal. Upon discussion of all pertinent factor's the staff recommends an initial zoning of R1-9 . 6, Single Family Residential , for those properties lying west of 100th Avenue SE and R1-7 .21 Single Family Residential, for those properties lying east of 100th Avenue SE in Area A. 12 CITY Or KENT I 1 KIRK 00f. A,="' )j �,f1 j>R I� o p D MI jt'4 �• m 2 N CURK AVE 9 AVE m•.t H\ y z Gy '29(1y j XEN INOTON + •AVE 000MHO 0 ! 1 'T-1Y m m^ u A n W jr 1' N JASON D AVE -1 0 ! y Z VANDE ANT ER m > s/h'0 •�1.1t• ` 'N S u 0 AVEAV u o S '1VF ,f i 1-1 N PROSP CT AVE ' r•I MAR ON yy CyALEXh DER * <'Y',t ; LENORA AVE o Fa- PL S lya CH EST AVE '" n"1 �� y;4 N HAZEL AVE •(� m m m m m 1; m Lat m AVEE Z � ?w.,: ONEB IRNER _ ' Z ; N iY O1 A1t't{�•�t 3; nD AT �\^J•'T tIELD E s C x n y• -/ O R'. ,r1 AYE y o n Z 14 .a:t C<' T J)• Y AVE NE R F y '" . '� O•V'�.l- �J7 Y ALVORD AVE . r- Elp`S y.' y VIPL mEW ';1�i',•� n N SNMMf T. HILLTOP AVE _. C REITEN y AD <,iL �=�-aO y s N AVE N ((66ii6611 yy ! MAPLE WOOD A O ` PL F ],.• 1 - •, r• .mil t:'t iG 0X S KIMBER(L D011• ICI✓! AZ�,I AVE N.. Ei.v. 9 • y JV, tCv C:i �TL•:(<N:! - N u r/ �;�1 1/ayt., }• to • AO1ty^'('(•�S/4S'y'1'ry�u �O • 96TH - u •( 1 J „1T11 'IAVE •3AV"N. rr••. C.• p N-Y AVE S O y RAJ D RAWB RRY 99TH AVE ! 't �l 11� �.— ■:0 Co 100TH AVE ... L SE y17C Mmm .. 1ST ?_ M> I [ SE Ii p3i . (41 Omi 0 rz 102ND• .'BOrtiCOdl _. G g0 N Ar AVE !E a ' • { N N rZ 1• ~o fOtTH AVE E awl y - Z UI ^D r 1� Intl �i r- .' •. u Pn LA IffSTH m 2...I 1rn u . m yp N _11\ � 19TH m 1 V E gj tton 1ryy, r y� y 102TH AVE]� I1111111t1111�115111111 � 109TN to- PL SE IITH AVE !E i IIOTH _ PL SE 1 y ' t rrrr�' (Pnl 113TH AVE !E ■nlltt11111111111 11111 1=1 �1 wl r awl Bt_ , 114TH A E E1E 1 ■fir r _ - � -n �Illll lllil ��® ' N ' II 71m w , • VE � ' ' 1 1 I I 1 1 1111111� V' .DO N DO "'•11)TN PL • I� � APPLICATION Name EAST HILL WELL #2 ANNEXATION LEGEND Number AZ-87-2 Dale August 19, 1987 application silo 111111,IIIIIIT7 Imposed Request Annexation Annexation Zoning Zoning bndry • city limns ■i�i��r� • SCALE = Vicinity Map i loco, Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 REPORT ON AREA "B" STAFF for RECOMMENDATION: O, Professional and office, Streethat portion lying CC, Community Commercial , for that portion north of SE 244th Street. I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Description of the Proposal This portion of the annexation is composed f approximaommendstely 12 . 28 acres of land. This proposal zoned O, Professional and Office, approximately 7 .46 acres be and 4 . 82 acres be zoned CC, Community Commercial. All newly annexed land is given an interim zoning designation of R1-20 , Single Family Residential . This interim designation will remain valid until the Hearing Examiner and City Council establish the initial zoning for the newly annexed area. B. Location Area B is bordered on the south by SE 248th Street, extends approximately 250 feet north of SE 244th Street; extends approximately 300 feet west of 104th Avenue SE, nd pt north approximately Avenue SE where he line eet east of 4is approximatelyth Avenue SE e of 420 feet east of 104th Avenue SE. C. Size of Property_ The siz Are B is 12.28 portione of the aorigina 1appr oximately annexation acres. This known as East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 . D. Zoning The property is currently zoned R1-201 Single Family Residential. Prior to the annexation, the property was zoned SR-7200 under the jurisdiction of King County. 13 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 E. Comprehensive Plan The City of Kent adopted a City-wide Comprehensive Land Use Plan which provides policy statements that offer guidelines on future land use decisions. Initially adopted in 1969, this Plan was revised in 1971 and 1977. The Comprehensive Plan offers goals, objectives and policies that speak to a broad range of land use considerations. The City of Kent has also adopted subarea comprehensive plans which address concerns of a more specific geographic area of the City. The area under consideration in this case is covered by the East Hill Plan. The following is a review of each plan as they relate to the request for initial zoning. The East Hill Subarea Plan Map designates the property north of SE 244th Street as Community Retail and the property south of SE 244th Street as O, Office. CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ECONOMIC ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: PROMOTE CONTROLLED ECONOMIC GROWTH WITH PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT, RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION. GOAL 2 : Assure retail and commercial developments are in suitable locations. Objective 1: Minimize adverse physical impacts of strip commercial development. Policy 1: Encourage planned retail-commercial business development. Planning Department Comment The area being recommended for commercial and office zoning lies on either side of 104th Avenue SE. The area north of SE .244th Street is recommended to be zoned CC, Community Commercial. This area abuts a commercial area to the north which is located at the intersection of SE 240th Street and 104th Avenue SE. In 1984 , the Planning Department completed the East Hill Commercial Zoning Study at the request of the City Council (Resolution #1027) . This study examined land use and zoning in the vicinity of the intersection of 104th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street. This area included portions of what was King County and part of the area under consideration at this time. The results of this study indicated that the East Hill 14 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 commercial area was about 80 percent developed. The report recommended that certain areas within the City be rezoned to commercial and areas in the county be designated community retail on the Comprehensive Plan Map. The zoning for this section of the annexation area reflects the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Map that was amended as a result of the 1984 study of this area. This area would be a logical extension of the shopping center to the north and would not create a strip commercial situation on 104th Avenue SE. The area proposed to be zoned as O, Professional and Office, would offer an interruption to the commercial uses at the intersections of 104th Avenue SE and SE 256th and 104th Avenue SE and SE 240th. EAST HILL PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISH A BALANCED, SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM LINKING THE EAST HILL WITH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL HOUSING, EMPLOYMENT, SERVICE AND RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES . THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM SHOULD BE DESIGNED AS BOTH MULTI-MODAL AND A MULTI-PURPOSE SYSTEM THAT CAN BE ECONOMICALLY IMPLEMENTED THROUGH JOINT EFFORTS OF LOCAL JURISDICTIONS, THE STATE AND TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS . GOAL 3 : ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN THE HIGHEST FEASIBLE LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR EAST HILL. Objective 1: Determine the minimum level of service. Policy 4 : Coordinate the transportation plan with land use patterns and plans. Planning Department Comment -The areas recommended for commercial and office zoning front on 104th Avenue SE which was recently improved to a four-lane facility with a continuous left-turn lane. As part of this project, a new traffic signal was installed at the intersection of 104th Avenue SE and SE 248th Street. These recent street improvements reduced the front yard setbacks of the properties abutting 104th Avenue SE. Many buildings are now within 15 feet of the right of way. Since most of these buildings are in good condition, demolition may not be economically feasible. Although these structures may not be highly desirable for residential units, they may be 15 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 converted to small office buildings. Many of these lots have adequate room to the rear of the structure to support required parking and other improvements. These same improvements will support commercial and office activity in this area between SE 240th and SE 256th. Expanding intensity of land use past the properties immediately adjacent to 104th Avenue SE would be inappropriate since the road systems leaving 104th Avenue SE are not adequate to serve more intensive land uses. The streets leaving 104th Avenue SE are two lane roads with gravel shoulders and open ditches. HOUSING ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ASSURE PRESENT AND FUTURE EAST HILL RESIDENTS HOUSING THAT IS SAFE, OFFERS A DESIRABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT, AND IS SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES. GOAL 2 : Objective 2 : Decisions concerning land use designations and development proposals shall consider surrounding residential land uses and mitigating measures necessary to minimize potential conflicts. Policy 1: Require separation between residential and nonresidential areas and between adjacent lower and higher density residential areas through landscaping , building placement, location of -off-street parking, traffic control and other measures. Planning Department Comment Many of the residences abutting 104th Avenue SE are being used for light commercial/home occupation types of uses including a hearing aid sales and repair shop, small contractor's shop, and a ceramic shop are some of the businesses that now operate in Area B. The development standards in the O, Professional and Office, zoning district are more restrictive than those for the commercial zoning districts. The purpose of the Office zoning district as stated in the Zoning Code is to serve as a buffer between residential districts and commercial uses. Development standards for the office zone are such that office uses should be compatible with residential districts. 16 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 II. HISTORY A. Site History Area B was annexed as part of the East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 in the spring of 1987 . The annexation occurred as a result of the City taking over and improving the water system for customers of the East Hill Well. The area is developed with a mixture of residential, commercial, and some office uses. To the north of Area B is a large commercially developed area at the intersection of 104th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street. To the south is some office complexes and a large commercial area at the intersection of 104th Avenue SE and SE 256th Street. B. Area History The East Hill area of Kent was first settled in the early 1900 ' s . Since that time commercial and residential development have grown steadily. Area B is located adjacent to 104th Avenue SE which is classified as a minor arterial. The property in this area is a mix of residential and some light commercial uses. Major commercial nodes occur at the intersections of 104th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street and 104th Avenue SE and SE 256th Street. Some small professional office complexes are also in this area. III. LAND USE Land uses in Area B consist of a mixture of single family residential and light commercial uses. A majority of the land immediately adjacent to 104th Avenue SE is developed to a large extent with residential uses. Minimum lot size requirements in the recommended zoning district is 10, 000 square feet. It appears that most of the lots in this area meet the minimum lot size requirement. The East Hill Community Well is located on the southwest corner of 104th Avenue SE and SE 244th Street. The well is' now 'a City utility and operated by the City of Kent. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS A. Significant Physical Features Topography and Hydrology The area's topography is generally flat with a slight northeast to southwest slope. The slope is very slight, 17 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 generally 3-5 percent. The area has no significant creeks or streams. - Vegetation The area is developed mainly with residential dwellings and some light commercial uses. The homes in the area have typical residential landscaping. Many of the parcels have large stands of deciduous evergreen trees. B. Significant Social Features Street System Area B is bisected by 104th Avenue SE which is a state route and classified as a minor arterial. It is a four- lane facility with a continuous left turn lane. Southeast 248th Street intersects with 104th Avenue SE in Area B. Southeast 248th Street is a two-lane road with gravel shoulders and no sidewalks. Water System Most of this area is served by City of Kent water. The City is now in the process of upgrading some of the old lines which were part of the original East Hill well system. These improvements are anticipated to be completed by next year. The major water lines that serve this area exist along 242nd, 244th, 248th and 104th. Water mains will have to be extended or upgraded where development occurs where inadequacies exist or water lines are nonexistent. Sanitary Sewer System Sanitary sewers serve portions of the newly annexed area. Main line extensions will be required in accordance with the Comprehensive Sewerage Plan as the area continues to develop. Storm Water System Storm drainage systems service portions of the subject area. Extensions will be made as the area develops. LIDS LID 's 321 and 281 , both for improvements for 104th Avenue SE affect the properties in this area. ' iH Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 V. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW The Planning Department has reviewed this proposal in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, present zoning, land use, street system, flood control problems and comments from other departments and agencies and finds that: A. The Comprehensive Plan Map designates the subject property as CR, Community Retail, and O, Office. The proposed zoning of CC, Community Commercial and O, Professional and Office, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map designations. B. The property is currently under an interim zoning designation of R1-20, Single Family Residential . This interim zoning is given to all land annexed into the City until such time as the initial zoning designations are determined. C. The land use in this area is a mixture of residential, light commercial, and offices. Many of the residences in this area are used for small businesses in the form of home occupations. Some of these uses include a hearing aid sales and repair shop, a small contractor's shop and a ceramic shop. The proposed zoning would be generally consistent with existing land uses. D. Office zoning is designed to buffer residential uses from higher intensity commercial uses. Landscaping and sign requirements are designed to complement residential uses. E. The property in Area B has access to 104th Avenue SE and SE 248th Street. One-Hundred Fourth Avenue SE was recently improved to a four lane facility with a continuous left-turn lane. Southeast 248th Street is a narrow two-lane facility with narrow , gravel shoulders . As part of the 104th Avenue SE project, a traffic signal was installed at the intersection of 104th Avenue SE and SE 248th Street. The street system in this area with the exception of 104th Avenue SE consists of narrow two-lane facilities with gravel shoulders. This road system is considered inadequate for all uses other than low density single family residential. As a result of the widening of 104th Avenue SE, the front yards of the residences abutting 104th Avenue SE have been substantially reduced. Many of the structures are now within 15 feet of the right of way. This would make this area less desirable for residential and more appropriate for office uses. Most lots have sufficient area to accommodate parking for office uses in the rear of the structures. F. There are no apparent flood control problems on the site. 19 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 VI. