Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 02/16/1988 City of Kent City Council Meeting - Agenda c2 lin 99 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ~~ Council Chambers City of Kent February 16. 1988 1 Office of the City Clerk 7:00 p.m. �IN CTA / 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 2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS 3 . CO�IfiENT CALENDAR /� Minutes --S Bills Seattle/King County Economic Development Council Agreement CIS Penalties for Misdemeanors - Ordinance 2768 Drinking Driver Task Force Donations Bill of Sale Anderson Commercial Center Reclassification - Teamsters -- --H Digital Mapping Program Purchase of Property J . Tri-State Agreement - Sewer Service frc/. Avoidance of Intersection Infraction - Ordinance 2-709 Arts Commission Appointment 4 . OTHER BUSINESS �- Summer Woods Rezone $ Hehr Annexation - 7 C . Implementation of 1987 Classification & Pay Recommendation — D. Target Issues 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 . CONSENT CALENDAR 3 . City Council Action: Councilmember > moves , Councilmember seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through L be approved . Discussion Action 3A. Approval of Minutes . Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of February 2, 1988 . 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 1, 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/l/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 Council Agenda Item No . 3 A-B Kent, Washington -•• February 2 , 1988 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7: 00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem White. Present: Councilmembers Biteman, Dowell , - Houser, Johnson and Mann, City Administrator McFall, City Attorney Driscoll, Planning Director Harris and Public Works Director Wickstrom. Mayor Kelleher, Councilmember Woods and Finance Director McCarthy were not in attendance. Also present: Police Chief Frederiksen. Approximately 25 people were at the meeting. OATH OF OFFICE Oath of Office - Police Officers. Chief Frederiksen introduced the following new Police Officers: E. G. Snodgrass , Glenn P. Woods, Douglas R. Garrett and William G. Griffin. The City Clerk issued the oath of office and the officers were welcomed to the City by Council and staff. PROCLAMATIONS American History Month. Mayor Pro Tem White read a proclamation declaring February 1988 as American History Month in the City of Kent. Engineers ' Week. Mayor Pro Tem White read a proclam- ation declaring the week of February 21 through February 27 as Engineers ' Week in the City of Kent. PRESENTATION Employee of the Month. Mayor Pro Tem White announced that Bill Damey of the Public Works Operations Division has been selected as the Employee of the Month for February. Damey was commended for his eagerness to help both on the job and with other activities such as the employees ' picnic and Christmas party. CONSENT JOHNSON MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through P, CALENDAR with the exception of Item A which was removed by Mann, Item L which was removed by white, and Item M which was removed by Dowell, be approved. Houser seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3A) REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER MANN Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of January 19 with the follow- ing correction of a typographical error. On page 3 , the amount of bid award for the LID 322/323 Sewer Project should be $773 ,216 . 18 . MANN MOVED to accept the minutes as corrected with this additional change on page 13 relating to the resource recovery plant in Minneapolis. The minutes should reflect that the sale of the recycled aluminum alone pays the salaries of all of the employees. Biteman seconded and the motion carried. - 1 - 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 densities 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 :notion 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 - February 2, 1988 STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3E) 84th Avenue S. and S. 212th Intersection Improvements. ACCEPT as complete the contract with Valley Cement Con- struction for the 84th and 212th intersection improve- ment project and authorization for the release of retainage after receipt of releases from the State. TRAFFIC (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3K) CONTROL Parking - 1st and Titus. APPROVAL for Public Works staff to limit the first two rows of parking in the City lot at 1st and Titus to two hours, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3L) REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE Canyon Drive Hazard Elimination Project. AUTHORIZATION to transfer $10 , 000 from the LID 313 - CBD Improvement Project Fund to the Canyon Drive Project for placement of temporary left-turn restrictions on Canyon Drive, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. Upon questions from the Council, Wickstrom stated that it was anticipated that the proposed left-turn restric- tions would be effective for about 18 months, due to time needed for design, right of way acquisition and con- struction, and also that the City was seeking approval to lower the speed to 35 mph. Wickstrom noted that restricting left turns to certain hours was not practical as it was difficult to police. Left turns would be allowed at Jason and at 94th Avenue, and he acknowledged that the left turn restrictios would cause some increase in traffic on James Street. Wickstrom pointed out that 80% of those attending an informational meeting were in favor of restricting left turns. The traffic on Canyon is in excess of 3800 vehicles per day, above the capacity of a four lane highway. A letter from Dr. Huber of the Huber Chiropractic Center, 9003 Canyon Drive, distributed tonight, was filed for the record. JOHNSON MOVED to adopt Item 3L. Houser seconded and the motion carried. Mayor's Task Force on Traffic Congestion. The recom- mendations of the Task Force on the proposed legisla- tion prepared by the EDC Infrastructure Financing Pro- ject Committe were presented to Council at their meet- ing on January 19. The Mayor stated his support of the recommendations at that time and directed this be brought before the Council again at a later date. It is recommended that the Council adopt the recommen- dations of the Task Force as outlined in the minutes of the January 19 meeting. MANN MOVED that the recommend- - 4 _ February 2, 1988 TRAFFIC ation of the Mayor ' s Task Force on Traffic Congestion CONTROL on the proposed EDC legislation be made a part of the record and that Council adopt and support these recom- mendations. Johnson seconded. Dowell questioned Item C, which reads as follows: C. Local Improvement District statute Revisions It is recommended the council support the point of allowing property owners to pay for and perform certain soft costs of the development process and to be reimbursed during the LID process but not to support the points of 1) narrowly defining and authorizing no-protest agreements and 2) authorizing a jurisdiction to defer property assessments on undeveloped properties until they are developed to their highest and best use. Dowell questioned whether we shouldn ' t wait on this until the report requested from the Chamber of Commerce is received. Driscoll noted that part of the reason for the recommendation would be that if the legisla- tion were to go into effect, it would change the status quo. The Task Force work going on now is to examine what exists NOW. She pointed out that the soft costs reflect something which we have already done in the City. To support the legislation would mean we would be sup- porting the change without having done an appropriate study. BITEMAN MOVED to amend the motion to reflect adoption and support of A. B, and D, and to hold C in abeyance until the report from the Chamber is received. Johnson seconded. The amendment carried unanimously and the amended motion then carried unanimously. HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3F) SANITATION Raab Sewer Extension - Late Comer Agreement. AUTHORI- ZATION for staff to prepare, and for the Public Works Director to sign a late comer agreement for sanitary sewer main constructed in the vicinity of East Valley Highway and 80th Place South. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3G) Terra Warehouse - Late Comer Agreement. AUTHORIZATION for staff to prepare, and for the Public Works Director to sign a late comer agreement for a water main con- structed in the vicinity of 80th Avenue South and South 208th Street. - 5 - February 2, 1988 WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3H) Water Utility Telemetering. AUTHORIZATION to establish a budget in the amount of $150 ,000 for the completion of the Water Utility Telemetering System, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. Funds will come from the Unemcumbered Water Utility Funds. RECYCLING Residential Recycling Program. This date has been established for the continuation of a public hearing opened on January 19 for the purpose of receiving public input on the advisability of conducting a residential recycling program. Comments on such matters as to the appropriateness of conducting such a program, the advis- ability of subsidizing a recycling program, and the degree to which such a program would be utilized are in order. Mayor Pro Tem White opened the public hearing. Biteman read a letter from N. G. Nelson supporting the recycl- ing program and urging adoption of such a service. Doug Hendrickson of Valley Recycling stated that his firm had been recycling in Kent for 13 years and cur- rently is handling 225 tons per month at no cost to the _ taxpayer. He proposed a multi-material drop site pro- gram which would available to all, not just single family residences and he noted that drop sites could also benefit charitable organizations . He stated that at the current cost of $1500 per month for 600 homes , it would cost $132 , 000 for 4500 homes , and therefore a curbside program is not the best method to accomplish the recycling goal. He submitted a letter, which was filed for the record, along with the Nelson letter and one submitted by Myron Harr. Don Knapp spoke in favor of the recycling program, noting that it should have been in progress long ago. Tom Sharp stated that he would like to have apartment com- plexes included in a recycling program and noted that Strattford Arms and Colonial Square would be willing to participate on a voluntary basis. Myron Harr showed slides of various areas in the city where all kinds of trash had been strewn about. He noted that Redmond had a group of senior volunteers supervising a recycling program which was formed with the help of King County. He showed slides of the small, efficient facility which received the recyclable items . 6 - February 2, 1988 RECYCLING JOHNSON MOVED that the public hearing be closed and that the matter be referred to the Public Works Committee for -_ further study and recommendation. Houser seconded. White noted that recycling and resource recovery would be on the agenda for the workshop scheduled for Tuesday, February 9 at 7: 00 p.m. The motion carried. EQUIPMENT (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 31 ) RENTAL Sale of Surplus Police Vehicle. AUTHORIZATION to declare Unit 316 as surplus and to sell same to the City of Morton for $1 , 150, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3J) Sale of Surplus Vehicles. AUTHORIZATION to declare the following 15 vehicles as surplus and to sell same at the State auction: Nos. 8, 19, 27, 40, 45, 50, 62, 350, 355 , 356 , 357, 358, 382 , 383 and 742, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. CABLE TV (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3C) Renewal of CATV Administration Contract. AUTHORIZATION to renew the annual contract with 3-H Cable Communications Consultants to provide CATV administrative and technical services to the City. APPOINTMENTS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3D) Human Services Commission. CONFIRMATION of the Mayor ' s appointments: John Pardo to replace Mary Ann Burns. This term expires January 1 , 1991 . " Carolyn Byrne as a non-voting representative of a human services agency. This is a one-year term and will expire January 1 , 1989. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3P) Library Board. CONFIRMATION of the Mayor ' s appointment of Morgan Llewellyn to replace Jack Meredith on the Library Board. This term expires December 31 , 1992 . ARTS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3M) COMMISSION REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOWELL 1988 City Art Plan. APPROVAL of a five year plan for the acquisition and development of visual arts projects for 1988-1992 , as recommended by the Arts Commission and the Parks Committee. Dowell noted that due to a conflict of interest, he would abstain from voting. JOHNSON MOVED to adopt Item M. Biteman seconded and the motion carried, with Dowell abstaining. - 7 - February 2, 1988 PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3N) - RECREATION Kent Commons Remodel. AUTHORIZATION to spend approxi- mately $50,000 in 1988 Kent Parks Department unexpended balance to remodel the Kent Commons Game Room into office spaces for the Recreation Division. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 30) Staff Reorganization - Parks Department. APPROVAL of the Parks & Recreation Department staff reorganization as presented to the Parks Committee on January 27. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3B) Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through February 8, 1988, after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 8: 00 a.m. on February 16, 1988. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 12/28-12/31/87 56567-56571 56574- 56599 12/32/87 56903,56898,56899,56905 $ 93,739.09 56923-57275 $580,010.48 $673,749.57 " 12/28/87-1/12/88 56572-56573 56900-56904. 56906 $ 39,389.39 1/15/88 57276-57401 $ 32,147.18 .... $ 71.536.57 Approval of checks issued for payroll: Date Check Numbers Amount 12/20/87 99529-99531 Replacement Checks 1/5/88 99532-100092 $573,820.05 - COUNCIL Council President. White announced that there will be COMMITTEES a workshop meeting on Tuesday, February 9 , at 7: 00 p.m. Subjects to be discussed will be recycling, transport- ation systems management and Parks Department video production. White noted that the Parks Department had requested Centennial that a Councilmember be assigned to serve on the Arts Logo Selection Jury for the Centennial logo competition. He asked that interested members advise him. Planning White noted that if there were no objections , he would Commission forward the letter from Planning Commissioner Badger to the Planning Committee. No objection were made. 8 - February 2 , 1988 COUNCIL Mann noted that he had also visited the Minneapolis COMMITTEES plant and would add a few remarks to those already filed _ by Biteman. He pointed out that all of the recycling, 400 tons per day, was done at the plant. As it travels along a conveyer, the garbage is sorted and 90% of it Resource is changed to useful material and is sold for a profit. Recovery The cost to the hauler is a tipping fee of $48 to $50 , which amount is guaranteed against an increase for 25 years. Mann concluded that with such an operation there would be no need for curbside recycling programs , or for subsidy or for incineration. He suggested that this option should be considered, and he showed some of the by-products from the recovery plant. Council Committee meeting dates have been established as follows : Operations: 1st and 15th of each month at 8: 30 a.m. in the 2nd floor conference room. Planning: First and third Tuesday of each month at 4: 00 p.m. in the 2nd floor conference room. Public Safety: Second Tuesday of each month at 8: 00 a.m. in the 2nd floor conference room. Public Works: Second and fourth Tuesday of each month at 4 : 00 p.m. in the Engineering Building conference room. Parks : Fourth Wednesday of each month at 4 : 00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, with a meeting scheduled for February 24 in the Courtroom. EXECUTIVE At 8: 35 p.m. , at the request of the City Administrator, SESSION the Council adjourned to an executive session to last approximately 15 minutes for the purpose of discussing a complaint about a City employee. ADJOURNMENT At 8: 50 p.m. , the Council reconvened and then adjourned. Marie Jensen City Clerk - 9 - t GL�v" Kent City Council Meeting (, Date February 16, 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: SEATTLE - KING COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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 10¢ 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 . 3 . EXHIBITS : Letter 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Kent Economic Development Corporation (Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc. ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $3 ,009 .00 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Kent Economic Development Corporation Funds 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds - DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3C - rrrr Seattle•Kln Count 2510 Columbia Center rrrrr g Y rrrrr Economic Development rrrrr Fi�Fe 701FifthAvenue ji Seattle,Washington98104 rrrr Council JAN 19 0 (206)386-5040 CI PYqDM�N�sjg1988 OFFICERS January 13, 1988 i Chairman RI V.GIBBS.Senior Vice Presider: Nonhvad I%,vic,Mana,er CII2M[fill Firs:Vice Chairman LOVIS N.PEPPF.R,Chairmm R CIO mud Saving Bank Mr. Brent McFall WaaAinpon M Second Vice Chal:man City Administrator OIIN0 MAN(ELS,ChannOn Rome,Bancorp The City of Kent "AD(In( 220 Fourth - Avenue South rl-rvnrn•F.A.rennDl m sirr:n.KinVnc11ylln Kent, 9 5895 Vvc I•resiacm DAVID A.911 L • ScaNnKin,County Cl W Series, Dear Mr McFall : DORL:EN MARCIIIONE.Mayor + City of Redmnnd dkca,nrer Enclosed is the Seattle—King County Economic Development PAUL HARDEN,Member Kin,Coum,Council Council ' s new 1988 Public Sector Services Agreement with par,`h . &CFO It reflects many of the same programs that we shared 1O11N W.FLLIS.CS arman CF. Kent. ru,e(SmmdPnv,rRLl,htCo. with you in 1987 while adding several new priorities for nlREcmR.r . TEIpM I.ABF.RCRUMRIE,Pre,ide^t 1988. A number of these have special benefit for the local N°'�ln.,Ilan'nl i°k.rle communities of King County. For example they include legis— IENRY.M.ARON50N,(bmm..,inre, Ihulnl Seolre lative initiatives to fund the public costs of development OF GKFORD.Ptnnll",Senett",Kin,(S,umv l;iMa GmnCJ and special forums for communities on identifying and estab— (ARYIiIA-NAN,Mm,n lishing local area development strategies. Cityof Bellevue FOI SEG.COI'i'IV.Vice President am IAvdrs.The Preen,Company Your 1988 membership amount is based on your recent popula— RI ONU B.FIIRGUSON,Dnenor In:iRcl.lmm&AdirtimmWIt tion increase through April 1987 reflecting a total city MiaFRALD,:resent population of 30, 090 and our formula of $0. 10 per resident `'•"p:rill J.FITZtiif BALD,President Vuad,an,Cmp,rslwo living within your jurisdiction. This yields the suggested AN GIBNS,Laecutive Director Mon, 1988 amount of $3, 00 NOT A IIFNIIP.RSON.limanrva Via Wm A Man+,er.Sc=hirtl('Oqun..ln n. IIMIIILI. We . will look forward to keeping you fully informed in the Kin,Co..(,F.,ecu:ive RIIONDA I II LYER.P¢,idem months ahead through our various publications and forums . - '48mUnWeLlbnel,ResOnram F.n+rlmee, AI'LCIO You are important to us and your views are appreciated. Imun:mm�d. UR IONI Pit('IIUI'li,berm nl hn Hu.meca&I.cpnnmrcv Seunlr lS,ilic Upivti Please feel free to contact me or EDC' s vice president , David E4.,r.8E111 KUN ememri.en KLPIeswce: C al Bell, at 386-5040• g year We will be available throughout the c. . 11IIY LLIS LASIIn iF91'...weird,^: to answer questions and assist Kent in any way possible . IAMF.S C.I'Iti(yI1'.Mmdem M.R."S. Thank you for your continuing support and participation, FReD POE.rre,idem Poe Construction Commmy Your partnership is essential . 'ILI'-4 C.PONTIUS,Vice Pre,ahm Neat Re,am.G lacier rrrl Company r. ROD PROCTOR."idea, i n c e r e l y, Tone Commander System, 1' BILL REAMS,Member `'•' Kin,Cmnty Cuurmil NORMAND.RICE,Memhee ' •,� Sc ode City Council CIIARLCS RUI'I`R,Mryor Penelo A. Peabody CITY Of$n11I< DOLORES SIBONGA,Member Preside Seattle City Coursed %M ES A.THORPE,Chairman ... GARY VAN DVSEN,Mayor Cdyuf Tukvaa I EOaOE A.WALKER,Vice President I�•' lime k lMlso,"acilie Hemi veal Bell Irr yry DANIEL 11.WICK,Artner iy t• Antic Andersen R C. IIM WRIGHT,Commissioner - Ponof&aBle Le41 ComseI CRIS F CRUMBAUGN Kent City Council Meeting Date February 16, 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: INCREASE IN PENALTIES FOR MISDEMEANOR VIOLATIONS - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As authorized by the 1986 Legislature, adoption of Ordinance increasing penalties for misdemeanor violations from 6 to 12 months in jail and from $500 to $5. 000 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee, February 9 , 1988 (Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: - Councilmember moves , Councilmember seconds ° DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No . 3D ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, referring to penalties for violations, increasing penalties for violations and amending Section 9.02.108 of the Kent City Code. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 . Kent City Code Section 9.02.108 is amended as follows: 9.02.108. PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS. Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, any person violating any section of this Chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine not to exceed five ( (h,&ndr-ed-) ) thousand .,, dollars or by imprisonment not to exceed ( (ar)H ) twelve months or by both such fine and imprisonment. (0.1960, 527; 0. 2314, Sl; 0.2384, S1) Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK Kent City Council Meeting Date February 16, 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE CONTRIBUTIONS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acknowledgment of contributions to the Task Force Youth Conference totaling $660 from Jack Meredith Motors Puget Sound National Bank Kent Area Council PTA Rl Anderson Agency � 1 Kiwanis Club of Kent Gwen L. Whipple 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 . 3E . ............... Kent City Council Meeting Date February 16 , 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: ANDERSON COMMERCIAL CENTER 01 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept for continuous operation and the bill of sale andwarranty agree nem�tq for 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. 