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION On July 30, 1987, the City of Kent staff represented by James Harris, Planning Department; Kathy McClung, Planning Department; Greg McCormick, Planning Department; Jim Chandler, Building Official; Mike Evans, Assistant Fire Marshal, and Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director, met to review this proposal for initial zoning. Upon discussion of all pertinent factors, the staff recommends an initial zoning of CC, Community Commercial, and 0, Professional and Office. �� i CITY OF KENT o r� ,-,_ _ ptanni , O "Do0 a>• 3Y -1 i ppKIRK 00 _ ��L M Z N LLARq AVE Q, AVE2g-1 x xEN IN Tom ,'�•rpr AVE OMIl3 O dr i�,l i 'w n^ ~ o N x^I IJ n0 n S y 'tf,1.f Mr N lA3oN ° AVE 2 S ti -VAHO ANTE R AVE PROSP CT AVE N MAR ONla• L[HORA AVE �6 t ' PL ~ .` rALEXA DER ^1,-r N HATEL AVE ra „fT S CREST AVE r p AVE O ~ �D -I,IL'. _ to m M I•I Y N O nl = 1,1 '}, ?(i''. N 11 , ONES lgNER 21 ! Z F aY Or t(:j:,r • 11110 LH m Zo c O y ,<1[f N C. LANE ~ n x ALVORD A > AVE y x r 00 ~ .Ins: �tt�• O�?� N AVE ra• S ELLIS N N VIEW .l r.,(. AlSUMgI ' ^ r>- PL 'I '1 PL n '1r r m Y. HILLTOP AVE c REITEH RD q AVE l ~ ti •. .V L`1.1 \\. Z i S 92N0 P4 Y 3 MAPLEW000 AVf 1:\f`I \,i: ° Y> 111I111111111117 Y OT S xIMBEq( OM 1\�f,�" 0 u 011nn AVE 1 00 . L^ Aa ti �rV1 _ Is /t 94TH AVE S N t �,/K il' ETC:• - uT. 96TH 96TH AVE S m.,` - uAVE .... 13AV�'� l•Vp7ril�• u'Y AVE S - - R r 1♦ ,.', O_ � �0 ;,� Ni/. N •17 ",1111111 S 7TH - N N y 0 T. -{ W r� l ( * S 96TH AVE S � Oa ° RAWB RRY N 4 TT�H AA 11L6' O'L O ' ^ w 1NI T� O 99TH AVE s "1 !A �� - •r 9+lt_.�•r r rya 'a CO 100TH `- AVE .... LSE VIM 157 ttiZ 1 E SE _; m ; �{ - ox 1 N v ,,� 1{ = SA T • Or IO2N0. :.Barricade • 8O u A AVE SE m •• `o 0•I0390 { N r> K _ yo IOITH AVE y= LA - _.. A n b N rn LA ,1 OSTH M Z-1 j PL SE rn �r •"A � � IM,1 M N Y 109TH AV[ S[ •Ni b v 19TH E Sj ••'\ nNNu IO6TH AVE s " ' 11111111n 1111/11111 � 109TH • \• -� PL SE I1TH AVE sta r- � 110TH PL SE N ti (PN) 1 awl Rom U-- — u _ I ISTH AVE SE In 1111111'Itltill 11111 r��9t•��r ��Y- • A w ._.. MATH A E 16E f� V• � © � = ' •� --t111i 11111 n� 11 T '{ _ I i SVE - ,,.,•, yw 1 1 1 1 I 1 MY 1u 1 111112 V' N N T —117TH PL y QI APPLICATION Name EAST HILL WELL d2 ANNEXATION LEGEND : Number AZ-87-2 pate August 19, 1987 1plicallen site Illl lllll lllrn roposed �e(tUeSt Annexation Zoriino Zoning bndry city limits rn■INIV, Vicinity Map I" = 1000' Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 REPORT ON AREA C STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. R1-7 .2 , Single Family Residential (minimum lot size of 7 , 200 square feet) for the area west of 112th Avenue SE extended and north of SE 248th. 2 . MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential with a maximum of six units per acre for the five acre Bainton property lying south of SE 248th Street immediately adjacent to the former City limits. 3 . R1-9 . 6, Single Family Residential (91600 square foot minimum lot size) , for the area east of 112th Avenue SE, north of SE 252nd extended, south of SE 248th except the Bainton property. 4 . R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Residential (7 , 200 square foot minimum lot size) , for the area south of SE 252nd extended. I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Description of the Proposal This part of the annexation area consists of approximately 290 acres. This proposal recommends approximately 185 acres of R1-7 .2 , Single Family Residential, zoning; 100 acres of R1-9 . 6, Single Family Residential, zoning, and five acres of MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential, zoning to be developed as single family, zero lot line development. B. Location Area C is bordered by SE 240th Street on the north, SE 256th Street on the south, 116th Avenue SE on the east and 105th Avenue SE extended to the west. 21 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation 'Area 2 #AZ-87-2 C. Size of Property The size of Area C is approximately 290 acres. This is the largest portion of the original 410 acre annexation known as East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 . D. zoning The property is currently zoned R1-20, Single Family Residential. Prior to annexation the property was zoned Suburban Residential under jurisdiction of the King County except for a small portion adjacent to SE 256th which was zoned RM 2400 (Multifamily, 18 units per acre) . E. Comprehensive Plan The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 1969 . The Comprehensive Plan is made up of two basic elements; the goals, objectives and policies element and the map element. 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 goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan are used with the Plan Map to guide the Mayor, City Council, City Administrator, Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner and City departments to guide growth, development and spending decisions. The Comprehensive Plan Map is to be used together with the text of the Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is within the East Hill Plan subarea. This Plan also includes goals, objectives and policies which apply to the area. The following is a review of each of the above plans as they relate to the proposal for initial zoning,. The East Hill Subarea Plan Map designates the area west of 112th Avenue SE extended and north of SE 248th as MF 12 , Multifamily, 7-12 units per acre. The area east of 112th Avenue SE and north of SE 252nd Street is shown as SF 6, 'Single Family, 4-6 units per acre. The remaining section lying south of SE 252nd is designated MF 24 , Multifamily, 12- 24 units per acre. CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISH A BALANCED, SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR ALL MODES OF TRAVEL. 22 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 GOAL 1: Assure the provision of safe and efficient routes and terminal facilities for vehicular traffic moving within and through Kent. Oblective 1: Provide adequate trafficways for both local and through traffic, separating the systems when possible. i Planning Department Comment The existing street system is not adequate to serve traffic generated from current development. Many streets are substandard and, as the area develops, improvements will be required to bring the system up to current standards. HOUSING ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL POPULATION IN KENT, ASSURING A DECENT HOME AND SUITABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT FOR FAMILIES DESIRING TO LIVE IN KENT. GOAL 3 : Assure an adequate and balanced supply of housing units offering a diversity of size, densities, age, style and cost. Planning Department Comment In recent years, the City of Kent has developed at a rapid pace. In 1985, the City issued a record value of 164 million dollars in permits, second only to the City of Seattle in the State of Washington. And yet even in these peak years of construction, the number of single family permits were minimal (12 in 1985) . A recent study on multifamily development revealed that the City of Kent has 8,950 apartments and condominiums units. These units make up 59 percent of the housing stock, single family homes make up 35 percent and the balance are mobile homes. In 1970, one year following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, this situation was reversed. At that time, multifamily accounted for less than a third of all dwellings. Today, the City has 6,994 more multifamily dwellings than it had in 1970, an increase of 358 percent. For this reason, the City now would like to increase the single family development to balance the existing multifamily development. Zoning the properties in this area single family will encourage this kind of development. 23 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 EAST HILL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ASSURE PRESENT AND FUTURE EAST HILL RESIDENT HOUSING THAT IS SAFE, OFFERS A DESIRABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT, AND IS SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES. GOAL 1: Residential development that is related to the availability of community facilities and services. Objective 1: When making decisions concerning land use, consider the adequacy of and impact upon roads and other public facilities and services including utilities, police and fire protection , public transportation, schools and parks. Policy 1: Ensure that public facilities and services are available or will be available to support development at proposed densities. Policy 2 : Locate new single-family detached residential development in areas and at densities which permit roads, utilities, public transit, schools and other public facilities and services to be provided in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Planning Department Comment The rapid growth of multifamily in recent years has greatly stressed the City's ability to provide public services to the Kent community. Zoning these lands to their highest potential would be premature when public services are not able to meet the demands of the development at that level. Fire and emergency medical response time in this area is one of the highest in the City. Emergency vehicles must come from the downtown area or the station on 140th Avenue SE. A recent bond issue was passed to purchase land for a new station within this area. Negotiations are currently underway for property at the northwest corner of 116th Avenue SE and SE 248th Street . Once the property is purchased, construction is still a few years off and equipment and personnel have not been secured or approved at this time. Increasing densities to their highest intensities would not 24 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 be responsible when emergency services are not adequate for the area. Traffic concerns have been the highest priority issue for the citizens of Kent as well as the staff and elected officials. The amount of growth in the East Hill area in recent years has increased traffic counts to unacceptable levels of service. Increasing densities in this area would cause additional traffic congestion to an area that is already overburdened. By increasing the densities to those suggested by the East Hill Comprehensive Plan Map the estimated p.m. peak hour trips generated would be 2 , 164 versus an estimated 1, 563 trips generated under the proposed zoning. This is an increase of 38 percent (SEE chart) . ESTIMATED TRIPS UNDER STAFF RECOMMENDATION Acres Units/Acre Units SF/MF ADT P.M. 145 6 870 SF 81700 870 5 6 30 SF 300 30 100 4 . 5 450 SF 41500 450 -. 33 6 198 SF 11980 198 5 5 25 MF 165 15 TOTAL 288 N/A 1, 573 N/A 15, 645 1, 563 ESTIMATED TRIPS UNDER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Acres Units/Acre Units SF/MF ADT P.M. 145 12 11740 MF 11, 484 11044 5 6 30 SF 300 30 100 6 600 SF 61000 600 _ 33 24 792 MF 5, 227 475 5 5 25 MF 165 15 TOTAL 288 N/A 3 , 187 N/A 23 , 176 21164 Percent increase ADT = 48 percent Percent increase PM = 38 percent 25 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISH A BALANCED, SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM LINKING THE EAST HILL WITH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL HOUSING, EMPLOYMENT, SERVICE AND RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES. THE •TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM SHOULD BE DESIGNED AS BOTH A MULTI-MODAL AND A MULTI-PURPOSE SYSTEM THAT CAN BE ECONOMICALLY IMPLEMENTED THROUGH THE JOINT EFFORTS OF LOCAL JURISDICTIONS, THE STATE AND TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS. GOAL 1: A transportation system that is designed to protect the safety of its users. Objective 1: Provide a system of walkways, bikeways and roads that are designed to ensure the safety of pedestrians. Policy 1: Different modes of transportation should be separated to the greatest extent possible. Objective 2 : Require that safety be considered as a top priority in the design, construction and maintenance of existing and planned transportation facilities including but not limited to roadway surfaces, signage, sight clearance , lighting and landscaping. Planninct Department Comment Streets in this area are primarily two-lane roads with little or no shoulder and in many places open ditches. Sidewalks are non-existent as well as any provision for bike lanes. A concern that has been raised in this area at prior public hearings is the need for adequate walkways for children walking to school or to catch the school bus. Any development in this area should be reviewed to see that this . concern is addressed and provided for. GOAL 3 : Establish and maintain the highest feasible level of service for East Hill. Objective 1: Determine the minimum level of service. Policy 1: Develop a plan to obtain minimum level of service. Policy 2 : Work with developers to minimize their development's impact on traffic. 26 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 Policy 3 : Coordinate with the cities, county and state to maintain the planned level of service for the East Hill area. Policy 4 : Coordinate the transportation plan with land use patterns and plans. Policy 5: Regularly monitor and evaluate the level of service of existing streets and intersections to identify those transportation improvements that will most effectively obtain/maintain the planned level of service for East Hill. Planning -Department Comment The Engineering Department has determined that the intersections at 104th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street and 104th Avenue SE and SE 256th Street are both at level of service "F" for traffic service. These two intersections are major east/west arterials onto the East Hill from/to the Kent _.. valley and border this area on the north and south. Creating more-east/west corridors to serve the East Hill area is a priority with the City of Kent. Any major development in the past year on the valley floor or on East Hill was approved through SEPA with mitigating agreements to contribute to future east/west corridor projects. Another problem intersection bordering the subject property is the intersection at 116th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street. -. SE 240th Street is four lanes from the Kent valley floor, east to approximately 108th Avenue SE. At this point a "bottleneck" occurs during a.m. and p.m. peak hours where the four lanes narrow to three. Since the subject area is bordered and served by these problem intersections, the recommendation of lower densities then those shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map would reduce additional impacts. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISH A PLANNED AND COORDINATED SYSTEM OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES FOR EAST HILL THAT PROTECTS THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. THE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES FOR EAST HILL SHOULD BE COST EFFECTIVE TO IMPLEMENT AND MAINTAIN AND SHOULD PROMOTE IN- FILL AND PHASED DEVELOPMENT FROM EXISTING DEVELOPED AREAS. 27 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 GOAL 3 : A planned and coordinated storm drainage system that utilizes the natural drainage system without adversely affecting water quality in streams or creeks on East Hill. Objective 1: Preserve vegetation and open space where significant natural drainage systems exist. Policy 1: Allow intermittent or permanent wetlands or streams to satisfy a portion of open space requirements. Policy 2 : Limits on vegetation removal and site coverage shall be required for any development adjacent to streams, creeks, drainage swales or any other watercourse. Planning Department Comment Part of Area C lying west of 108th Avenue SE have natural drainage courses with seasonal ponding and saturated soil conditions. By encouraging single family development, the amount of impervious surface will be reduced. Single family _ development allows a greater degree of groundwater recharge versus multifamily developments that must pave a greater portion of the lot to provide on site parking. The City will seek to preserve any natural drainage swales through platting or development review. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ENHANCt, THROUGH GOOD DESIGN, THE AESTHETIC QUALITIES OF THE NATURAL AND MANMADE ENVIRONMENT TO PROMOTE THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. GOAL 1: Development designed in harmony with the suburban/rural character of East Hill. Objective 1 : Ensure that the design and construction of new development is in harmony with the suburban/rural character of East Hill, while maintaining the feeling of openness that exists throughout the area. GOAL 2 : Development that will preserve, maintain and enhance East Hill ' s natural and manmade environments. 