3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves , Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3F ir 1• , t'11 ' 1. ^• C '� rK1 ^l' rt Q ��r. a:,, R. \ � t Z �`- ! S 2 11711 OU - IIl1ITll tT ( ( It TH •}, - 1 ,.�I. J ,�f�c�(,l ,f••) )l: �> [MRI H I': •!s•!` r ,t v���(J�l' 1.•{+1.1►w',+ .� .r"'C �,i.J,� ,. `� vr:' V CREEK� y � 4 J ! , aVr Ifni f' r '�' I •, L ' _ f: r':a } .' 1•r fl.�t 1 -1�t.• `,,.�nr ,��.t__� — —IU j': 2 S1.C� d3',lt�� b,C'�,.;�:'1,' i`l1 .-ur6r r>'• o aT, a 7 }3- i-h rrw` •-1 r �.•( ♦ ,Y�17`'`} "� �r C.. ?I� 11�''r.`} �. 71 0� Q; ` —T .RfD Wt ,,� �,A.li ><f' 1,.,,e 4;:, ',,:,�- �{ii,"��. �� S 222nD 'Sf �%�.'� \ • r �1. os R Tat j'�T ,1.,�•1 r {'''T. r i :.,'. t.'�1.... .'c♦!.{•• A,�/' • , t�sv,• �� ; - - �� , i lT ♦ `�l.• .1�. �•;_^I ri '/Hl hi I M1l •l, r r y I{ ! •�{+'J�t...7ja: � I _ r i ,-.. �t�w '�;rt�}r, rl,,. k t',�1Y�'03.��.'R_'f,�7' i l'f'�'}�f� ' ` '' �•,� � ;31`rl. I a v _ rl F 0 � (�•fft.iS.r { L,a, � YJ1�.S,r �. y�ilnr �r,4.1a� •' ,. , is l•t ',�:i�-w. .•�.�� 1 I• . .+ �� Jq • ��':.. r7. !�J • 71#�� / r"1'��� ��jT��T��f`1• 1 � •'f'ti1 �,•i;j' i'` r t 14 '' � `x ! �'7'. t ' r '►. . u �t� S 220TH ST u S. 221TH ST N s 22 22 > ;l _ - _ - 1 ; N '1 :: .:S rTlrt:, ' x pa0 t" LTa , !+ I per, S I31ST S. i� t S 2a Ho $T S I]ND S Y `.',. rt- `.-{` `�Q - , .r v � z;;• '�••% � (, 110vrtK � t•;�1 �1 � ?• .•, O rw t t••.rt} � �,•1' �Y �C '. I �./� �1 � t ,�, l�. : 1`• , 1 ` .!. /L/_ ./ 1 •r - 3, TT - .• >L' y' 33�Tf1 11 ! MCHT MORf/L �i!MX 7' r^� i. `� . �i 7� 1 zz �Yf_• / J.n, ,• t s F �` 4 ( , '� z t IKTH L r":3 cc)LE ;r _ — -1 COLE GT ._.:_ ! G i. ,;. VICINITY MAP ANDERSON COMMERCIAL CENTER Kent CityCouncil Meeting _.. 1 8Date February 16, 198 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: RECLASSIFICATION - TEAMSTER' S BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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. ` 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Mike Webby 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee, February 16 1988 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Approximately $550 per month SOURCE OF FUNDS: Funds provided in the respective Operating Budget 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves , Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3G MEMORANDUM DATE: February 10, 1988 TO: Mayor Kelleher Councilmembers FROM: Mi ebby, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: RECLASSIFICATION - TEAMSTER'S BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES The purpose of this memorandum is to discuss the reclassification of a number of employees in our Public Works, Operations Division. These employees are members of the Teamster's Bargaining Unit and by Policy are eligible for reclassification as are our non-represented staff. The employees listed in Appendix "A" of this report have been considered for reclassification within the parameters of our Collective Bargaining Agreement. The requests were submitted to the Personnel Department in December, 1987. Staff reviewed and analyzed the requests and has recommended the action described in Appendix "A". The salary cost of the recommendation is approximately $550 per month, which if approved will be funded from the Department's 1988 Budget. The recommendation will be reviewed by the Operations Committee at its meeting on February 16, 1988. The effective date of the recommended reclassifications will be March 1, 1988 with no retroactivity. If for any reason the Operations Committee determines the recommendation should not be approved at this time, the item will be removed from the Calendar prior to Council action. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this item, please contact me prior to Tuesday evening's Council meeting. 2055W-30W O O w O C rD ...,. 4 a � a w E r N r -�• •s 1 (l r+ W 3 3 O o o s s = _ = s E (D -1 -1 - rt x x 7r r r In C) C7 3 o C) E C) CDo -- tn w w 0 o -1 m ma (D -1-I -+• -i C m m m m < c r+ -s m`•-1 -s -s (A r-+ -s w x Al w w to m o c+ o r+ C+ C+ J. w O N O O = s s O O n O (D 7 O 7 n m (n to to y (D = 1 1 1 I r+ (N z: m e+ w (D (D (D -Y c+ w 3 G7 W 'p f. H rD O w 7C (D w -+• 9 n U3 -I =5 m :3 d �1 C to 77 =3 a 3 x m v v 3 c a' o c m cn m to (D Ln m v 0 a r t/1 t-F b J• EA m O 'f r+ O w to J. O C+• 3 0 m S —+ 'O a 3 T E 3 0 3 o c C C O C7 m in E w E v E o r+ r+ r+v C "I IA H H '1 H (D H (D (D *1 (n J. H H (D H -1 H *1 "S "1 O (A ►•+ H S H w H w J. J. J. w (D a c o o t'�c o (C+• 3 C+ rrDD N to V1 .:E:, z w H m m (DD to m u+ w w w m 0 !< < VI N Vf r+ rt r+ H H H H 3 C-) DE rx -I co co 3r 'v E O to w m m -1 C+v r+ O E m "1 .-� cr =3 m Cl O• w - -1 -+ -s G 0. H -1 r+ S J. t+ J. w J. w O ... o o E n n C+ r+ C+ r+ E v+ c o J. m t< o t< o o m CA cm) � m � N C+ N� N� 7 •< Z7 -1 'V -1 m m -5 0 ... r+ c m m 0 n H (D -s to C) J. s c� C+ w w r+ m (A n (A (n (� J. Cl. J. r+ r+ .. =3 m w • to :3 H H H H (n n 49 N -b9 N bq N •b4 N AA N •(A N b9 N b9 N w C N O N4� N 41- N •? N •A -+ O -+ O N A -•+ -1 m m m o C) cm) co - m w -S C) w w 00 14 w z m 0 0 o to to to to 0 7 Cn C+ b9 N 4A N -b9 N b9 N b9 N b9 N i9 N w 'Y N V ---+ O v v cm) C-) co m v w _0L.3 W N N to tD w 'S O Cn Cn .A ? OD 00 (n (n Cn w N N Cn Cn Cn m CL C+ w v n tw+ o w o to -1 O J.-1 -h _., O o a o m iA I bq -A w C+ v < ace cn m z =- o m (D P- to (n VI to to to Ln -1 t< - �. n a a co co A .a. -P. m t< r+ -h m (n (n n J. 0 c. J. m 0 -s -h ............. Kent City Council Meeting Date February 16 , 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: DIGITAL MAPPING PROGRAM 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the ublic Works Committee, authorization for the Mayor to sign greement with Weston Inc . for services to provide updated data for the City' s Automated Mapping System. Funds have been approved in the 1988 Budget. 3 . EXHIBITS : Excerpt from Public Works Committee Minutes of February 9 . 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc . ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: •• Councilmember moves , Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3H Public Works Committee February 9, 1988 Page 3 Tri-State Agreement - Springbrook Interceptor Wickstrom explained that Tri-State Construction has property on 192nd with direct frontage on Springbrook Interceptor. This agreement would allow Tri-State to connect into the Interceptor and become customer of the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. The Committee unanimously approved the request. Union Pacific Proposal Wickstrom explained that Union Pacific Realty owns property in the vicinity of 200th. We have determined that a corner of this property will be needed for right of way for the 192nd/196th Corridor. Union Pacific has a buyer for the property but is _•, willing to reserve the portion needed for the right of way and sell it to the City. The price quoted is what they have sold the remainder for. Wickstrom stated he would propose to reallocate the needed funds ( $48 , 500) from the 277th Acquisition funds and reimburse that fund from the sale of any street rights of way from future street vacation processes . The Committee unanimously approved the purchase of the property. Establish Meeting Dates/Time Johnson asked the Committee members if the second and fourth Tuesday of the month at 4 : 00 is a convenient time for the Committee meeting. The Committee concurred. Digital Mapping Program Gill presented a proposal from Weston, Inc. for the next phase of the City's automated mapping program. This proposal will provide new aerial photos of the City and data developed from same which will be used to update the on-line mapping system. The funds have been approved in the 1988 budget. The Committee unanimously recommended approval for the Mayor to sign the agreement. Other Items Johnson added the owner of the Cake Box had contacted him about the No Parking sign in the alley behind the business. Driscoll stated he had contacted her also and she is investigating the matter. Woods commented she had reviewed the four-way stop at 2nd and Meeker and other intersections in downtown with the CBD Task Force and they were receptive to the idea. Kent City Council Meeting Date February 16, 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1 1. SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF PROPERTY - SOUTH 196TH STREET 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, authorization to transfer $48 , 500 from the 272nd/277th corridor advanced right-of-way acquisition fund to the So . 196th corridor 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 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Letter from Union Pacific Realty, excerpt from Public Works Committee Minutes of February 9 . 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc . ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: • Councilmember moves , Councilmember seconds '- DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3I Public Works Committee February 9, 1988 Page 3 Tri-State Agreement - Springbrook Interceptor Wickstrom explained that Tri-State Construction has property on 192nd with direct frontage on Springbrook Interceptor. This agreement would allow Tri-State to connect into the Interceptor and become customer of the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. The Committee unanimously approved the request. j Union Pacific Proposal Wickstrom explained that Union Pacific Realty owns property in the vicinity of 200th. We have determined that a corner of this property will be needed for right of way for the 192nd/196th Corridor. Union Pacific has a buyer for the property but is -• willing to reserve the portion needed for the right of way and sell it to the City. The price quoted is what they have sold the remainder for. Wickstrom stated he would propose to reallocate the needed funds ( $48 , 500) from the 277th Acquisition funds and reimburse that fund from the sale of any street rights of way from future street vacation processes . The Committee unanimously approved the purchase of the property. Establish Meeting Dates/Time Johnson asked the Committee members if the second and fourth Tuesday of the month at 4: 00 is a convenient time for the Committee meeting. The Committee concurred. Digital Mapping Program Gill presented a proposal from Weston, Inc. for the next phase of the City's automated mapping program. This proposal will provide new aerial photos of the City and data developed from same which will be used to update the on-line mapping system. The funds have been approved in the 1988 budget. The Committee unanimously recommended approval for the Mayor to sign the agreement. Other Items Johnson added the owner of the Cake Box had contacted him about the No Parking sign in the alley behind the business. Driscoll stated he had contacted her also and she is investigating the matter. Woods commented she had reviewed the four-way stop at 2nd and Meeker and other intersections in downtown with the CBD Task Force "' and they were receptive to the idea. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS February 41 1988 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom W RE: Union Pacific Proposal for Conveyence of Land As you can see from the attached, Union Pacific Realty Company is proposing to convey property fronting on S. 196th Street to the City of Kent. This property is critical per the construction of the bridge over the Green River associated with the 200th/196th/192nd Corridor project. Of the three options presented in their proposal, I recommend the cash purchase option. While the West Valley Highway vacation option has potential it is premature. Only after the final assessment roll per the West Valley Highway L. I . D. has been confirmed would I then be willing to support such a vacation. I propose that funds for this acquisition be taken from the 277th Corridor project fund. I would also recommend that the 277th Acquisition fund be reimbursed from moneys collected from any street vacation presently in the process or in the future. In fact, I recommend that all funds collected from street vacations go towards funding of the corridor projects. UNION PACIFIC REALTY COMPANY Ted F Knapp A Subsidiary of Director Union Pacific Corporation Real Estate Operations vs- January 29, 1988 FEB � Mr. Don Wickstrom Public Works Director City of Kent " 220 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 RE: Proposed conveyance of land to the City of Kent near the Green River for the extension of So. 196th Street. Dear Don: As we have discussed, Union Pacific Realty has a sale pending for Lot 21, Block 1 in Southcenter Corporate Park. This lot fronts on So. 196th Street and as I understand it, the City will need a small portion of the lot for the 196th Street corridor project. We are willing to convey the necessary right-of-way to Kent based on fair market value. You have advised that the City does not currently have the funds necessary for such an acquisition. " Obviously we will work with the City to arrange a fair method for the acquisition, but it needs to be resolved soon so as not to hold up our purchaser's construction schedule. You have asked me to provide you with some alternative methods of acquisition that we would be willing to pursue. The general terms and conditions of sale as well as several funding options are outlined below: A) Sale Parcel - The sale parcel is outlined on the attached print. The City will also acquire a slope easement which is also shown on the attachment. Both are described on the attached descriptions. B) Purchase Price - Purchase Price shall be $48 , 030 . 00 calculated as follows: Fee Parcel - 9, 693 sq. ft. @ $4 . 00/sq. ft. = $38,772 . 00 Slope Easement - 4 , 629 sq. ft. @ $2 . 00/sq. ft. = $-9_258_00 Total $48 , 030.00 Note: The purchaser of Lot 21 is paying $4 . 00 per square 16400 Southcenter Parkway Suile 305,Southcenter Place S,raillc Jukwdaf,WA 98I88 206 575 4620 foot for the unencumbered property and $2 . 00 per square foot for the slope easement. C) Payment of Purchase Price - Listed below are several alternatives for you to consider. They are listed in the order of the highest preference to us. 1. All cash at closing. 2 . Trade this property for the U-turn pocket at the intersection of S. 228th St. and the West Valley Highway. The values of each parcel may not be equal as we would be acquiring more property than we are selling. Payment of any additional consideration would be made at closing. I realize that there may be a question of title as to who actually owns this parcel and what procedure would be necessary to convey it to UPRC. If this can be satisfactorily resolved, a trade of this nature would be of great interest to us. 3 . Convey the property in 1988 to the City under a Note and Deed of Trust. The Note will call for one payment due in January of 1989 . Interest would be at 10 percent and no money down would be required. The intent is to allow you to budget for the acquisition later this year for payment in 1989. D) Closing - Closing shall occur prior to June 15, 1988 , however, in order not to delay our pending transaction we need a commitment by the City to one of the above scenarios prior to March 1. Don, the above generally outlines some approaches we are willing to pursue. Please advise what course of action you prefer. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Ted F. Knapp Director-Real Estate Operations TFK/dmd Attachments CV l o d " —C . O � C % Q G e � � � � � o //� c a -c N.a -- O y ,` e M e a 'A 'A y � i 6Z� py 9e L� y JJ . .�a -� Vr jCD po tic? '�• �' �ti roll S O e U 4 � i lbc�� N �Cp Sri H o 00 Q1 in . L^ N. o3�0 t f Ep i 3 O Lk M UPLAND •Suovour a Upon PWjC Caoor~ ., Southcenter Corporate Park Kent, King County, Washington Street right of way to be conveyed to City of Kent shaded . . . . . . . Cut, Fill & Slope Easement to be conveyed to City of Kent shaded . . . S- EXHIBIT A UPLAND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ��JJJ c. r7c C7'7c7 �� Lt.Lc, Washington August 1(1, 1987 Kent City Council Meeting Date February 16, 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: TRI-STATE AGREEMENT - SEWER SERVICE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, authorization for the Mayor to sign agreement allowing Tri-State Construction to connect to the Spring Brook Interceptor and receive sewer service from the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from the Public Works Committee Meeting of February 9 and a vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc . ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves , Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3J Public Works Committee February 9, 1988 Page 3 Tri-State Agreement - Springbrook Interceptor Wickstrom explained that Tri-State Construction has property on 192nd with direct frontage on Springbrook Interceptor. This agreement would allow Tri-State to connect into the Interceptor and become customer of the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. The Committee unanimously approved the request. Union Pacific Proposal Wickstrom explained that Union Pacific Realty owns property in the vicinity of 200th. We have determined that a corner of this property will be needed for right of way for the 192nd/196th Corridor. Union Pacific has a buyer for the property but is - willing to reserve the portion needed for the right of way and sell it to the City. The price quoted is what they have sold the remainder for. Wickstrom stated he would propose to reallocate the needed funds ($48 , 500) from the 277th Acquisition funds and reimburse that fund from the sale of any street rights of way from future street vacation processes. The Committee unanimously approved the purchase of the property. Establish Meeting Dates/Time Johnson asked the Committee members if the second and fourth Tuesday of the month at 4 : 00 is a convenient time for the Committee meeting. The Committee concurred. Digital Mapping Program Gill presented a proposal from Weston, Inc. for the next phase of the City's automated mapping program. This proposal will provide new aerial photos of the City and data developed from same which will be used to update the on-line mapping system. The funds have been approved in the 1988 budget. The Committee unanimously recommended approval for the Mayor to sign the agreement. Other Items Johnson added the owner of the Cake Box had contacted him about the No Parking sign in the alley behind the business. Driscoll stated he had contacted her also and she is investigating the matter. Woods commented she had reviewed the four-way stop at 2nd and Meeker and other intersections in downtown with the CBD Task Force and they were receptive to the idea. O O� G Z N O� (hd) ()Ad)3S H W —�' 3AV HIO II I _ y y - S = O ~O y~j � O � J N , W W a y y 3S 3AV �H190I i 3S 3AV H190T aId 3S Id Y>* ~�- 3S 3Atl F• HILOT < �y Wa F W 3S 3S 3AV H190I Sao AO y y N 3AV H1901 (%Ad) 3S ld a20 ., wWI N N 3S 3AV H1901 N FJ H1901 w =Eld =FU °:a .�_ y y WpS Z JUl W ()M) 3S 3AV H1S0, yN aW y a S3Atl H1401 � ?' H190T 3S Id H1>OI 3S 3AV HIVOI H W y = 3S ld OLEOt 3S 3AV0 co O 0 2D3AV 3S3S 3Ayo J 3AV ONZOI 3AtlONZOT � WOyy3S 1SLO1 3S 3AV 1510T Wj! W m lrl 'I) yN J .1'. a ' 3S 3AV H100T 3S 3� I $ ld H166 N 0 S 3AV H N 0 0<-3 S 1d H186 F= y Yf I S 3AV H196 m Z 0 N S F (5wx 2 �a w y zlo W M o I" s yl L6 °'aJ N �6 3AV w y (S Oy S 3AV H196 o S 3Oyb80NIddS) N F S 3AV n Z H196 y = H156 N J 95TH my Z N y N S AVE S a y � y N = OD Y Y� 5 S 3AV 0NZ6 �D VALLEY FREEWAY � V) � y i w a wco z V) S 3AV H198 (' i\ 0 r N Q x S 3AV 1SIB • _,_.��,y\ N y + I � � pea"P1AsnPuI S 3Atl H108 I rA �_ a S 3AV H108 I / Kent City Council Meeting Date February 16 , 1988 Category Consent Calendar l 1. SUBJECT: TRAFFIC INFRACTION - AVOIDANCE OF INTERSECTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance a1 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 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee, February 9 , 1988 M, (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 II I I ORDINANCE NO. a t AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, referring to motor vehicle -• violations, adding Section 10.02.034 to Kent City Code prohibiting the avoidance of an intersection. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 . A new section is added to Kent City Code 10.02. as follows: 10.02.034 . THE AVOIDANCE OF INTERSECTION 1. It is unlawful for any person operating a motor vehicle on the highways of the City to turn such •-- vehicle either to the right or to the left upon approaching or leaving intersections and to proceed across any private property for the purpose of avoiding the intersection or any traffic control device controlling the intersection, unless so directed by lawful authority. 2. Penalty, any violation of KCC 10.02.034 shall be an infraction and punishable by monetary penalty of $47.00. Section 2. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and confirmed. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR Kent City Council Meeting Date February 16, 1988 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: ARTS COMMISSION APPOINTMENT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor ' s appointment of Marci Hobbs to the Arts Commission to fill the unexpired term of Sue Jones to October 1989 . 3 . EXHIBITS: 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: ,_. Councilmember moves , Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3L OFFICE OF THE MAYOR -.. DATE: February 8, 1988 TO: Jim White, Council President FROM: Dan Kelleher, Mayor SUBJECT: Arts Commission Appointment ---------------------------------------------------------------- I have appointed Marci Hobbs to fill the unexpired term which became vacant when Sue Jones resigned from the Commission. I submit this appointment for confirmation. � v Kent City Council Meeting Date February 16 , 1988 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: SUMMER WOODS REZONE NO. RZ-87-2 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been established for a public meeting to consider the Hearing Examiner ' s recommendation to deny an application 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. 3 . EXHIBITS : Memo, staff report, minutes , findings & µ recommendation 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner , October 7, 1987 (Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc . ) Denial . 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS : 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTIIOJN: Councilmember Jk'�') moves , Councilmember seconds to adopt the findings of Hearing Examiner and tw concur with the Hearing Examiner ' s recommendation of denial of Summer Woods rezone RZ-87-2 . DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 4A KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 10, 1988 MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director SUBJECT: SUMMER WOODS REZONE RZ-87-2 RECOMMENDATION FROM HEARING EXAMINER The Hearing Examiner heard the Summer Woods rezone application on August 19, 1987. This application was for a rezone from R1-7.2 (7,200 square foot minimum lots) to MRM (23 units per acre multifamily residential) . On October 7, 1987, the Hearing -.. Examiner recommended denial of the application. On October 21, 1987 , the applicant appealed the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation. On February 2, 1988, the applicant withdrew the appeal and this date has been set to consider the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of denial. JPH:ca February 5, 1988 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING The Kent City Council will be considering the Summer Woods Rezone #RZ-87-2 request at the regularly scheduled public meeting on Tuesday, February 16 , 1988 at 7: 00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, Council Chambers. There will be no public testimony. The City Council has the option to accept or deny the recommendations as set forth by the Hearing Examiner in findings issued October 7 , 1987. If the City Council deems that a change in the recommendation shall be made, the Council shall conduct a public hearing. #RZ-87-2 STUART STOVEN STEVEN ELKINS ARCH 610 MARKET ST #201 Marie Jens CMC KIRKLAND WA 98033 City Clerk #RZ-87-2 MILDRED SMYTH 11325 SE 240TH - KENT WA 98031 #RZ-87-2 MARTIN & MARY WELCH 11223 SE 240TH KENT WA 98031 #RZ-87-2 LEONA ORR 24090 114TH AVE SE KENT WA 98031 #RZ-87-2 MYRON L VIGOREN 11208 SE 244TH KENT WA 98031 JACK NELSON w 601 WEST GOWE KENT WA 98032 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT FILE NO: SUMMER WOODS #RZ-87-2 APPLICANT: STEVEN P. ELKINS ARCHITECTS REQUEST: A request to rezone 9.28 acres from R1-7.21 Single Family Residential (minimum lot size 7, 200 square feet) , to MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential. LOCATION: The subject property is located on the south side of SE 240th Street, directly east of 112th Avenue SE. APPLICATION FILED: May 1, 1987 DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE: July 12, 1987 RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: October 7, 1987 RECOMMENDATION: DENIED STAFF REPRESENTATIVES : Jim Hansen, Planning Department Kathy McClung, Planning Department Dan Stroh, Planning Department Gary Gill, Public i'7;.rks Department PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Stuart Stovin, applicant Jack Nelson, representing applicant Other Comments Mark Welch Leona Orr Myron Degoren (ViGoren) Bill Carey WRITTEN TESTIMONY: None INTRODUCTION T After due consideration of the evidence presented by the applicant, all evidence elicited during the public hearing, and as a result of the personal inspection of the subject property by the Hearing Examiner, the following findings of fact and conclusions shall constitute the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner on this application. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant, Steven P. Elkins Architects, requests a rezone of a 9.2 acre parcel from R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Residential, to MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential. 1 Findings and Recommendation Summer woods #RZ-87-2 2 . The subject property is located on the south side of SE 240th Street, directly east of 112th Avenue SE. The applicant's proposal is for a 168-unit apartment complex. The current density permit with the R1-7.2, Single Family Residential, zoning is 55 units. Thus, the applicant's proposal results in a 200 percent use &4r 3 . The site was annexed into the City in 1984 as part of the Rowely Annexation #4 . The initial zoning on the site was R1-7 . 2 . The subject property is currently occupied by two older single-family residential structures. Currently, the land is covered with pasture grasses and grazing cows. 4 . Directly east and south are large lot single-family residences of rural character. To the north of the site is SE 240th and a church is situated at the northeast corner of 112th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street. There is a new apartment complex to the west of the site which is an exception to the development in the vicinity which consists of large lots and generally rural development. 5. The site would have access to SE 240th Street via 112th Avenue SE. The average daily traffic count currently on SE 240th Street is 16, 100 vehicle trips per day and it is improved with two-lanes of asphalt paving, curb and gutter, storm water drainage, sidewalks, street lighting, and is classified as a major arterial. The proposed development would generate an estimated 11109 daily vehicle trips with 101 peak hour trips. All of these 101 peak hour trips would pass through the intersection of SE 240th Street and 104th Avenue SE. This intersection is at a current level of service "E/F" . The projected level of service is "F" as a result of increased traffic from the development and projected growth. 6. In the two-year period between 1984 and 1986, the vicinity of SE 240th Street between 104th and 116th Avenue SE experienced 17 traffic accidents involving property damage only, and ten accidents involving injury. The Police Department has recommended that a proposal such as this one which would generate considerable additional traffic not be permitted until such time as SE 240th Street is widened to four lanes. 7. There is water and sanitary sewer available to serve the subject site. 8 . There was some concern expressed by citizens concerning the impact which the development would have on what appears to be an inadequate storm water drainage system in the vicinity. 9 . The Comprehensive Plan Map and the East Hill Subarea Plan designate the subject site as SF6, Single Family Residential, 4-6 units per acre. 2 Findings and Recommendation Summer Woods #RZ-87-2 10. The staff report, with its recommendation of denial, is _. incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. CONCLUSIONS 1. The proponent of a rezone has the burden of proof and there is no presumption in favor of a rezone. The law requires that the proponent of the rezone prove that conditions have changed substantially since the initial zoning was placed on the site so as to justify the requested rezone. 2 . In this instance, the applicant has submitted no information which is persuasive and supports his request for a density increase of 200 percent above that which is permitted under the currently existing zoning. 3 . The only multifamily development in the immediate vicinity is the apartment complex to the west. However, the majority of land uses in the vicinity are of a rural, single-family residential character. A 168-unit apartment complex as proposed would be completely contrary to the other development in the vicinity. 4 . The application is contrary to the existing East Hill Plan. 5. Further, the Police Department has indicated a traffic safety hazard associated with the additional 11109 daily vehicle trips and 101 P.M. peak hour trips. RECOMMENDATION For each of the above reasons, the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner on the requested rezone is DENIAL. Dated this 7th day of October, 1987 . I � . � DIANE L. VANDERBEEK HEARING EXAMINER 3 Findings and Recommendation Summer Woods #RZ-87-2 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. 4 _, CITY Or KENT planning a. .•• lit:.:i:):� G:..\w:n'r. 1 .._t ••• •• ��.{� lKOli•wYJ•rwNO21i1 Hv1w als 1 4 i I !•i"I m r"1 R��� _$ .� �a9 � .. f �3i` �eft. -; , .� ETA 1 ii i I�'�°�; ... w *•.w: 1 .^.. I f ) _ I '!fir 1! �.1� .� :: �ji� ggyp � �2: i• I I '�-L • � �`�� s 71 F- r , n l f, e ----------_- 1 HEARING EXAMINER LEGEND ' RECOMMENDATION — SUMMER WOODS #RZ-87-2 T SCALE — NOSCALEN 01 CITY OF KENT lannin ST x SE �a - SE 2315T PARK CAA ZW p••' SE 231ST 11 3 2314T \, .(� ST ZN ■SELIE CH LTARV �n u !T W 230THN .. O1 ST �) i PL 40 'Ff 232ND ST tw > �) . ND S 232ND ` E 232ND ST SE ••< E232N W k < ST SE. 232N0 In. 232ND 4j ST m �i 33 PL •' J x W T . �_ >:'T•. m !• SE 233RD n( 2 J � xSE •` J . y. x 35 TH 234TH SE 236TH ST AVE BSritdde N 236TH SE ST �9. tiN SE 236TH ►L yJg16r � �n6 SE 23 >TTH 3T � He3<rv0., R I%AN4. N (Pvc) (PvD m SE 239TH ST - © tyU i v w ST 18 17 i sE oTH sr 17 6 Ped O\wq EAST HILL 1 20 1 . IT ST m ELEMENTARY APGLICA-1IDDI ( I SCHOOL 1Tc 1 G 3 242ND L——--.1 ST n S 243RD Z w ji I SE 244TH N 1 D < O W f > m < � a ti I m P N w $ Ia6TM S, PL n ' . W N a a < 3 268TH ST SE 248TH � ST N C� I W e W t e > x .. F l ' a 152N °1 I S 252ND T - W F HO ST ✓v: i .... EAST HILL yo CENTER F'"ch SE 252NO ♦ ST — 1 N W W King FI<Id 515 W < 'W SE 2saTH a "Cdunry > _ ..., < < .police. 'PO KENT—MERIDIAN Z Z x W iSR.HI.SCHOOL Y > SE 256TH ST — ~ Ty> W 29 28 V.�1 3O N N N. ... v`•V ��4ii < $ < . / S.E. 371h. 6 _ 6T S Kf l:N II' Tj•..�,.� kEp `PAIIK.. �[/.. N W\ SE TAR SE SE 260TM ST n 260TH '�h S IC MILD ST SNTARY 100E \ \\ > HEARING EXAMINER rLECEND RECOMMENDATION Opp lisafion site 1r,1.,22„21 SUMMER WOODS #RZ-87-2 city limits ■ �» SCALE = VICINITY MAP 1�� = l000 • CITY OF KENT planning . moo '�` I' ° itrb a _. i , 210 TN ST. � rq f s +426. +fI2C.40 . •I +422.2 Q D © 425 V�`2O ° �fl o 0 0 \ D O F o o �� 1 ORCHA O , I. _ 0 00 l , S.E. y 0 I I .I II I 0 f I C) d I Q O I II I I I II �J 'R ' 000 0 0 \ +48111J HEARING EXAMINER LEGEND : RECOMMENDATION application site IFF F.FFFF FF FF FF SUMMER WOODS #RZ—E7-2 toning boundary SCALE = Z014ING / TOPOGRAPHY MAP 1 200 KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF AUGUST 19, 1987 FILE NO: SUMMER WOODS #RZ-87-2 APPLICANT: STEVEN P. ELKINS, ARCHITECTS REQUEST: A request to rezone 9.28 acres from R1- 7 .2, Single Family Residential (minimum lot size 7, 200 square feet) , to MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Location The subject property is located on the south side of -- SE 240th Street, directly east of 112th Avenue SE. B. Size of Property The site includes 9 . 28 acres, in . two parcels of 4. 64 acres each. C. Zoninct The site is currently zoned R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Residential. The minimum lot size in this district is 7, 200 square feet. D. Comprehensive Plan The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 1969. The goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan represent an expression of community intentions and aspirations concerning the future of Kent and the area within the Sphere of Interest. The Comprehensive -... Plan is used by the Mayor, City Council, City Administrator, Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner and City departments to guide growth , development, and spending decisions . Residents, land developers, business representatives and others may refer to the plan as a statement of the City's intentions concerning future development. The City of Kent has also adopted a number of subarea plans that address specific concerns of certain areas of the City. Like the City-wide Plan, the subarea plans serve as policy guides for future land use in the City of Kent. The East 1 Staff Report Summer Woods #RZ-87-2 Hill Subarea Plan Map designates the subject site as SF-6, Single Family, 4-6 units per acre. The following is a review of each of the above plans as they relate to the subject property. CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PUBLIC UTILITIES ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: PROVIDE A PLANNED, COORDINATED UTILITY SYSTEM. GOAL 1: Assure every household, industry and business an ample supply of high quality water at an adequate pressure. Objective 6: Finance and develop water systems based on planned development patterns and land use decisions. GOAL 2 : Provide for a planned, coordinated and efficient sanitary sewer system. Objective 3 : Finance and develop the sanitary sewer system based on planned development patterns and land decisions. GOAL 3 : Provide for a planned, coordinated and efficient storm drainage and retention system which respects and utilizes the natural drainage system. Objective 1: Complete and implement a comprehensive storm drainage plan encompassing both facilities and services. Planning Department Comments: As indicated above in the overall Comprehensive Plan, the City develops plans for water, sewer and storm drainage utility networks based on planned development patterns and land decisions. The projected land use intensities shown in the Zoning Ordinance and Map are a major component used in analyzing planned development patterns and the selected utility needs to be provided for. At the current zoning designation R1-7 .21 the subject 9 . 