28 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 Objective 1: Preserve those natural features which contribute to the aesthetic quality and rural feeling that exists on East Hill, i. e. , streams, lakes, significant views, tall evergreen trees, woodlands and pastures. Planning Department Comment This area for the most part is rural in character. The lots are generally large. Gravel driveways, hobby farming, orchards, pastures, and wooded lots all characterize portions of this region. By recommending that a majority of this land be zoned single family, these aesthetic features will be lost at a far less rapid rate then would occur through multifamily development. Objective 3 : Provide for the preservation of historical landmarks and sites. Policy 1: Provide the means to identify, acquire or otherwise preserve properties of historical value. Planning Department Comment Two sites in this area are currently registered on the King County's Historical Preservation Program. The Leigh House (#492 King County) is located at 10445 SE 244th Street. This home was built by early East Hill settlers in 1916. The residents logged off the land, planted an orchard, and operated an egg hatchery. Eight children were raised on this site. Not as much information is known about the other site. The Martin House (#643 King County) is located at 10824 SE 248th STreet and was built in 1907 . This structure is also a typical, early farm house. The City of Kent has pursued the idea of adopting a historic preservation program or entering into an interlocal agreement with the County to administer their program but no program has been adopted at this time. The Kent East Hill Plan recognizes historical sites as a natural feature of the area. Without an adopted plan, the City cannot guarantee preservation but every effort will be made to protect these properties when development occurs on or near the sites. -- 29 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 II. HISTORY A. Site History Area C was annexed as part of the East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 in spring of 1987 . The annexation occurred as a result of the City of Kent taking over an inadequate water system that was supplying the area. This area is predominantly developed with single family residences on large lots with a rural character. Hobby farming, pastures, orchards, and wooded lots are common. Two large churches are located on SE 248th Street. An 86-unit apartment building is located on a five-acre parcel on SE 256th, near lllth Avenue SE. B. Area History The East Hill area was first settled in the early 19001's since that time residential and commercial developments have grown tremendously. Property surrounding this area is primarily residential. - Multifamily development occurs to the west, north, and south of the area. Single family development on similar large lots occur to the east of the area in the County. Major commercial nodes occur at the intersections of SE 240th and 104th Avenue SE and the intersection of SE 256th and 104th Avenue SE. Recently the city approved an 89-lot zero lot line plat known as Walnut Park located south of SE 248th Street, north of SE 252nd Street at approximately 111th Avenue SE. The applicant has plans for a second phase of this plat to include 4 .80 acres within the annexation area known as the Bainton property. III. LAND USE Land use in the area is primarily residential. Two churches are located north of SE 248th Street. An existing 86-unit apartment building is located along SE 256th Street known as Stratford Arms. 30 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS A. Significant Physical Features Topography and Hydrology The area' s topography is slightly varied. The elevations range from 400 feet to 475 feet. The land slopes generally from east to west at an average grade of one percent. Natural drainage swales and seasonal ponding occur on the easterly portion of the area. Vegetation The property is mainly developed with rural type single family homes. These homes have typical residential landscaping. Many small orchards are in the area as well as open fields and pasture. A few parcels are heavily wooded with mixtures of evergreen and deciduous trees. B. Significant Social Features Street System Significant streets within this area are SE 240th Street , SE 244th Street , SE 248th Street , 116th Avenue SE , and SE 256th Street . One- Hundredth Eighth Avenue SE, SE 252nd street and 112th Avenue SE should also be improved and extended to serve this area. Most of the streets, with the exception of SE 256th Street and SE 240th Street, are two-lane "country" type roads. They have narrow gravel shoulders, open ditches and no sidewalks. As properties develop, right of way for SE 252nd Street, 108th avenue SE, 112th Avenue SE and 114th Avenue SE will have to be obtained and improved. The following right-of-way widths will be required for these streets: SE 252nd Street 60 feet in width as centered on the north line of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 22-22-5. 108th Avenue SE 60 feet in width as centered on the westerly line of the NE 1/4 of Section 20-22-5. 31 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 112th Avenue SE 60 feet in width as centered on the easterly line of the westerly half of the NE 1/4 of Section 22-22-5. 114th Avenue SE 60 feet in width as centered on the westerly line of the easterly 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 20-22-5. Water System Most of the area is currently served by City of Kent water. The City is in the process of upgrading some of the old lines that were part of the East Hill Community Well system that originally served this area. Phase I of this project is complete. Phase II is in the design stage with estimated construction completion estimated for 1988 . The major water lines serving this area exist along SE 240th Street, 116th Avenue SE, SE 256th Street and SE 248th Street. Another main line extension is planned for SE 244th Street. Additional water lines may be required as development occurs in the area. Sanitary Sewer System Sanitary sewers serve portions of the area. Main line extensions will be required throughout this section according to the Comprehensive Sewer Plan Map as development occurs in the area. Storm Water System Storm water drainage systems service portions of the subject area. • Extensions and additions will be made as the area develops. - LIDs A sewer LID #305 applies to a portion of the area adjacent to SE 256th Street and 113th Avenue SE. Fourteen lots are affected. V. 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: 32 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 A. The primary streets within this area are SE 240th Street, 116th Avenue SE, SE 248th Street, SE 244th Street, and SE 256th Street. Many streets within the area need to be extended and/or improved to City standards. Primary intersections serving this area are SE 256th Street and 104th Avenue SE, SE 240th Street and 104th Avenue SE, 116th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street, and SE 248th Street and 104th Avenue SE. The first three mentioned are all at level of service "F" during peak hour traffic. The intersection at SE 248th Street and 104th Avenue SE is close to this level of service. Increasing densities in this area would also increase traffic generated to these intersections which are already at unacceptable levels of service. B. P.M. peak hour trips increase 38 percent between the proposed recommendation and that shown on the Comprehensive Plan. C. There are no flooding problems in the area, however, drainage problems are common on the easterly portion of this section. Since multifamily development typically has more impervious surface causing more runoff, single family zoning is recommended to increase groundwater recharge. D. Water and sewer service are available in this area but extensions may be required to accommodate future development. E. Fire and emergency medical response time to this area is one of the highest in the City. Although the Fire Department is currently in the process of purchasing a station site within this area, construction, personnel and equipment are a few years away. Increasing densities in this area would add an additional strain to existing services. F. Two historic sites are within this area. The City does not currently have a historic preservation program but will try -to, preserve these sites. G. The property is now zoned R1-20, Single Family Residential. This designation is the interim zoning given to all land annexed to the City of Kent. H. The County zoning of this area prior to annexation was SR 7200 for the majority of the property and RM 2400 (allowing 12 units per acre) for a small portion abutting SE 256th including the Stratford Arms property. 33 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 I. The predominant land use in the area is rural type single family residential. Two large churches are also within the area, adjacent to SE 248th Street. An 86-unit apartment is located along SE 256th, near lllth Avenue SE known as Stratford Arms. The City recognizes open rural lots with pastures, orchards and trees as natural features to preserve through the East Hill Subarea Plan. J. The Kent East Hill Subarea Plan Map designates the property west of SE 112th extended and north of SE 248th Street as MF 12 , Multifamily, up to 12 units per acre. The properties south of SE 252nd are also shown as multifamily allowing 24 units per acre. The Planning Department feels zoning these properties to their highest potential at this time is premature when the City cannot adequately respond to the services these densities would require. The exception is the five acre +/- parcel adjacent to SE 256th Street which is currently developed with 86 units. In order to accommodate the existing development, a zoning of MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential, is appropriate and would permit the existing density of 17 units per acre. K. The Kent East Hill Subarea Plan Map designates the area east of 112th Avenue SE extended and north of SE 252nd extended as SF 6, Single Family, 4-6 units per acre. The City of Kent has a R1-9 . 6 zoning which permits 4 . 5 units per acre. This zoning is. recommended for this area in order to keep in line with reduced densities to lessen impacts on City services. The exception is a 4 .8 acre parcel located south of SE 248th, adjacent to the former City limit line known as the H. L. Bainton property. This parcel is part of a pending zero lot line single family development. The developer has requested MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential, zoning for the two previous lots so that consistent development standards can be applied to the ultimate development. L. By recommending single family zoning for all of Area C except the existing multifamily development and the property involved in the zero lot line development, the City will be encouraging a variety of housing types that will help balance the number of multifamily developments that have occurred in recent years. Due to high multifamily permit activity in the past few years, multifamily units exceed single family by approximately 25 percent. M. The City Council passed a resolution in October 1986 stating its intent that vacant multifamily zoned lands within the City be reduced by 20 percent. This resolution was passed in response to a number of citizens who had concerns about the 34 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 amount of multifamily development occurring in Kent and the problems (including traffic) generated by this kind of development. Although this resolution did not specifically address how this reduction should occur, options should be left open until this matter is further studied. A multifamily density report has been prepared for the Council's review and is currently being studied by the Planning Committee. VI. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION On July 30, 1987, the City of Kent staff represented by James Harris, Planning Director; Don Wickstrom, Public Works director; Jim Chandler, Building Official ; Mike Evans, Assistant Fire Marshal and Kathy McClung, Associate Planner, met to review this proposal. Upon discussion of all pertinent factors, the staff recommends the following zoning designations: 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. 4 . H. L. Bainton property south of SE 248th, 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) . These. conditions shall apply: 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 . As development occurs, property will be deeded to provide right-of-way widths as discussed earlier in this report prior to issuance of a development permit. KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT August 11, 1987 35 We the undersigned are petitioning the City of lent to re-:one L land in Area C R1-12. all undeveloped These are our concerns: The present street system is inadequate. S. E. 2 g 48th. is not lerjoj adequate for additional traffic. In the past six onths, m traffic has nearly doubled on 248th, alone. It is not a safe more dense development will only add to c the street for children who must wait on the street for school busses. Adding � / J, problem of this street and others on the East Hill whit are I7 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 Fart: PhaseIad more of the natural wooded environment can be preserved. kJA JAMcs _v Q --- Z a1U_-- -- -- LPaz--------- 47_uL1N _--- YLxY-------------- -Ahww-----�Q2__M�E--- -r��-------------. w- _ -- =----f �3 --?� _S --- ---------- ----- ------ -----jzgo S E_ _ ------- -- - u - --- ---------- 42 ----- ----- ... ------ rx ,�r1T-gam�/ ---------_ _s.�__ ----- y 1 _ a =---------- ZySzo ii z�lls -_ Z-_4PD_3_L_ a� Since Walnut Par}i Phase I is a new concept anc an expera.ment, 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 Cp 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. rip --- -------- _ _- ---- - -------------------------- _ - -- --- --a��as-_////_,� �_---� -�'_- Ll �� ------- ---- -� ----------------- - --- ---- -- --------- ---------------- - ------------ - ---------- - Jo ii� c��a z �`5`�G /Q� - ------ --==--------=-------------------- --------------- ----- --- - --,� - -------- ------L --- -sue ---- -- 3 9.Po, ------- - ------— ✓----- -- � -- - -------- --?.:� ,,_-- --- ----- ---- 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 Co 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. " ,vim Weal --- ---- ----- -------------�Y ----- nn ., - --- � `=-- / - --- ------------ ------ •- ------------- - --- 0 9 -_ S_ - ---- ----- - l�als,.�_ -- ---1ioo3 _ ------------ - ------------ --� _ Q _ ---------� e-=-�1 ------------ --- _V- eLV12 ------------ -- -------------------------- 9 _ sy2� - ��y =-s•E. 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 4,.ent. By approving R1-12 zoning for all undeveloped areas of Area Co 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. - i -------------�5-yaa-=--11- - 14 ------------- --- -------------- -- - a syo3 - _ x =--- .5 - -------------�SZ 15__11� �Y�-- -=-- = -- - --------------a5aLI�i---11� `-- � --�--awl - tk 9ga3/ i Since Walnut Parr: 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. 1 � --------�� - 1_�-�� --- -____ -- --- ------ - -------2- -=---------------- ------------ - �l g ) 2 - s��---- --- - --- - - ---- -----�qB L�--- ---�.-- - -5 _ 1 is _ -- -------- --------�_s��=� � ------------ - -------------------------- -- - - _ --- s� _. CL- ----- -=f1�----- ---- - =- ------------------��9Q7C =1107"1 _6 ! 1-z wry -- ----------------- 6VI-7- ---------------- 11 _C C. `"'` --------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ -------------------------------------- L�� 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 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. - _ �I1°--` -- ---------ss�3 8 _ �� �=_CZc,e__�_F_ ---- ----------- -------- - - ----- -------- --�� ------- Bs3�11-------- ' r -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- Since Walnut Par}; 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. L<b9AA 11- - - -- - ------------------------------------- -- ------ZQca-3-5--'a--244 N-- -,--tee--- --------r ------------------r------------------- �------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------- ui1t.i I -Llle—ituw. i'ir c_.sLaciun l s Since Walnut Part: 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 Rl-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. p p Y2-4;i�i--------------- _. ----------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ ------------------------ -------------------------------------------------- --------------------=----------------------------- ..........»... CONSENT CALENDAR 3 . City Council Action: Councilmember I �.rLl'� moves , councilmember r � seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through K be approved. j Discussion Action Y: �1 3A. Approval of Minutes. � \ Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of February 16 , 1988 . 01 3B. Approval of Bills . ;I 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 57856-57874 $161, 833 . 98 2/17 57877-58353 $560, 658 . 03 _. $722 , 492 . 01 Approval 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 Council Agenda Item No . 3 A-B Kent, Washington February 16, 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 25 people were at the meeting. CONSENT WOODS MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through L CALENDAR be approved. Houser seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3A) Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of February 2 , 1988. HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3F) SANITATION Anderson Commercial Center. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale and warranty agreement for continuous opera- tion and maintenance of approximately 355 feet of water main extension and 399 feet of sanitary sewer extension constructed in the vicinity of 8602 South 222nd and release of cash bond after expiration of one year maintenance warranty. SEWER (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3J) Tri-State Agreement - Sewer Service. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign agreement allowing Tri-State Construction to connect to the Spring Brook Inter- ceptor and receive sewer service from the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. REZONE Summer Woods Rezone No. RZ-87-2. This date has been established for a public meeting to consider the Hearing Examiner ' s recommendation to deny an appli- cation by Steven P. Elkins Architects, to rezone 9. 28 acres from R1 -7 . 2 single family residential ( 7200 square-feet minimum lot size) to MRM (medium density multi-family residential ) . The property is located on the south side of S.E. 240th directly east of 112th Avenue S.E. WOODS MOVED to adopt the findings of the Hearing Examiner and to concur with the Hearing Examiner ' s recommendation of denial of Summer Woods Rezone No. RZ-87-2. Johnson seconded and the motion carried. ANNEXATION Hehr Annexation. This date has been set to meet with the petitioners on the Hehr Annexation. The peti- tioners have been notified of the meeting. It is February 16, 1988 ANNEXATION recommended that circulation of the 75 percent peti- tion be approved. Wickstrom noted that the City Clerk' s notice of this meeting addressed to one of the proponents had been returned. WOODS MOVED that the Council concur with the proposed annexation and authorize the circulation of the 75 percent petition subject to the existing bonded indebtedness to the City and the land use plan for the annexation area. White seconded. Motion carried. DIGITAL MAPPING (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3H) PROGRAM Digital Mapping Program. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign an agreement with Weston, Inc. for services to provide updated data for the City' s Automated Mapping System, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. Funds have been approved in the 1988 budget. PURCHASE OF (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3I ) PROPERTY South 196th Street. AUTHORIZATION to transfer $48, 500 from the 272nd/277th corridor advanced right-of-way acquisition fund to the S. 196th corri- dor advanced right-of-way acquisition fund. The funds are for the purchase of property from Union Pacific Realty Company, associated with 192nd/196th corridor project, and the funds will be reimbursed from monies received from the sale of' street rights- of-way via the street vacation process, as recom- mended by the Public Works Committee. ECONOMIC (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3C) DEVELOPMENT Seattle - King County Economic Development Agreement. CORPORATION AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign the annual service agreement with the Seattle - King County Economic Development Council to provide economic development services to the City. Payment for these services is based on a rate of 104: per capita and is paid from the funds of the City ' s Economic Development Corporation. The Kent EDC has reviewed and approved this expenditure from their funds for 1988. POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3D) Increase in Penalties for Misdemeanor Violations. ADOPTION of Ordinance 2768 increasing penalties for misdemeanor violations from 6 to 12 months in jail and from $500 to $5 , 000, as authorized by the 1986 Legislature. - 2 - February 16, 1988 POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3E) Drinking Driver Task Force Contributions. ACKNOWLEDG- MENT of contributions to the Task Force Youth Con- ference totaling $660 from Jack Meredith Motors, Puget Sound National Bank, Kent Area Council PTA, Bell Anderson Agency, Kiwanis Club of Kent and Gwen L. Whipple. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3K) -- Traffic Infraction - Avoidance of Intersection. ADOPTION of Ordinance 2769 making it unlawful for a person to turn his/her vehicle and proceed across private property for the purpose of avoiding an intersection or traffic control device. This is a traffic infraction with a monetary penalty of $47. PERSONNEL (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3G) Reclassification - Teamster's Bargaining Unit Employees. AUTHORIZATION of certain reclassifications of Teamster ' s bargaining unit employees as outlined in Appendix A-1 . The reclassifications have been reviewed and approved by the Operations Committee. Appendix A-1 has been filed for the record. Implementation of the 1987 Classification and Pay Recommendation. This item was considered at the Operations Committee meeting this morning. Mike Webby gave a brief description of the implementation plan, noting that it would become effective as of March 1 , with no provision for retroactive pay. He described the manner of placement in the various steps and made clear that no employees would have salary reductions. At White ' s request, the modifi- cations made to the consultant ' s recommendations were explained by Webby and by McFall. Copies of the material distributed with the packet were made a part of the record. It was noted that those posi- tions which will become a part of the management benefit program will become exempt from overtime or comp time. Management benefits have been included in the $50 , 000 cost of this implementation for which funds have been budgeted. Biteman complimented the overall plan made by the consultant and stated that although he had some specific concerns , he did not wish to delay the project. Upon White ' s question, McFall noted that recommenda- tions for staff in his office and the Mayor' s office reflected a proposed reorganization under which the staff would report to an executive assistant, a new - 3 - February 16 , 1988 PERSONNEL position. Approval of the Classification and Pay Study would also approve this reorganization plan. HOUSER MOVED to implement the 1987 Classification and Pay Recommendation effective March 1 . Biteman seconded. Woods offered as a friendly amendment: provision to defer action to the next meeting (March 1 ) , with the pay changes to still become effective on March 1 . Houser and Biteman accepted this as a friendly amendment. White and Dowell commented that this would allow time to gather more information regard- ing the reorganization. Mann noted that questions from the Operations Committee meeting this morning regarding the City Clerk' s division were also to be clarified. The motion then carried unanimously. ARTS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3L) COMMISSION Arts Commission Appointment. CONFIRMATION of the Mayor ' s appointment of Marci Hobbs to the Arts Com- mission to fill the unexpired term of Sue Jones to October 1989. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3B) Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through February 22, 1988 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 8: 30 a.m. on March 11 1988. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 1/13-1/26 56910,56916,57406, 57421.57426,57913 $ 39.215.11 12/33/87 57438 - 57645 379,921.56 $ 419,136.67 - 1/12--1/26 56907 -- 56922 $ 292,679.17 2/1/88 57646 -- 57847 791,695.88 $1,084,375.05 Approval of checks issued for payroll: Date Check Numbers Amount 1/20/88 99532 - 100092 $ 573.820.05 2/05/88 100093 - 100700 $ 588,322.91 - 4 - February 16, 1988 COUNCIL Council Target Issues. Council President White dis- played the 1987 Target Issues and noted the "gold stars" earned by the City over the past year. He pointed out the progress that had been made in the following categories: Transportation and Traffic Improvements, Solid Waste, Downtown Renewal, Annex- ation, Park Development, Land Use, Human Services, City Pride and Image, Economic Development, Financial Stability of the City, Public Utilities Improvements, Public/Private Facilities and Administration Improve- ments. The 1988 Target Issues were then displayed. White noted that many of the issues are ongoing and will continue to be listed and prioritized. COUNCIL Operations Committee. Upon Houser 's request, McFall COMMITTEES reported that the building housing the Currans ' law office had been offered for sale to the City for $580, 000. The property consists of four lots and the building is 5400 sq. ft. The owners would accept 20% down and would agree to carry a contract for seven years at 9%. Advantages of acquiring this site include proximity to City Hall and disadvantages include the small size, which would not be large enDugh for a permit center. McFall pointed out that the building would be of value for use as office space for a short term, approximately five years, Property and could possibly be sold later if it did not fit Acquisition into the City ' s future plans. The purchase would have an impact on the Councilmanic debt limit. Consideration of this project might also impact the proposal to have a building on City property and lease office space to others . This item was intro- duced at the Operations Committee meeting this morn- ing and direction is sought from the full Council. Mayor Kelleher notd that he had indicated earlier that he hoped that in the long run, the City ' s will- ingness to consider leasing a portion of a new build- ing would be an incentive to encourage people to invest in construction in the downtown area. In the _.. short run, he requested that in considering purchase of the Curran property or any other property, that the effect on the debt capacity be evaluated. He noted also that over the past few years other down- town properties had been offered to the City for sale or lease and that comparisons of the properties offered should be made carefully before a decision is made. White suggested that this item be discussed at the _. workshop for Tuesday, February 23. Dowell and Biteman asked that space needs of the City and the layout of the Curran building be available at that time. 5 - February 16, 1988 COUNCIL Public Works Committee. Johnson noted that the Public COMMITTEES Works Committee would meet on Tuesday, February 23 at 4: 00 p.m. in the Engineering Building. He noted also that Scott Blair of the King County staff had asked if the City wished to have a joint workshop meeting with the County to discuss a variety of solid waste issues. It was determined that the Council would favor such a meeting and the time would be set up by the City Administrator. Planning Committee. Woods noted that today' s com- mittee meeting had developers in attendance and that Multi-Family a lively discussion was had regarding the multi- Design Standards family design standards and that a report will be made to the Council, possibly at the March 1 meeting. Parks Committee. Dowell noted that the next meet- ing will be held on February 24 at 4: 00 p.m. in the courtroom. Administrative Reports. McFall noted that the Council had been invited to attend a meeting on Thursday, February 18, at 7: 00 p.m. at the Presbyterian Church. Salt Air Hills The meeting was arranged by a group favoring annex- ation of the area to the City of Des Moines . Staff will attend, prepared to explain Kent ' s services in that area. Biteman suggested that tax data be made available for that meeting. White noted that he had a letter regarding acquir- Commons Space ing more space at the Commons for the Food Bank and referred this item to the Planning Committee and the Human Services Committee. Off-Site Mayor Kelleher noted that one of the regular Council Council Meeting meetings would be held within the newly annexed area on East Hill. The date and place will be announced. With concurrence of the Council, White set a workshop - meeting for Tuesday, February 23 at 7: 00 p.m. Items Workshop to be discussed include the preliminary year end financial report, fire department staffing projections , and consideration of acquisition of the Curran building. EXECUTIVE At McFall ' s request, the Council adjourned to an SESSION executive session at 8: 00 p.m. , estimated to last approximately ten minutes for the purpose of continu- ing a discussion relating to complaints about a City employee. ADJOURNMENT The Council reconvened in regular session at 8: 15 p.m. and then adjourned. Marie Jensen, CMC City Clerk - 6 - _. ,.dw......... .. �rV Kent City Council Meeting Date March 1, 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: JAMES STREET STORM OVERLAY 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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. 3 . EXHIBITS : Memorandum from the Director of Public Works Staff 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: ._ (Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ -- SOURCE OF FUNDS : 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves , Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No . 3C DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS February 25, 1988 TO: Mayor Kelleher rand City Council FROM: Don Wickstrom Olfl RE: James Street Storm Overlay The project was awarded to M.A. Segale on April 7, 1987 for the bid amount of $574, 012 . 50. Work began in May of 1987 . The project consisted of overlay of streets in various areas throughout the City. Final construction costs are $528, 347.21. Project funds available were $609, 154 with project costs paid to date $555 , 554 . It is recommended the project be accepted as complete and retainage released after receipt of the releases from the State. r. Kent City Council Meeting �t Date March 1, 1988 -- I� Category Consent Calendar V y 1 . SUBJECT: OUT OF STATE TRIP 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As approved by the Public Works Committee authorization for Kurt Palowez of the Engineering Department to attend a Delta Map Users Seminar in Fort Collins, Colorado. Funds will come from the Department ' s operating budget . 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from the Public Works Committee Minutes Staff 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc. ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Approximately $500 SOURCE OF FUNDS: 1988 Department of Public Works Operating ,... Budget 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves , Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No . 