28 acres has a development potential of up to 55 housing units. At the MRM zoning designation, up to 213 units could be built on the same acreage. The applicant actually proposes 168 units. Even at 168 units, this is a 300 percent increase over the potential housing units under the current zoning. 2 Staff Report Summer Woods #RZ-87-2 The City's planned network of water, sewer and storm drainage utilities is designed to provide for utility needs in an orderly and systematic manner, based on the planned uses and intensities provided in the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. For the subject site, the proposed 300 percent increase in the number of housing units permitted could not be anticipated in planning and developing the utility network. Such a change is inconsistent with orderly planning for a coordinated and efficient utility system. 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. Objective 2 : Encourage the production of a variety of new dwelling units. Planning Department Comments A major distinction in "variety of housing units" used by the City Building Department, King County. Land Development Information System and other housing data sources is the distinction between single family and multifamily housing. The City's Zoning Ordinance is designed to provide an adequate supply of land in both the 'single family and multifamily categories for a balance of housing types. This is a particularly significant issue today, given that in recent years, new residential development within Kent has been almost exclusively dominated by multifamily construction. A recent report by the Planning Department documents that since 1970, the City's mix of housing types has shifted from 66 percent single family, 26 percent multifamily to today's 35 percent single family, 59 percent multifamily. Within recent years single family construction has not even kept pace with demolition of single family units. By contrast, multifamily numbers have been gaining at a prodigious rate. The rezone of nine acres from single family to multifamily would upset the balance which the City is attempting to achieve. The result would be a reduction of land supply in the single family zoning category and further constrains the development of new single family units. This would encourage the increasingly pronounced imbalance in the supply of multifamily vs. single family housing, and a reduction in housing choices available to Kent residents. The net effect of the rezone would be a reduction in the potential for a 3 Staff Report Summer Woods #RZ-87-2 variety of new housing' units, contrary to the above objective. The Comprehensive Plan objective relates to a resolution recently passed by the City Council. In December 1987, Council passed Resolution #1123 , stating its intent to achieve a 20 percent reduction of undeveloped multifamily land within the City. This resolution expresses the City's continued interest in achieving a balance of housing types within the City. EAST HILL PLAN The East Hill Subarea Plan also contains a number of policies to guide decisions. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOAL 3 : Establish and maintain the highest feasible level of service for East Hill. Obiective 1: Determine the minimum level of service. Policy 1: Develop a plan to obtain minimum level of service. - 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. Planning Department Comments The City's Master Transportation Plan, adopted by the City Council, utilizes the land use patterns of the Comprehensive Plan to develop projections on needed improvements in the _.. street system. These projections are carried through in an orderly manner to set priorities for improvements, and to develop an efficient street network. Cooperation among the City, King County and the State of Washington provides for coordination of the City's street network with feeder and receptor roadways. Systematic planning for the subject site at its current R1- 7 .2 zoning provides for a maximum potential of 363 additional vehicle trips per day, including 33 p.m. peak hour trips. The proposed development associated with the applicant's rezone request would result in an additional 1, 109 additional 4 Staff Report Summer Woods #RZ-87-2 vehicle trips per day with approximately 101 p.m. peak hour trips. This is over 800 additional daily vehicle trips above what could have been projected under the existing Comprehensive Plan on which the Transportation Plan is based. Further, these trips would occur on a busy major arterial " (SE 240th Street) and would impact an intersection that is already at Level of Service "E/F" . The Public Works Department projects that the proposed development and projected growth would cause this intersection, 104th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street, to become Level of Service "F" in the p.m. peak hour. Mitigation of this impact involving installation of additional turn lanes and other improvements is estimated to be $300, 000-400, 000. These traffic considerations are discussed further in the report. In summary, the existing road system in the vicinity of the proposal is not adequate to support the multifamily development which would result from the proposed rezone. Granting the rezone would not be in keeping with the City's orderly process for extending street improvements based on the projected land use patterns of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ENHANCE, THROUGH GOOD DESIGN, THE AESTHETIC QUALITIES OF THE NATURAL AND MANMADE ENVIRONMENT TO PROMOTE THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. GOAL 1: Development designed in harmony with the suburban/rural character of East Hill. Obiective 2 : Discourage development that would result in continued sprawl and disjointed growth. Planning Department Comments Through the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, the City attempts to encourage an orderly pattern of growth, and to discourage a disjointed, disorderly pattern of development. The Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan draw a boundary between single family and multifamily uses on the western boundary of the subject site. This area is also physically separated by 112th Avenue SE. Intrusion of the multifamily " use into the lower intensity, rural character properties to the east is not in keeping with the orderly pattern of development provided for in the above Ordinance and Plan. 5 Staff Report Summer Woods #RZ-87-2 II. HISTORY A. Site History The subject property was annexed into the City in 1984 as part of the Rowley Annexation #4 (Ordinance #2467) . The initial zoning of the site was R1-7.2, Single Family Residential, and is the current zoning designation. B. Area History The East Hill area of Kent is one of the fastest growing areas in King County. Multifamily residential development has been particularly rapid since 1980. Within the last eight and one-half years, 2, 849 multifamily units have been added to the East Hill Subarea of the City. A large additional number of multifamily units have been built in unincorporated properties of East Hill adjacent to the City. III. LAND USE The subject property is currently occupied by two older single family residences and accessory structures. The land is covered in pasture grasses with grazing cows on site. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing structures and to construct a 168-unit apartment complex. The lands adjacent to the site are in a mix of residential uses. Across 112th Avenue SE to the west of the site is the newly - constructed Royal Firs apartment complex which includes 186 units on 8.2 acres. Directly east and south are large lot single family residences of a rural character. To the north lies SE 240th Street. A church is situated at the northeast corner of 112th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street. Additional single family residences, including a mobile home, lie on large lots north of SE 240th Street across from the site. While the area is within the City limits, the large lots and low intensity land uses provide a generally rural character. The exception is the new apartment complex to the west of the site. 6 Staff Report Summer Woods #RZ-87-2 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS A. Environmental Assessment A Final Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on June 12, 1987 . A number of substantial environmental concerns were raised in the SEPA checklist review. These regard traffic impacts, drainage, effects on adjacent land uses, aesthetics and noise. The Determination stated that should the rezone be granted, a number of mitigating conditions should apply. Each of these is stated under specific subject areas of physical and social features below. B. Significant Physical Features Topography and Hydrology The property slopes moderately in a southwesterly direction toward a low area in the southwestern corner of the site. Elevations range from approximately 460 feet above sea level in the northeast to approximately 420 feet in the southwest, with a maximum slope of ten percent. A drainage swale bisects the western parcel, draining water which enters the site through a culvert below SE 240th Street. This swale empties into a drainage ditch directly south of the site. An area of ponded and standing water occurs in the low southwestern section of the site. A preliminary geotechnical report by the applicant's consultant identifies the apparent source of this water as runoff from the recent development directly west of the site (Royal Firs Apartments) . According to the report, such development has blocked the natural drainage flow from this low area. If the rezone is granted, the developer proposes grading to produce level building sites, and appropriate driving and parking areas. After construction, approximately 44 percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces. Storm water runoff will be controlled through a detention system, constructed per requirements of the Engineering Department. 