3D Public Works Committee February 23 , 1988 Page 3 Seattle does institute conservation we will be reviewing our water demand and supply situation very carefully to determine our need. Biteman asked about the impoundment reservoir. Wickstrom explained we are presently working on projects which would bring the transmission main to the site but it appears any supply from the Tacoma Pipeline could be as far away as 1995. In the meantime, we are working towards development of the 212th well and another site by Orillia and 42nd. Authorization for Out-of-State Trip Wickstrom stated that Kurt Palowez of our office has been invited to attend a user ' s conference on DeltaMap in Fort Collins , Colorado. Wickstrom commented he felt it would be worthwhile. Cost would be approximately $500 . The Committee unanimously approved the request. Railroad Crossings Wickstrom explained the need to file petitions with WUTC for approval of existing UPRR spur crossings plus their respective safety protection devices. The petitions have been prepared and signed by the railroad. Wickstrom requested authorization for the Mayor to sign the petitions for us to submit to WUTC. The ,.. Committee unanimously approved the request. L. I . D. 318 - Central Avenue Improvements Wickstrom explained we have received a bill for the undergrounding on this project. While we anticipated the bill, in reviewing the project funding, we found some revenue had been double counted which means the fund is approximately $70, 000 short. Since there was a significant amount of drainage and water work done on the project, Wickstrom proposed transferring $35, 000 from each the unencumbered water and sewerage utility funds. The Committee unanimously concurred. Traffic Revisions - Downtown Area Bond reported that during 1987 there were six accidents each at the intersections of 2nd Avenue and Gowe Street and 2nd Avenue and Meeker Street none of which involved injuries. Site distance problems exist at these two intersections due to buildings, parking stalls , directional signs, etc. Bond proposed placing four-way stop signs at these two intersections. Biteman expressed concerns about the backup of traffic especially on Gowe with vehicles having to stop. Woods stated she felt this would certainly provide more protection for the pedestrians trying to cross those streets. Biteman moved the stop signs be installed. The Committee unanimously approved. 0Z Kent City Council Meeting Date March 1, 1988 �U Category Consent Calendar _.,• 1. SUBJECT: CLID 316 -- BOND ORDINANCE AND PURCHASE CONTRACT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As discussed at the Operations Committee meetings of February 16 and March 1, authorization for the Mayor to sign a bond purchase contract in the amount of $1, 359,791. 52 •••• with Shearson, Lehman, Hutton for CLID 316, covering LIDS 316 , 319, 320, 321 and 324 . The proposed rate of interest of approximately 7 . 4% wil be confirmed at the March 1 Operations Committee meeting. and Adoption of Ordinance authorizing the issuance of the bonds . 3 . EXHIBITS: Preliminary official statement 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff s Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3E CITY OF IN C7 February 18, 1988 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Kent, Washington Honorable Mayor and City Council : This is to certify that the amount of assessments collected by this office from Local Improvement Districts are as follows: 30 DAY AMOUNT PAID UNPAID DISTRICT PERIOD ORIGINAL WITHOUT ASSESSMENTS # ENDING ASSESSMENT INTEREST IN DISTRICT 316 7/28/87 $1039951 .68 ($475686.10) $ 569265.58 319 9/28/87 $112,266.04 ($569698.42) $ 559567.62 320 1/29/88 $7659374.34 ($469963.64) $718,410.70 321 2/12/88 $4332179.02 ($58,299.75) $374,879.27 324 11/30/87 $1845662.85 ,.($299994.50) $1549668.35 TOTALS $1 ,599,433.93 $2399642.41 $19359,791 .52 Respectfully submitted, Gam, Laurence A. (Tony) McCarthy Jr. Finance Director cc: City Clerk 0919F-lS /R �� Kent City Council Meeting Date March 1, 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: MARI-PARK PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION NO. SU-87--5 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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 Ave . No . and So . of Bowen Street extended . 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. 3F "; Kent City Council Meeting > r� Date March 1, 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: L. I .D. 318\IRTH CENTRAL IMPROVEMENTS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As approved by the Public Works Committee, authorization 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 the estimate of the project financing. 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from the Public Works Committee Minutes 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $70,000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Unencumbered Water Utility Fund and Unencumbered Sewerage Utility Fund " 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves , Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ��'�,!' i ACTION: --- Council Agenda Item No . 3G Public works Committee February 23 , 1988 Page 3 Seattle does institute conservation we will be reviewing our water demand and supply situation very carefully to determine our need. Biteman asked about the impoundment reservoir. Wickstrom explained we are presently working on projects which would bring the transmission main to the site but it appears any supply from the Tacoma Pipeline could be as far away as 1995. In the meantime, we are working towards development of the 212th well and another site by Orillia and 42nd. Authorization for Out-of-State Trip Wickstrom stated that Kurt Palowez of our office has been invited to attend a user ' s conference on DeltaMap in Fort Collins, Colorado . Wickstrom commented he felt it would be worthwhile. Cost would be approximately $500 . The Committee unanimously approved the request. _. Railroad Crossings Wickstrom explained the need to file petitions with WUTC for approval of existing UPRR spur crossings plus their respective safety protection devices. The petitions have been prepared and signed by the railroad. Wickstrom requested •authorization for the Mayor to sign the petitions for us to submit to WUTC. The Committee unanimously approved the request. L.I. D. 318 - Central Avenue Improvements Wickstrom explained we have received a bill for the undergrounding on this project. While we anticipated the bill, in reviewing the project funding, we found some revenue had been double counted which means the fund is approximately $70, 000 short. Since there was a significant amount of drainage and water work done on the project, Wickstbom proposed transferring $35, 000 from each the unencumbered water and sewerage utility funds. The Committee unanimously concurred. Traffic Revisions - Downtown Area Bond reported that during 1987 there were six accidents each at the intersections of 2nd Avenue and Gowe Street and 2nd Avenue and _- Meeker Street none of which involved injuries. Site distance problems exist at these two intersections due to buildings, parking stalls , directional signs, etc. Bond proposed placing four-way stop signs at these two intersections. Biteman expressed concerns about the backup of traffic especially on Gowe with vehicles having to stop. Woods stated she felt this would certainly provide more protection for the pedestrians trying to cross those streets. Biteman moved the stop signs be installed. The Committee unanimously approved. ajl Kent City Council Meeting / Date March 1, 1988 r �J Category Consent Calendar fJ 1. SUBJECT: RAILROAD PETITIONS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As approved by the Public Works Committee, authorization for the Mayor to sign petitions to the WUTC for approval of various Union Pacific Railroad street crossings (existing spur crossings) and establishing the respective warning devices thereon. 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from the Public Works Committee Minutes 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Committee (Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc . ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves , Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: •••• Council Agenda Item No . 3H Public Works Committee February 23 , 1988 Page 3 Seattle does institute conservation we will be reviewing our water demand and supply situation very carefully to determine our need. Biteman asked about the impoundment reservoir. Wickstrom explained we are presently working on projects which would bring the transmission main to the site but it appears any supply from the Tacoma Pipeline could be as far away as 1995. In the meantime, we are working towards development of the 212th well and another site by Orillia and 42nd. Authorization for Out-of-State Trip Wickstrom stated that Kurt Palowez of our office has been invited to attend a user ' s conference on DeltaMap in Fort Collins , Colorado . Wickstrom commented he felt it would be worthwhile. Cost would be approximately $500 . The Committee unanimously approved the request. Railroad Crossings Wickstrom explained the need to file petitions with WUTC for approval of existing UPRR spur crossings plus their respective safety protection devices. The petitions have been prepared and signed by the railroad. Wickstrom requested authorization for the Mayor to sign the petitions for us to submit to WUTC. The Committee unanimously approved the request. L. I.D. 318 - Central Avenue Improvements Wickstrom explained we have received a bill for the undergrounding on this project. While we anticipated the bill, in reviewing the project funding , we found some revenue had been double counted which means the fund is approximately $70, 000 short. Since there was a significant amount of drainage and water work done on the project,, Wickstrom proposed transferring $35, 000 from each the unencumbered water and sewerage utility funds. The Committee unanimously concurred. Traffic Revisions - Downtown Area Bond reported that during 1987 there were six accidents each at the intersections of 2nd Avenue and Gowe Street and 2nd Avenue and Meeker Street none of which involved injuries. Site distance problems exist at these two intersections due to buildings, parking stalls , directional signs, etc. Bond proposed placing four-way stop signs at these two intersections. Biteman expressed concerns about the backup of traffic especially on Gowe with vehicles having to stop. Woods stated she felt this would certainly provide more protection for the pedestrians trying to cross those streets. Biteman moved the stop signs be installed. The Committee unanimously approved. r 1 Kent City Council Meeting Date March 1, 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: 277TH CORRIDO : 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As approved by the Public Works Committee, authorization to use $75 , 000 of the Advanced Acquisition Fund for a study to determine the alignment, configuration and preparation of the environmental analysis for the 272nd/277th Corridor . 3 . EXHIBITS : Excerpt from the Public Works Committee Minutes 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc. ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $75, 000 -• SOURCE OF FUNDS : Advanced Acquisition Fund 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember _ moves, Councilmember _seconds U DISCUSSION: / ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3I Public Works Committee February 23 , 1988 Page 2 discussion, Biteman moved that the pilot program be extended and any further decisions on expansion of the program be delayed until a ruling comes down from WUTC . The Committee unanimously agreed. Biteman brought up the subject of resource recovery. Brent informed the Committee some information is being prepared for the Council outlining the available options with respect to disposal which should be completed within a week. It was determined this could be discussed at the next Public Works Committee on March 8 . 277th Corridor Wickstrom informed the Committee he has been meeting with the County and Auburn on this project. The County has budgeted $50, 000 this year to study the corridor. The County has estimated the -•• total cost of a study would be $300 , 000 ; however, they were proposing to use a consultant to do the study. Wickstrom suggested to the County as a cost saving measure the possibility of dividing up elements of the scope of work and doing portions thereof with inhouse or temporary staff. A decision has yet to be made on this but Wickstrom recommended the City appropriate $75, 000 of the 272nd/277th Advance Acquisition fund for the study. McFall stated the Mayor would like for this preliminary work to move ahead so that the alignment, environmental studies, etc are done putting this project in a much more favorable position for funding should any funds become available . Woods moved the $75 , 000 be appropriated for the study. The Committee unanimously approved. Update on Kent's Water Supply Wickstrom stated if there is another dry summer, Kent's water supply could be affected since we do use two interties which draw their supply from Seattle. Wickstrom continued Kent's aquifers are full and up to their normal level currently and we could possibly get by without relying on the interties. However, should we need to use the interties, Wickstrom suggested we plan ahead by revising our water conservation ordinance to comply with Seattle' s. As such, we would be able to "shirt-tail" any public announcements with those of Seattle ' s . Woods commented she felt it was an excellent idea . Biteman commented he would hope we wouldn't implement a conservation program just because Seattle does but that it be because it is truly needed. Wickstrom clarified that if Kent City Council Meeting Date March 1, 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: RECYCLING 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, 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. 3 . EXHIBITS : Excerpt from the Public Works Committee Minutes 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Committee (Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc. ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTIQN: �, '' Councilmember ^` moves , Councilmember seconds A,, DISCUSSION: �— ACTION: Council Agenda Item No . 3J PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE February 23 , 1988 PRESENT: Jon Johnson Bill Williamson Berne Biteman John Bond Judy Woods Lyle Price Don Wickstrom Jerry Graham Brent McFall Steve Caputo Gary Gill Nels Johnson Ken Morris Recycling Don Wickstrom distributed an update of the survey sent with the utility bills . There were 2 , 291 responses to the survey. Wickstrom explained that only the first 421 were evaluated to determine support which showed that approximately 94% were interested in recycling. Brent cautioned that the results are an indication of how people feel but shouldn' t be taken as a statistically valid . result. Jerry Graham added that if the survey is done again with specific numbers it might give a more accurate response. Wickstrom referred to a graph developed from the proposals that had been submitted. Nels Johnson stated there was an error on the graph relating to Kent Disposal 's proposal. Their proposal was a minimum or a charge per customer depending on volume. (A corrected graph is attached) Wickstrom noted that from an administrative standpoint, Kent' s Disposal 's proposal would be easier to manage. Brent commented that in exploring what the alternatives might be the concept of not entering into a contract with Kent but including the costs of a recycling element in the tariffs that are filed with WUTC has been presented. This idea has received a positive preliminary response from the attorney for WUTC but certainly nothing definitive is available yet. Jerry Graham commented he felt it was an excellent idea and would happy to approach the Commission on that level if the Commission were amenable to it. Nels Johnson stated they would also be agreeable to such an approach. Brent suggested since the ruling from WUTC is still in the future perhaps Council might want to consider continuing its pilot program until such time as a WUTC ruling is received and then making a decision on expansion of the program. After some n N� Kent City Council Meeting Date March 1, 1988 - ���� Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: 1988 TARGET ISSUES 2 . SUMMAR Y STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution No . setting forth the target issues for 1988 . Resolution 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 RESOLUTION 140. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, establishing the Target Issues for 1988. WHEREAS, in November, 1984, the City Council developed a vision of the future for the City of Kent, and developed a list of Target Issues; and WHEREAS, the City Council again met in subsequent years to reassess the prior year's Target Issues and prioritize and develop additional Target Issues; and WHEREAS, the City Council met in January, 1988 and once -.- again developed Target Issues and priorities; and WHEREAS, action on the Target Issues will not likely be - completed during 1988, but the issues will provide a guide for allocating the Council's time and for focusing its attention; and WHEREAS, the process of adoption of Target Is"es is a dynamic one, and from time to time, as projects are accomplished or other priorities arise, issues may be added while others may be deleted; and WHEREAS, Target Issues, as adopted herein, shall be posted throughout the City Hall as a reminder to the City and as information to the public; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Target Issues as laid out in attached Exhibit A are adopted for 1988. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of 1988. TARGET ISSUES '88 ® TOP PRIORITY ❑ HIGH PRIORITY MI. Improve Transportation and ❑ 5. Plan for Kent's Future Land Use Traffic Systems and Development a.Willis Improvements a. East Valley Study - b. Smith Street Improvements b. Industrial Zoning (Near C.B.D.) c. Canyon Drive Improvement c. Interlocal Agreement with King d.Road Improvement Projects: County (Soos Creek) Work Program for 1988 d. Development Plans for e. Curb Cut Standards Monitoring in Unique, Fragile f. 272: Route Alignment Areas g.Traffic Mitigation Policy: ❑ 6. Enhance Community Safety Adoption a. Fire Facilities Construction h.Rail System: Direction b. Bond Issue: Implementation i. Reith Road: Problems c. Fire Apparatus j. Corridor 196 d.Hazard Materials Plan ® 2. Renew and Revitalize Downtown e. Disaster Plan: Adoption a. Park-and-Ride f. Drug Task Force -. b. Public-Private Office g. Staffing Plan for East Hill/North Development Fire Station c. Downtown Plan and h. Fire Service Level Development i. Police Service Level d. Clean-Up Program j. Police-Fire Training Facility e. Library Building ❑ 7. City Pride and Image .. 03. Address Solid Waste a. Centennial Celebration: Planning a. Resource Recovery: Decision b. City Entrances b. Recycling Program c. City Calendar c. Solid Waste Definition in dAllegal Dumping Enforcement Zoning Code/Comprehensive Program Plan e. Code Enforcement d.Barden Proposal: Decision ❑ S. Develop Park System 04. Annexation a. Golf Course: Completion a. Pacific Highway South (Fred b. Inter-Urban Trail: Completion Meyer et al., Star Lake) c. Clark Lake Park b.West Hills Island d. East Fenwick Property: c. East Hill (116th to 124th) Purchase d.Greater Kent Study: e. Cross Valley Trail Implementaion f. King County Agreement e. Kent "Protective" Strategy (Grandview, North Meridian, Pea Patch, Valli-Kee) ❑ 9. 11ousing Upgrades a. Resolution 1123 (Multi-Family Density) b. Multi-Family Design Standards: Policy c. Senior Housing Policy d. Zoning: Mixed Housing Type Additional Moderate Priority Target Issues are identified in a complete listing of Target Issues. Projects included in moderate priority issues are available by calling the Public Information Coordinator at 859-3327. �� . ..... .............. . kj w Kent City Council Meeting -^� Date March 1, 1988 (N I,dY 'y, Category Other Business __. 1. SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Planning Commission has recommended that the multifamily development standards of the Kent Zoning Code be amended . The recommendation is in response to Council Resolution No. 1148 of October 6 , 1987 . The Resolution expressed Council ' s concern 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 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum, revised amendment proposal , Planning Commission minutes (3) . minutes of City Council Planning Committee of February 16 , 1988 , Resolution No . 1148 , Council minutes of Feb 2 . 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission, 1/25/88 (Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc . ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember LU,k' moves, Councilmember ^� k Uf% seconds to amend the multifamily development standards of the Kent Zoning Code per the Planning Commission' s recommendation and as amended by the City Council Planning Committee and to instruct the City Attorney to prepare the amending ordinance . DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No . 4A KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 24 , 1988 TO: Planning Committee FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director SUBJECT: REVISION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Based on the February 16th Committee Meeting, the Planning Department has revised the proposed amendments of multifamily development standards. Changes from the earlier draft are underlined in the current version. The changes are to be reviewed at the March 1st Planning Committee meeting. As discussed previously, this item is also on the Agenda for the March 1st City Council meeting, under "Other Business. " The draft changes incorporate four items discussed at the February 16th meeting. 1. Adding a provision for turnaround time on processing applications for Administrative Design Review (ADR) . 2 . Omitting vacated or vacatable rights of way as potential triggers of multifamily transition area requirements. 3 . Adding a special provision for height restrictions on small lots with more than one 'street frontage. 4. Adding a provision for review of the new standards and ADR process within one year of adoption. DS:JPH:ca Attachment Proposed Amendments to Multifamily Development Standards As Recommended by the Planning Commission on January 25, 1988 and Amended by the City Council Planning Committee on February 16, 1988 Add as Section 15.08.215. In addition add reference to Multifamilv Transition Area requirements in District rectulations for each zone. KCC 15 04 040 15.04.050 and 15.04 .060. MULTIFAMILY TRANSITION AREAS Purpose A Multifamily Transition Area provides a buffer between multifamily residential districts and adjacent single-family districts, and between multifamily districts and abutting streets. . It is established in order to mitigate potential adverse impacts resulting from different or incompatible land uses. Multifamily Transition Area requirements shall be superimposed over those of the underlying zones. Multifamily buildings and setback areas within 100 feet of single-family zones or public streets are affected by the requirements of this section. Unless otherwise approved under Section 15. 09 . 045, Administrative Design Review, all development activity within a Multifamily Transition Area must comply with the requirements of this section. Definitions (Add these four definitions to Section 15. 02 of KCC) Multifamily Transition Area: A Multifamily Transition Area is any portion of an intensive multifamily residential district situated within 100 feet of a single-family zoning 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. Intensive Multifamily Residential District: For purposes of this part, an Intensive Multifamily Residential District includes a land use district with any of the following designations: MR-G Garden Density Multifamily Residential MR-M Medium Density Multifamily Residential MR-H High Density Multifamily Residential Single-Family District: A Single-Family District is any district with one of the following designations: R1-201 R1-121 R1-9. 6 R1-7 .2 , and RA. Setback, Average: The mean or average depth of setback measured from the property line to the building. The average setback is computed along the full length of the property line, utilizing a specific - property depth. A. Minimum Yard Requirements (Setbacks) Unless approved under Section 15. 09 . 045, Administrative Design Review, the following minimum yard requirements shall apply: .., ... . . .... ...__..__....... .... .._........_. ...._....... ._._. ..._._ _.... Multifamily Development Standards Page Two 1. 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: a. 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 computed along the full length of the property line, utilizing the first 60 feet of the property depth. b. 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 computed along the full length of the property line, utilizing the first 40 feet of the property depth. 2 . 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 computed along the full length of the property line, utilizing the first 60 feet of the property depth. B. Building Offset Requirement Unless otherwise approved under Section 15. 09 . 045, Administrative Design Review: The horizontal dimension of all structures facing a public street or facing a single-family district _. must be offset at intervals not to exceed 70 feet. The offset shall not be less than 20 feet in the horizontal dimension, with a minimum depth of six (6) feet. C. Height Limitation Unless otherwise approved under Section 15. 09 . 045, Administrative Design Review, any structure within a multifamily transition area shall not exceed a height of two stories or 25 feet at the minimum setback line. Buildings may be increased one (1) foot in height for every additional foot of 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 Frontages: On lots of one acre or less and having more than one street frontage, the height limitations of this part shall apply along the longest street frontage. On any other street frontage, the height limitations of the Multifamily Transition Area requirements shall not apply. Multifamily Development Standards Page Three D. Landscaping Unless otherwise approved under Section 15.09.045, Administrative Design Review, additional landscaping requirements shall apply: 1. A minimum 20 feet of perimeter landscaping shall be provided on arterial or collector streets; 2 . A minimum 15 feet of perimeter landscaping shall be provided on local access streets; 3 . Where a parking area abuts a public street, the intervening landscape strip shall be bermed, except where the Planning Director finds berming to be ineffective due to topographic conditions, or where he determines that berming will obscure necessary sight distance lines. Such berm must be a minimum 3 feet high on an arterial or collector street. Such berm shall be 2-1/2 feet high on the frontage of a local access street. Where the Planning Director has found berming to be ineffective, an alternative screening method approved by the Planning Director shall be employed. 4 . A minimum 6-foot high, sight-obscuring fence shall be provided where a development abuts a single-family district. Add to Section 15.07 .060 *** *** AMENDMENT TO LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS The following requirements are added to Sections 15. 07 . 060 D-F (Landscaping Regulations by Zoning District, for MR-G, MR-M and MR-H Districts) . 1. A minimum 10 feet of landscaping shall be placed along the side and rear property boundaries. 2 . A minimum 5 feet of foundation landscaping shall be placed along the perimeter of any multifamily residential structure . Foundation landscaping consists of shrubbery or any combination of landscape materials that help to reduce the visual bulk of structures and/or buffer units from light, glare and other environmental intrusions. NOTE: Under the proposal , the amendments in this paragraph would not be a part of the Multifamily Transition Area requirements. Rather, they would be added to the chapter on general landscaping requirements. The practical differences would be twofold: Multifamily Development Standards Page Four 1) The amendments would apply to multifamily development both inside and outside of multifamily transition areas. 2) These requirements would not be subject to modification or waiver through an Administrative Design Review process. Add as Section 15.09.045 *** *** ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW A. Introduction. 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. B. 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 a similar purpose as 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 evaluated 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. 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. 2 . The proposal will accomplish the same or better transition between the multifamily development and abutting streets, Multifamily Development Standards Page Five 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. Period for Review. 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 ADR application within seven working days of receiving the complete application. BE. Appeals. The decision of the Planning Director is final unless an appeal is filed pursuant to Section 15. 09.070 of this Code. F. Council Review. The Administrative Design Review (ADR) process and Multifamily Transition Area reauirements 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 requirements and of the ADR process. (2/24/88) RESOLUTION NO. 1 A RESOLUTION of tpe City of Kent, Washington, regarding multifamily development standards, directing the Planning Commission and Planning Department to review and consider such standards, seek public input and make recommendations to the Council. " WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned about the impacts of multifamily.developments on adjacent single-family uses, on city entryways and arterials and on other surrounding uses; and WHEREAS, the City Council considers modification of development standards to be part of an overall approach to improving multifamily residential development; and WHEREAS, the City Council Planning Committee considered the issue related to multifamily development standards in a meeting on September 28, 1987, and endorsed sending the issue to ,., the Planning Commission for further consideration and action; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council hereby endorses a review of multifamily development standards, with the objectives of making multifamily development more compatible with adjacent land use and providing proper buffers along streets and entryways. Section 2. The City Council hereby directs the Planning Commission and Planning Department to review multifamily development standards and, with input from the public, to recommend changes to such standards consistent with the above objectives. Passed at a regular mee ing of th City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of C 1987. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of I`�_, 1987. DAN ELLEHER, MAYOR 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 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 staffs 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 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 ae and landscape features wi7tk 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, Jam P. Harri , Secretary KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 14 , 1987 The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Byrne at 7 :30 p.m. on Monday, December 14, 1987 , in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: James Byrne, Chairman , Robert Badger, Vice Chairman Russell E. Dunham 1� Greg Greenstreet Linda Martinez Nancy Rudy Carol Stoner Raymond Ward COMMISSION MEMBER ABSENT: Anne Biteman, Excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director 1•. Fred Satterstrom, Project Planner Dan Stroh, Assistant Planner Charlene Anderson, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Dunham MOVED that MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 23 , 1987 the Planning Commission minutes for the November 23 , 1987 ` public hearing be approved as presented. Commissioner Badger SECONDED the motion. Motion Icarried. ;a MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Commissioner Ward MOVED and Commissioner Dunham SECONDED the motion to open the public hearing. Motion carried. Dan Stroh presented a brief explanation of the origin and purpose of the multifamily development standards proposal. The proposal addresses the impact of multifamily developments on entryways and arterials and buffering multifamily from single-family residential. Mr. Stroh stated that staff had met with Centron, developer of The Lakes project, prior to tonight's meeting and had discussed some excellent concepts t regarding this issue. Larry Frazier, Director of Government Affairs, Seattle Master Builders Association, 2155 - 112th Avenue NE #100, Bellevue, WA 98004 presented 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 14 , 1987 Page Two a letter outlining three areas of concern about staff's proposal economic and design impacts, 2) de facto impacts on density, and 3) possible error in issuing DNS on proposal rather than requiring EIS which would outline all potential impacts. t Dennis Riebe, Architect, Centron, 3025; - 112th Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA agreed with Mr. Frazier that the proposed development standards would achieve a density reduction, even though that is not the intent of the proposal. Mr. Riebe stressed that development standards alternatives tie together, that it is impossible to look at one area (e.g. , increased parking ratio) without realizing that it would affect, perhaps negatively, other design aspects. Mr. Riebe presented three alternatives to staff' s recommendations. 