7 Staff Report Summer Woods #RZ-87-2 Vegetation The site is covered with a mix of grasses and trees. Several trees surround the western residence, and a large group of deciduous trees occurs along the eastern property line. The applicant plans to remove most of the existing vegetation on site, preserving major trees identified on the site plan. This includes one 18-inch and one 24- inch deciduous tree. C. Significant Social Features Street System The site will have access to SE 240th Street via 112th Avenue SE. Southeast 240th street is classified as a major arterial. It has a public right-of-way width of 60 feet with 34 feet of surface paving. The street is improved with two lanes of asphalt paving, curb and gutter, storm water drainage, sidewalks and street lighting. The average daily traffic count is 16, 100 vehicle trips. One-Hundred Twelfth Avenue SE has a 30-foot right of way with 24-feet of paved surface. It has curb and gutter on one side only and lacks sidewalks and street lights. The proposed development will generate an estimated 1, 109 daily vehicle trips. This includes about 101 p.m. peak hour trips which will pass through the intersection of SE 240th street and 104th Avenue SE. The impact on this intersection occurs mainly in the p.m. peak hours. The current level of service is "E/F" . The projected level of service "F" is due to the increased traffic from the development and projected growth. The Police Department has raised related concerns _. relative to increased traffic congestion on SE 240th Street between 104th and 116th Avenue SE. In the years 1984-1986, this section of SE 240th Street experienced 17 accidents involving property damage only, and 10 accidents involving injury. This does not include anticipated increases in the accident rate generated by the new apartment complex directly west of the proposed site. The Police Department recommends that prior to allowing the rapid traffic increase generated by the proposal, SE 240th Street between 106th and 116th Avenue SE should be widened to four lanes. 8 Staff Report Summer Woods #RZ-87-2 Based on the proposed development's impacts on the City's Comprehensive Utility and Transportation Plans, the Public Works Department recommends denial of the proposal. In the event the rezone is approved, the Public Works Department recommends the following conditions: 1. The developer shall agree to participate in the formation of an LID to construct the S 224th/228th Street Corridor Project in order to mitigate the estimated 101 p.m. peak hour trips traveling east/west on SE 240th Street. Participation shall _. be based upon a proration of traffic generated by his center and the total traffic using the corridor. This condition shall be executed in the form of an environmental mitigation agreement. 2 . The developer shall construct 112th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street to City standards for the entire frontage thereon, and also provide temporary cul- de-sac (turn around) on 112th Avenue SE. 3 . In lieu of construction of SE 240th Street, the developer shall execute a no-protest LID• agreement for the future widening of SE 240th Street to include curb and gutter, sidewalks , street lighting, drainage and all other appurtenances. 4 . Execute a signal participation agreement for the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of 112th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street. Water System A 12-inch water main, located along SE 240th Street, is available to serve the subject property. An existing 8- inch water main is located along 112th Avenue SE. The Public Works Department forwards no recommendation for improvements of the existing water system. Sanitary Sewer System An eight-inch sewer, located at the northwest corner of 112th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street, is available to serve the subject site. The Public Works Department has not recommended any needed improvements associated with the proposal. 9 Staff Report Summer Woods #RZ-87-2 - Storm Water System As noted above, a low area near the southwestern property line is prone to ponding. An existing drainage swale bisects the western parcel of the site. Should the rezone be approved and a multifamily development is proposed, the Public Works Department notes that the developer must comply with City drainage requirements, through application of the following condition: 1. The developer shall provide offsetting storage for natural on-site ponding and maintain the natural drainage swale through the property. Landscaping The developer is proposing several 30-foot high apartment buildings adjacent to the eastern property line. Parking areas with carports and recreational vehicle parking is also proposed near the eastern boundary. In the event the rezone is approved, the following condition is designed to mitigate impacts on the single family residence situated directly east of the site. This condition was noted in the SEPA environmental review: 1. A six-foot-high, solid wood fence shall be placed on the east property line. In addition, landscaping consistent with Type II landscaping as outlined in the Kent Zoning Code shall be planted along the east property line. The fence and landscaping shall be located in such a way as to provide an adequate buffer between the proposed development and the adjacent single family residence. Aesthetics and Noise The proposed buildings on SE 240th Street will be set back only 20 feet from the major arterial. This is the minimum setback required by the Zoning Code. Given the large volume of daily traffic on the arterial, this minimum setback may well produce excessive noise levels within the dwelling units. While building elevations were not submitted with the rezone application, it appears from the site plan and 10 x. Staff Report Summer Woods #RZ-87-2 description that all structures are basically the same design. The lack of diversity in building structure and -,.. close proximity to the street are not compatible with the single family character of adjoining land uses to the north, south and east. In the event the rezone is approved, it is recommended that the developer refine the site and building design to address these noise and aesthetics concerns. LIDS' The subject property is not subject to any existing LIDS. Should the rezone be approved, the Public Works Department has recommended the imposition of conditions requiring participation in two traffic LIDs (discussed above) . V. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES The following departments and persons were advised of this rezone application: City Administrator City Attorney Director of Public Works Chief of Police Parks & Recreation Director Fire Chief Building Official City Clerk In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies within 200 feet of the site were notified of the application and of the August 19, 1987, public hearing. Staff reports have been included in the report were appropriate. VI. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW The Planning Department has reviewed this application in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, present zoning, land use, transportation and utilities, and comments from other departments and finds that: A. The Comprehensive Plan Map and East Hill Subarea Plan designate the subject site as SF-6 , Single Family Residential, 4-6 units per acre. The applicant proposes a multifamily development of 168 apartment dwellings. The rezone proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map. B. The site is currently zoned R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Residential (approximately six units per acre) . The proposal is to change the zoning to MRM, Medium Density Multifamily 11 Staff Report Summer Woods #RZ-87-2 Residential (up to 23 units per acre) . This is a major increase in intensity and density of land use. C. Land use in the immediate area is primarily residential. North, south and east of the subject site are large single family lots of a rural character. Immediately west of the site is a large apartment complex completed earlier this year. The proposed rezone and multifamily development are not in keeping with the large-lot, rural character of the uses surrounding the property on three sides. D. Through the Master Transportation Plan and subarea plans, the City utilizes the land use patterns of the Zoning Map and Comprehensive Plan Map to set priorities for street improvements, and to develop an efficient and orderly street network. Development of the subject site under current zoning would result in a maximum potential of 363 vehicle trips per day, including 33 p.m. peak hour trips. The proposal would generate an estimated 1, 109 daily vehicle trips, including 101 p.m. peak hour trips. This is over 800 daily vehicle trips beyond what could have been projected based on existing zoning. This increase would seriously harm the City's systematic transportation planning effort. E. The projected 1, 109 daily vehicle trips generated by the development coupled with this rezone would seriously impact the intersection of 104th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street. The - proposed development and projected growth would degrade this intersection to level of service "F" . Mitigation of this impact would cost -an estimated $3001000-$400, 000. F. In the years 1984-86, the section of SE 240th Street between 104th Avenue SE and 116th Avenue SE experienced 17 accidents involving property damage only, and an additional ten accidents involving personal injury. The increased traffic generated by the rezone and associated development would worsen an existing hazardous situation. G. The City plans for water, sewer and drainage utility networks based on projected development patterns, as evidenced in the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. At its current zoning designation, the site has a development potential of up to 55 housing units. The development associated with this rezone would result in 168 units, a 300 percent increase over growth ` under the current zoning. Such an increase is inconsistent with the City's orderly planning for a coordinated and efficient utility system. - 12 Staff Report Summer Woods #RZ-87-2 H. The City's Comprehensive Plan encourages production of a variety of new housing units within the City. In order to achieve this variety, the City's Zoning Ordinance and Map attempt to provide an adequate supply of land in various densities. The rezone of nine acres from single family to ,.• multifamily use would upset the balance of supply which the Zoning Ordinance in attempting to achieve. The net effect of such a rezone would be a reduction in the potential for a variety of new housing units, contrary to this Comprehensive Plan objective. I. In December 1986, the City Council passed a resolution concerning new residential development within the City. Resolution #1123 expressed the Council's intent to achieve a 20 percent reduction in the density of undeveloped multifamily land, and the intent to encourage single family development. Conversion of single family zoned land to multifamily zoned land, per the proposal, runs counter to Council intent as expressed in Resolution #1123 . VIII. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION On July 30, 1987 , the City of Kent staff represented by Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director; Mike Evans, Assistant Fire Marshal; Jim Chandler, Building Official; Jim Harris, Planning Director; Kathy McClung, Planning Department; and Dan Stroh, Planning Department, met to review this rezone application. Upon discussion of the merits of this request and review criteria, the City staff recommends DENIAL. In the event the rezone is approved, the following mitigation conditions shall apply: 1. The developer shall agree to participate in the formation of an LID to construct the S 224th/228th Street Corridor Project in order to mitigate the estimated 101 p.m. peak hour trips traveling east/west on SE 240th Street. Participation shall be based upon a proration of traffic generated by his center and the total traffic using the corridor. This condition shall be executed in the form of an environmental mitigation agreement. 