1) Minimum Yard Requirements: The proposed increased setbacks on property abutting arterials and other streets is acceptable. Rather than requiring a 35 ' setback for front, side and rear yards abutting single family residential or any other district, Mr. Riebe proposes incorporating an average 30 ' setback along with a minimum setback such that building modulation will create variety. (A 20 ' setback along a side or interior property line seems adequate. ) Using an average setback requirement allows staff to evaluate projects on a case-by-case basis. I 2) Height Limitations: The proposed height limitations would cause density reduction; to achieve highest and best use of a property, developments would be created with external roadway systems and buildings facing the rear of the property. Mr. Riebe suggests modulation of building facades where "x" lineal feet of wall requires building modulation or offset. Topography also plays a part in providing natural building modulation. 3) Landscaping: To require increased depths and quality of landscaping is no problem. However, a berm along street frontages _ where parking abuts landscaping is not always possible due to topographical considerations. The code should be written to provide some flexibility in achieving the goals intended by this requirement. The 10 ' landscaping strip along side and rear property lines is fine. Mr. Riebe suggests that rather than requiring a 6 ' high, sight- obscuring fence where multifamily property lines abut single-family districts, the code should be flexible. -+ Mr. Riebe would like staff to clarify or eliminate the statement that, "The revised standards would only affect such properties if they were J to expand or be rebuilt. " If a project expanded by 20 units, would the standards apply to the 20 units only or to the entire project? Dan Stroh stated the proposed standards would effect a more creative use of land. It is not intended that density is affected; Mr. Stroh provided an example of the proposed standards and indicated that the J LPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 14, 1987 Page Three Lsample project could still be built at the currently-allowed density. Staff can provide renderings in the zoning code to illustrate the new requirements. Regarding environmental impacts of dt ese proposed standards it was determined they would not be of aequ to overall impact to require an EIS. r Staff believes the concept of average setback could be a viable approach to creating a better street transition and transition between l._ multifamily and single family development. Staff will also consider the building modulation approach outlined by Centron where after "x" I number of lineal feet of building there would be required a modulation or offset. When considering Centron's alternatives, staff will look at several items including building height at the minimum setback and length of offset required, along with other quantitative changes. There appears to be a general consensus on the need for increased landscaping. Flexibility could be written in the code to consider topography. In addition, staff believes that coupled with landscaping, the 61 , sight-obscuring fence will have an impact on reducing the impact of the development and suggests that most large developments will have fencing anyway to define the property boundary and reduce ingress and egress across the property. In clarifying questions from the Commissioners, Mr. Stroh stated that the standards would apply to new development, not existing development. The standards would apply to phases not presently under construction; those phases each have to go through SEPA review as well. Mr. Stroh added that there seems to be sentiment toward a design review process wherein standards could be tightened but there would be flexibility as well. Mr. Harris suggested the Commission continue this issue to a workshop - session on January 11, 1988 and a public hearing on January 25, 1988. Commissioner Martinez MOVED and Commissioner Badger SECONDED the motion to continue the issue as requested by Mr. Harris. Motion carried. Commissioner Ward stated the dialogue between staff and the developers is good. He added that staff should consider whether the proposed standards will reduce density. ADJOURNMENT LThe meeting was adjourned at approximately 8 :45 PM. I Resp ctfully ubm'tted, t� ' Jam s P. Harris, Secretary n KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 14 , 1987 The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Byrne at 7 : 30 p.m. on Monday, December 14, 1987, in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: James Byrne, Chairman Robert Badger, Vice Chairman Russell E. Dunham Greg Greenstreet Linda Martinez Nancy Rudy Carol Stoner Raymond Ward COMMISSION MEMBER ABSENT: Anne Biteman, Excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Project Planner Dan Stroh, Assistant Planner Charlene Anderson, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Dunham MOVED that MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 23 , 1987 the Planning Commission minutes for the November 23 , 1987 public hearing be approved as presented. Commissioner Badger SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Commissioner Ward MOVED and Commissioner Dunham SECONDED the motion to open the public hearing. Motion carried. Dan Stroh presented a brief explanation of the origin and purpose of the multifamily development standards proposal. The proposal addresses the impact of multifamily developments on entryways and arterials and buffering multifamily from single-family residential. Mr. Stroh stated that staff had met with Centron, developer of The Lakes project, prior to tonight's meeting and had discussed some excellent concepts regarding this issue. Larry Frazier, Director of Government Affairs, Seattle Master Builders Association, 2155 - 112th Avenue NE #100, Bellevue, WA 98004 presented PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES _. December 14, 1987 Page Three sample project could still be built at the currently-allowed density. Staff can provide renderings in the zoning code to illustrate the new requirements. Regarding environmental impacts of these proposed standards, it was determined they would not be of adequate overall impact to require an EIS. Staff believes the concept of average setback could be a viable approach to creating a better street transition and transition between multifamily and single family development. Staff will also consider the building modulation approach outlined by Centron where after "x" number of lineal feet of building there would be required a modulation or offset. When considering Centron 's alternatives, staff will look at several items including building height at the minimum setback and length of offset required, along with other quantitative changes. There appears to be a general consensus on the need for increased landscaping. Flexibility could be written in the code to consider topography. In addition, staff believes that coupled with landscaping, the 611 sight-obscuring fence will have an impact on reducing the impact of the development and suggests that most large developments will have fencing anyway to define the property boundary and reduce ingress and egress across the property. In clarifying questions from the Commissioners, Mr. Stroh stated that the standards would apply to new development, not existing development. The standards would apply to phases not presently under construction; those phases each have to go through SEPA review as well. Mr. Stroh added that there seems to be sentiment toward a design review process wherein standards could be tightened but there would be flexibility as well. Mr. Harris suggested the Commission continue this issue to a workshop session on January 11, 1988 and a public hearing on January 25, 1988 . Commissioner Martinez MOVED and Commissioner Badger SECONDED the motion to continue the issue as requested by Mr. Harris. Motion carried. Commissioner Ward stated the dialogue between staff and the developers is good. He added that staff should consider whether the proposed standards will reduce density. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8 :45 PM. Respectfully ubm'tted, Jam s P. Harris, Secretary 1 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES LNovember 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 i Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1987 I 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 kr 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 . LColin 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 tLi 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 r 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 h1 tifamily 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 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 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- Seattle Master Builders Association 2155- 112th Avenue N.E., Suite 100•Bellevue, Washington 98004•Telephone (206)451-7920 ~ D D January 26, 1988 JAN 28 1988 Mayor Dan Kelleher CITY OF K E NT RE: Multifamily Development City of Kent CITY CLERK 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. V/.3311 1 � Ir Y •+�°"�"� Seattle Master Builders Association is affiliated with the National Assocication 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 Seattle Master Builders Association 2155 112th Avenue N.E., Suite 100•Bellevue, Washington 98004•Telephone (206)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 ADR 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. I " •t�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`/. razier,� CP,APA Directol`. 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. ®s •b"" Seattle Master Builders Association is affiliated with the National Assocication of Home Builders 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 February 2, 1988 ZONING CODE Amendments to Multifamily Development Standards. The _ AMENDMENTS Planning Commission has recommended that the multifamily — development standards of the Kent Zoning Code be amended. The recommendatin is in response to Council Resolution No. 1148 of October 6 , 1987 . The resolution expressed Council ' s concern about the impacts of multifamily develop- ment on adjacent single family uses and on City entry ways and arterials . Dan Stroh of the Planning Department explained the pro- posed amendments , noting that the Planning Commission had held three public hearings on this subject. He pointed out that the amendments are not intended to reduce permitted densi-ties or to increase same, but deal rather with quality, not density. Using slides , Stroh showed the aesthetic advantages the proposed amendments would bring to future multifamily developments . He explained that Multifamily Transition Areas would provide a buffer area between multifamily and single family areas and between multifamily areas and the abut- ting streets and would apply to any such development within 100 feet of single family area and/or within 100 feet of a public right-of-way. Included in the proposal are references to minimum yard requirements , building offset requirements, height limitations and land- scaping. The proposed amendments also provide for an Administrative Design Review process, which would con- sider alternatives proposed by developers, thus allowing for flexibility. Stroh pointed out that Resolution 1123 , dealing with density, was still under study and that this proposal for Multifamily Development Standards was needed regardless of the outcome of the density issue. Biteman referred to the letter of January 18 from Seattle Master Builders Association referring to the possibility of the Planning Director awarding bonus units for a superior site plan. Harris stressed that this proposal is density-neutral and that discussion about bonus densities should be channeled through Planning and Development for consideration. JOHNSON MOVED to amend the multifamily development stan- dards of the Kent Zoning Code per the Planning Commission ' s recommendation and to instruct the City Attorney to prepare the amending ordinance, and further, that the subject of bonus units be referred to the Planning Committee for further discussion. Biteman seconded. Tom Sharp spoke against the proposal , noting that these requirements would pose a problem to a small site and and pointed out that his development of Strattford Arms 2 - February 2 , 1988 ZONING CODE could not have been built under these proposed amend- _ AMENDMENTS ments to the Zoning Code. He stated that his firm had = redesigned the Strattford Arms site for architectural appearance and that the City should not be trying to do design work through zoning. He stated that incentives should be given for good designs. Dennis Riebe, an architect from Bellevue specializing in multidensity designs, praised the proposals and noted that the Administrative Design Review gave flexibility and an opportuity for the public and private sector to work together. Duncan Wilson, attorney from Renton, spoke on behalf of Loren Combs in favor of the proposed amendments and congratulated the staff and the Planning Commission. Dowell noted that this had not been to the Planning Com- mittee and he would like to have the Committee review it. Biteman withdrew his second to Johnson ' s motion, but Johnson stated that he thought the matter had had adequate discussion, and did not withdraw the motion. Mann then seconded the motion. The motion failed, with Johnson, White and Mann supporting it and Biteman, Houser and Dowell opposing. DOWELL THEN MOVED to refer the matter to the Planning Committee. Biteman seconded and the motion carried unanimously. (Letters from Seattle Master Builders distributed with the agenda packet and from Seattle King County Board of Realtors, distributed tonight, were filed as part of the record. ) REZONE APPEAL Summer Woods Rezone Appeal. John Nelson, attorney for the applicant for the Summer Woods Rezone (RZ-87-2 ) has withdrawn the appeal scheduled for tonight ' s public hearing. DOWELL MOVED to accept Nelson ' s letter of withdrawal for the record . Houser seconded and the motion carried. ANNEXATION Hehr Annexation. A 10 percent notice of intent has been received for annexation of approximately five acres in the vicinity of 116th Avenue S.E. and S. E. 228th. The Property Manager has verified the signatures and recom- mends the petition be accepted. JOHNSON MOVED that the 10 percent notice of intent for the Hehr Annexation be accepted and that February 16th be set as the date for Council to meet with the initiators . Houser seconded and the motion carried. - 3 - Kent City Council Meeting Date March 1, 1988 Y� 1�k,/� Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1987 CLASSIFICATION AND PAY RECOMMENDATION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the implementation of the 1987 Classification and Pay recommendation, incorporated in Appendix A. The Project recommendation has been reviewed and approved by the Operations Committee. Funding of the implementation is contained within the 1988 Budget . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Mike Webby 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee Feb 16 and Mar 1 , J988 (Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Approximately $50 000 SOURCE OF FUNDS : Funds are contained within the 1988 Bud et for this purpose , 1 ,J 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds that the recommendation of the Operations Committee to implement the 1987 Classification and Pay Study recommendation effective March 1, 1988 k DISCUSSION: ACTION: i ✓ L Council Agenda Item No . 4B r MEMORANDUM DATE: February 25, 1988 TO: Maygr Kelleher and Councilmembers FROM: i Webby, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1987 CLASSIFICATION AND PAY RECOMMENDATION The implementation of the Classification and Pay Project recommendation is on this week's Agenda having been reviewed by Council on February 16, 1988. As you recall, although the recommendation generally seemed acceptable, a few questions remained to be answered. Those were related to the recommendation affecting the City Clerk's Division in the Finance Department and the reorganization in Administration. As you review the attached materials, you will note that I have once again provided the information originally transmitted to you for your meeting on February 16, 1988. The Operations Committee will be meeting on the morning of March 1 and this recommendation has been placed on their agenda for further discussion. Although the Operations Committee has recommended implementation of the attached recommendation, a modification to that may be made. If so, it will be presented for your consideration before further action regarding implementation is requested. If you have any questions concerning the Study implementation, please contact Brent or me at your convenience prior to Tuesday evening's Council meeting. 2076W-34W APPENDIX A-1 CITY OF KENT PAY AND CLASSIFICATION STUDY SALARY RANGE RECOMMENDATIONS Consultant Recommendation Modification to Current Recommended Consultant's Position/Title Salary Range Salary Range Recommendation Clerical and Secretarial Administrative Assistant III 30 32 Administrative Assistant II 25 27 Office Systems Technician II 18 24 Administrative Secretary II 21 23 Deputy City Clerk/Records Mgr. 21 23 Administrative Assistant I 18 22 Administrative Secretary/Graphic Artist 18 21 Office Systems Technician I 18 21 Word Processing Specialist II 18 21 Office Technician II 18 20 Administrative Secretary I 18 20 Records Information Specialist 12 20 Office Technician II 12 16 Word Processing Specialist I 12 16 Office Technician I 8 12 Code Enforcement Building Official 40 42 Assistant Building Official 32 36 Lead Combination Building Inspector 29 33 Combination Building Inspector 29 31 Construction Inspector 29 31 Permit Specialist II 18 22 Permit Specialist I 12 16 Engineering Engineering Supervisor 40 41 Property Manager 37 39 Land Survey Supervisor 37 38 Engineer II 37 37 Engineer I 34 34 Engineering Technician III 30 32 Property Analyst 30 32 Signal Specialist 39 32 39 Survey Party Chief 28 32 Traffic Specialist 30 32 Signal Technician hourly 30 Engineering Technician II 28 28 Survey Technician 24 28 Engineering Technician I 24 24 - 1 - Modification to Current Recommended Consultant's Position/Title Salary Range Salary Range Recommendation Fire Assistant Fire Chief 44 46 Fire Equipment Maintenance Supervisor 32 37 Fire Apparatus Mechanic 29 33 Fire Building/Grounds Supervisor 24 27 Fiscal Accountant 27 34 Public Works Accounts 27 34 Customer Services Supervisor 25 29 Payroll and Benefits Analyst 23 29 Budget Analyst 20 28 Accounting Technician 18 23 Accounting Services Assistant III 18 21 Customer Services Assistant III 12 21 Accounting Services Assistant II 12 17 Customer Services Assistant II 12 17 Accounting Services Assistant I 8 13 Customer Services Assistant I 8 13 Information Services Programmers/Analyst II 34 35 Programmers/Analyst I 30 31 Systems Programmers/Analyst 30 35 Telecommunications Analyst 25 27 Computer Operator 20 20 Data Entry/Computer Operator 8 12 Legal Assistant City Attorney II 37 37 Assistant City Attorney I 22 30 Legal Office Assistant 21 23 Maintenance Fleet Manager 40 38 41 Maintenance Superintendent - Streets 32 37 41 Maintenance Superintendent - Utilities 32 37 41 Maintenance Superintendent - Water 32 37 41 Maintenance Technician - Parks 32 32 Custodial Supervisor 27 27 Home Repair Specialist 24 24 Custodian II 20 20 Custodian I 13 15 Maintenance Worker II 7 20 - 2 - Modification to Current Recommended Consultant's Position/Title Salary Range Salary Range Recommendation Management City Engineer 46 47 Operations Manager 40 47 Financial Services Manager 40 41 Internal Operations Manager 40 40 City Clerk 40 35 40 Miscellaneous Public Information Coordinator 31 34 Community Events Coordinator 24 27 34 Executive Assistant 23 27 37 Printing Technician 16 20 Printing Assistant 10 14 Parks and Recreation Cultural and Leisure Services Supt. 40 41 Parks Administration Supt. 40 41 Parks Maintenance Supt. 40 41 Recreation Supt. 40 41 Recreation Facility Manager 32 34 Golf Complex Supervisor 27 29 Recreation Program Supervisor 29 29 32 Recreation Program Specialist 24 24 Adult Day Care Coordinator hourly 18 Recreation Program Assistant hourly 18 Recreation Facility Assistant II 12 16 Recreation Facility Supervisor 12 14 Recreation Facility Assistant I hourly 12 Personnel Personnel Analyst 30 32 Civil Service Secretary/Chief Examiner 18 20 Planning Planning Manager 44 45 Senior Planner 37 38 Planner 30 31 Police Corrections Administrator 44 46 Police Captain 44 46 Corrections Lieutenant 29 43 Police Lieutenant 40 43 Police Records Manager 29 31 Program Coordinator - KDDPC contract 30 Program Assistant - KDDPC 12 16 2057W-32W - 3 - MANAGEMENT BENEFIT PROGRAM ADDITIONS/TITLE CHANGES PAY AND CLASSIFICATION STUDY - 1987 Explanation/ No. of Group Changes Employees Type 11CH Administrative Assistant II New 7 Administrative Property Analyst New 1 Professional Accountant New 2 Professional Public Works Accountant New 1 Professional Budget Analyst New 2 Professional Payroll and Benefits Analyst New 1 Professional Maintenance Technician - Parks New 1 Administrative Executive Assistant New 1 Administrative Corrections Lieutenant New 1 Administrative Program Coordinator - KDDPC New 1 Administrative "B" Maintenance Superintendent - Streets New 1 Administrative Maintenance Superintendent - Utilities New 1 Administrative Maintenance Superintendent - Water New 1 Administrative Fleet Manager New 1 Administrative 2057W-32W CLASSIFICATION AND PAY STUDY - 1987 IMPLEMENTATION FORMULA FEBRUARY 12, 1988 The formula outlined below was developed to allow the 1987 Classification and Pay Study recommendation to be implemented within the available funding constraint of $50,000. The formula does not differ to a significant degree from those used to implement previous classification and pay recommendations. All positions within the Study will be allocated to recommended salary ranges upon implementation. Salary placement within the recommended ranges will be equal to or higher than the current salary level on the date of implementation; March 1 , 1988. Employees who receive less than 4 percent salary adjustments upon implementation will not have their respective salary anniversary date changed. Employees who receive greater than 4 percent salary adjustments upon implementation will have their respective salary anniversary date changed to March 1 . Employees with one year or more of continuous service on the date of implementation who are moved to Step A in the recommended range will automatically move to Step B with no change in salary anniversary date. No employees will receive a reduction in monthly salary as a result of implementing the new Pay Plan. The effective date of implementation is March 1, 1988, and no retroactive salary adjustments will be made. 2058W-34W 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 G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE February 23 , 1988 PRESENT: Jon Johnson Bill Williamson Berne Biteman John Bond Judy Woods Lyle Price Don Wickstrom Jerry Graham Brent McFall Steve Caputo Gary Gill Nels Johnson Ken Morris Recycling Don Wickstrom distributed an update of the survey sent with the utility bills . There were 2 , 291 responses to the survey. Wickstrom explained that only the first 421 were evaluated to determine support which showed that approximately 94% were interested in recycling. Brent cautioned that the results are an indication of how people feel but shouldn' t be taken as a statistically valid result. Jerry Graham added that if the survey is done again with specific numbers it might give a more accurate response. Wickstrom referred to a graph developed from the proposals that had been submitted. Nels Johnson stated there was an error on the graph relating to Kent Disposal 's proposal. Their proposal was a minimum or a charge per customer depending on volume. (A corrected graph is attached) Wickstrom noted that from an administrative standpoint, Kent' s Disposal ' s proposal would be easier to manage. Brent commented that in exploring what the alternatives might be the concept of not entering into a contract with Kent but including the costs of a recycling element in the tariffs that are filed with WUTC has been presented. This idea has received a positive preliminary response from the attorney for WUTC but certainly nothing definitive is available yet. Jerry Graham commented he felt it was an excellent idea and would happy to approach the Commission on that level if the Commission were amenable to it. Nels Johnson stated they would also be agreeable to such an approach. Brent suggested since the ruling from WUTC is still in the future perhaps Council might want to consider continuing its pilot program until such time as a WUTC ruling is received and then making a decision on expansion of the program. After some Public Works Committee February 23 , 1988 Page 2 discussion, Biteman moved that the pilot program be extended and any further decisions on expansion of the program be delayed until a ruling comes down from WUTC . The Committee unanimously agreed. Biteman brought up the subject of resource recovery. Brent informed the Committee some information is being prepared for the Council outlining the available options with respect to disposal which should be completed within a week. It was determined this could be discussed at the next Public Works Committee on March 8. 277th Corridor Wickstrom informed the Committee he has been meeting with the County and Auburn on this project. The County has budgeted $50, 000 this year to study the corridor. The County has estimated the total cost of a study would be $300 , 000 ; however, they were proposing to use a consultant to do the study. Wickstrom suggested to the County as a cost saving measure the possibility of dividing up elements of the scope of work and doing portions thereof with inhouse or .temporary staff. A decision has yet to be made on this but Wickstrom recommended the City appropriate $75, 000 of the 272nd/277th Advance Acquisition fund for the study. McFall stated the Mayor would like for this preliminary work to move ahead so that the alignment, environmental studies, etc are done putting this project in a much more favorable position for funding should any funds become available . Woods moved the $75 , 000 be appropriated for the study. The Committee unanimously approved. Update on Kent's Water Supply Wickstrom stated if there is another dry summer, Kent' s water supply could be affected since we do use two interties which draw their supply from Seattle. Wickstrom continued Kent's aquifers are full and up to their normal level currently and we could possibly get by without relying on the interties. However, should we need to use the interties, Wickstrom suggested we plan ahead by revising our water conservation ordinance to comply with Seattle's. As such, we would be able to "shirt-tail" any public announcements with those of Seattle ' s . Woods commented she felt it was an excellent idea. Biteman commented he would hope we wouldn't implement a conservation program just because Seattle does but that it be because it is truly needed. Wickstrom clarified that if Public Works Committee February 23, 1988 Page 3 Seattle does institute conservation we will be reviewing our water demand and supply situation very carefully to determine our need. Biteman asked about the impoundment reservoir. Wickstrom explained we are presently working on projects which would bring the transmission main to the site but it appears any supply from the Tacoma Pipeline could be as far away as 1995. In the meantime, we are working towards development of the 212th well and another site by Orillia and 42nd. Authorization for Out-of-State Trip Wickstrom stated that Kurt Palowez of our office has been invited to attend a user ' s conference on DeltaMap in Fort Collins , Colorado . Wickstrom commented he felt it would be worthwhile. Cost would be approximately $500 . The Committee unanimously approved the request. Railroad Crossings Wickstrom explained the need to file petitions with WUTC for approval of existing UPRR spur crossings plus their respective safety protection devices. The petitions have been prepared and signed by the railroad. Wickstrom requested authorization for the Mayor to sign the petitions for us to submit to WUTC. The Committee unanimously approved the request. L. I .D. 318 - Central Avenue Improvements Wickstrom explained we have received a bill for the undergrounding on this project. While we anticipated the bill, in reviewing the project funding, we found some revenue had been double counted which means the fund is approximately $70, 000 short. Since there was a significant amount of drainage and water work done on the project, Wickstrom proposed transferring $35, 000 from each the unencumbered water and sewerage utility funds. The Committee unanimously concurred. Traffic Revisions - Downtown Area Bond reported that during 1987 there were six accidents each at the intersections of 2nd Avenue and Gowe Street and 2nd Avenue and Meeker Street none of which involved injuries. Site distance problems exist at these two intersections due to buildings, parking stalls , directional signs, etc. Bond proposed placing four-way stop signs at these two intersections. Biteman expressed concerns about the backup of traffic especially on Gowe with vehicles having to stop. Woods stated she felt this would certainly provide more protection for the pedestrians trying to cross those streets. Biteman moved the stop signs be installed. The Committee unanimously approved. Public Works Committee February 23 , 1988 Page 4 Traffic Revisions - Meeker Street As requested by the Committee at their January 26 meeting, Morris stated that to revise the traffic flow with new lane markings and buttons would cost approximately $1,800. Bond explained buttons and right turn only arrows at 6th and Meeker would be removed along with the parking stalls on Meeker between 6th and 4th. This would allow traffic to continue east in the right lane. The "island" just west of 4th would be removed and new channelization installed at 4th. The Committee approved of the revision. Wickstrom explained the funds would come from the CBD Improvement Project funds. Traffic Revisions - Reith Road Morris commented that he had not been able to contact Mr. Ireland, the citizen who initially complained about this intersection, to let him know of the proposed revisions. He added he would continue trying to contact him. Bond explained it is proposed to rechannelize Reith extending the right turn lane down the hill a bit further and replace the button island with a c-curb island thereby forcing the right turn out of the right lane. This would eliminate the drivers from shooting straight across the intersection from the right lane. This should allow the vehicles on 253rd to move out further before turning onto Reith. Biteman expresssed some concerns about the c-curb island. Morris stated that in the design Mr. Biteman' s concerns could be addressed. Woods moved that staff proceed with these revisions. The Committee unanimously approved. $ / MONTH s N W A (n G1 "4 O O O ro O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 cm w C V oatv W•;A w � N 010 cn m'D o r 0 O o m N� x H z c 0 0 IV r p n N K m -i W -Z-I Z O x m ///m�11� ^ 9 O V m O x 6n , ■ \, 4 W W 9 0 g o = ; a � n < `Q zm CC' Z N m n D o yw -4 o p m r 0 c a m o m Z Z m .._ w � O o rn x » O z O T O w A m = (n x o a 31 -p --I '; x N 0/1 wQ N J o N 2 m I C V S V N x p OD w 00 oX » O w Xw w 9 O N; +S p 7i D w _. O N O w ma O w O�O x o m _. 2s i w o 0 x O w D w N x O S 0 x