2 . The developer shall construct 112th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street to City standards for the entire frontage thereon, and also provide temporary cul-de-sac (turn around) on 112th Avenue SE. 3 . In lieu of construction of SE 240th Street, the developer shall execute a no-protest LID agreement for the future widening of SE 240th Street to include curb and gutter, 13 Staff Report Summer Woods #RZ-87-2 sidewalks , street lighting, drainage and all other appurtenances. 4 . Execute a signal participation agreement for the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of 112th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street. 5. The developer shall provide offsetting storage for natural on-site ponding and maintain the natural drainage swale through the property. 6. A six-foot-high, solid wood fence shall be placed on the east property line. In addition, landscaping consistent with Type II landscaping as outlined in the Kent Zoning Code shall be planted along the east property line. The fence and landscaping shall be located in such a way as to provide an adequate buffer between the proposed development and the adjacent single family residence. 7. Site and building design should be revised to address the noise and aesthetic concerns identified in the SEPA environmental review. KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT August 8 , 1987 14 CITY OF I ENT planning . ♦0 TH L= 9? t I o o"-A I +426. I ti _.. O a:: +1I2C.4D - .^ f R OEM fMwIIIIIf III! Nomim I ► +422.2 00 p 425 �_�� O �O 6 o O F Oo{J LJ °1 0 Y /k5 ORCHA �fl Op l 1 n 5.E. 4 NIX V I M � � L...I �• � I L x I I� o Q it ❑ I fl i ii n 1 000 O 1 O +481�11 APPLICATION Name SUMMER WOODS LEGEND : Number Rz-81-1. 0Dale August 19, 1987 application site RegUest REZONE zoning boundary soomi sold SCALE = ZONING / TOPOGRAPHY MAP 1" = 200' CITY OF KENT lanniST S 231ST BE 231ST BE •=,r BE 231ST ''yyPARK CPA (pW ST w 230M� C� ST ZN ■SCH LTARV „Iyn P �> ND ST PL. 4 �t 232ND ST ow < 4y S 232ND \ E 232ND ST W„ SE ••< E232N w k ey C ST J:'.-`•! S[. 21t N0 PL 232ND A,8 3T a Ely 331 PLgI O j IS- N T 1•+ .... __�`,.• rI'Vlw v J? yE '233RD n ( f f 7r {t• �n l^ Npi i A BE S ♦o g4, STH o�'S d• 35 iH 234TH PL - ..... N A SE 23"N ST AVE BoTllCdde 238TH ST - �[�•� Z SE 236IN PL N ' 6 SE 237TN ST Hleie vO.• -' MI%A I• ` Z O` \ E238M e 1 •T ST ST (Pvl) SE 23YTH_ gS 17 t BE OTH ST 0 6 . N Ped'0.1" EAST HILL 1 I 20 I R ST s: ELEMENTARY APPLIC,ATIDPI t 1 m SCHOOL SITE 1 _ ; '~e S 2 2211D r 1 ST N S 243RO ST N o .. N BE 244TH o ST 1 p w N 1 W M N d 4• I O P N w 9 246TH < PL N ' W w a < S 248TH ST SE N 248TH ST N C � w N 7 D O '111 rArI4K 52 9 252ND T F NO ST EAST.HILL / J ry�if� O CENTER „ �jCt':+.\ French BE 252N0 g' w w KInq� Feld S7 - 1 •".'County * 515 I w i W SE 251TH L i ,•_, O KE.HI.SC I OIAN Z Z (x N iSR.HI.SCHOOL 4• -• i 1 BE 236TH 5T ~ <2 W <y ;tiL.. 30 N �" N. 29 28 •!<-�y.(.4,(,�1, x - < 9F. 5T1h.1 47 6 rn $ S ih �..° •j �.1..'PO 4 HILL�� a..�.'.)-:• kfN BE r� u ,-+• BE MOTH ST N 260TH M IC HILLS ST �N ! FNTARY IDOL • _. �\. ., < .- <Ff]I till• ' APPLICATION Name SUMMER WOODS LEGEND Number RZ-81-2 Dale August 19, 1987 application silo 41�114FF,e2, Request REZONE city limits 0 1■77i SCALE = I-- = 1000 ITY MAP "� ' CITY OF KENT planning . a. ro HYtd 314 1Kiltgypp J 71 tjo .1111 :r - ';7' u il: 3 g Hi� 4 u i�i1�1i 1 1�34a6E i ii� W .I . ' `I ram.--T___.`. 1, I __ ' _ _'- -. � nt—..y—,. •� 1 — t APPLICATION Name Name SUMMER WOODS LEGEND : Number RZ-87-2 Date August 19. 1987 Request REZONE SCALE = SITE N NO SCALE REZONE SUMMER WOODS #RZ-87-2 September 2, 1987 One item on the agenda was a request by Steven P. Elkins Architects to rezone 9. 28 acres from R1-7.2, Single Family Residential (minimum lot size 7 , 200 square feet) , to MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential. The subject property is located on the south side of SE 240th Street, directly east of 112th Avenue SE. VERBATIM MINUTES (1-79) Dan Stroh: Dan Stroh, Kent Planning Department. The request as you stated is to rezone the 9.2 acres, the 9.28 acres from R1-7.2 to MRM, Medium Density Multifamily. This property is located on the south side of SE 240th Street, directly east of 112th Avenue SE. I 'll point this out on the view foil exactly where this property is. This is the application site, this is SE 240th Street and the application is directly east of 112th Avenue, right here. The staff recommendation on this request is for denial. This property is 9 .28 acres in size. It is in two parcels, each parcel ,.•, is 4. 64 acres in size. Currently the site is zoned R1-7. 2 which is 7 , 200 square foot minimum lot size, single family residential. The site was annexed into the City in 1984, this was part of the Rowley Annexation #4 . The initial zoning set at that time or directly was Ri- "' 7 . 2 which is the current zoning. This is in the East Hill area of Kent, it is one of the fastest growing residential areas in the County. The multifamily residential development in this area, the East Hill, has been particularly rapid since 1980. In that eight-and-one-half year period there had been an additional 2 , 849 multifamily units added to the East Hill subarea of the City. A large number of these, also, additional units have been built as multifamily in the unincorporated part of King County adjacent to the City. I would like to go in, for a minute, into the adjoining land uses. The subject property, itself, is currently occupied by two older single family residences and the accessory structures there. It's covered in pasture grasses and has, actually in visiting the site, you can see grazing cows on the site. The proposal would be demolish the existing structures and to construct a 168-unit apartment complex. This would be in association in following the rezone. Adjacent to the site the lands are in a mix of residential uses. Across 112th Avenue to the west of the site is a new multifamily development, Royal Firs, this include an 186-units on 8. 2 acres. East and south are large lot single-family residences, very suburban, almost rural character. To the north lies SE 240th Street, there's a church at the northeast corner of 112th SE and SE 240th. Additional single-family residences, one of these is a mobile home, lie in large lots north of SE 240th, across from the site. The area is inside the City limits, but very large lots and low-intensity land uses w with the exception of the multifamily development directly across the street, across 112th Avenue SE, directly west of the site. The SEPA checklist, environmental checklist was done on the project and a determination of nonsignificance was issued on June 12 of this year. A number of environmental concerns were addressed in the SEPA checklist 1 Hearing Examiner Minutes September 2 , 1987 Verbatim Minutes for Summer Woods and in the review regarding traffic impacts, drainage, affects on the adjacent land uses, aesthetics and noise. The determination states that if the rezone is granted, a number of mitigating conditions should apply and I might touch on these. Under the various elements of environmental concern, starting with topography and hydrology, I have a topographic map of the site. This is the site right here, on the with 112th here on the western side of the site and, as you can see, the site slopes from the northeast to the southwest with the low area in the southwest here. The moderate slope elevations on the eastern side of the site about 460 feet above sea level down to the 420 feet in the southwest of the site, maximum slope of ten percent. There is a drainage swale bisecting the western portion of the site and this drainage water which enters the site through a culvert below SE 240th emptying into a drainage ditch just south of the site. There is an area on ponding standing water in the low, southwestern area of the site. At least there is some ponding that occurs during the wetter season of the year, that would be this area over here and the applicant did do a preliminary geo-technic report and apparently according to this report, this is a result of run-off from the Royal Firs, the new development directly west of this site and apparently that, according to the geo-technical report that development has blocked the natural drainage flow and added to the drainage problems in that southwest section of the site. If the rezone is granted the proposal would be to grade the site, reduce to level building sites, and driving and parking areas. About 44 percent of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces according to this proposal. The storm water runoff being controlled through a detention system along with the requirements of the Engineering Department. There is a mix of vegetation on the site. A lot of grasses, a number of trees, a large group of deciduous trees particularly on the eastern property line. Most of this vegetation will be removed by the applicant's proposal and a few major trees will be preserved including a large 18-inch and a 24-inch deciduous trees. Going into the social features, the street system. The site would have access to SE 240th through 112th Avenue SE. Southeast 240th is a major arterial with an average daily traffic count of 16, 100 daily vehicle trips. The proposed development would generate an estimated additional 1, 109 daily vehicle trips. This would include a 101 p.m. peak hour trips. And these would pass through the intersection of SE 240th and 104th Avenue SE with a major impact occurring in the p.m. peak hours. Currently, the level of service in that intersection is E to F and projections are that with the development and projected growth, this intersection's level of service would be downgraded to F. The Police Department in their review of the proposal raised related concerns about traffic congestion on SE 240th, between 104th and 116th Avenue SE. They were looking at the years between 1984 and 1986 and during that period this section of SE 240th experienced an unusual number of accidents, seventeen involving property damage and ten involving injury. of course, it would be expected that the additional 2 Hearing Examiner Minutes September 2 , 1987 Verbatim Minutes for Summer Woods vehicle trips on this section of the road would produce additional or could produce additional accidents above this number which already seems to be unusually high. Based on this, this Police Department recommends prior to allowing this kind of increased impact that SE 240th in that section between 106th and 116th be widened to four lanes. The Public Works Department, based on the development's impacts on the Comprehensive Utility and Transportation Plans, has recommended denial of the proposal. They did name a number of conditions that they would like to see applied if the rezone were to be granted. As far as storm water, it mentioned before the low area in the southwestern section of the site, which is permanent ponding and the existing drainage swale which bisects the western portion of the site. If the rezone is approved, Public Works recommends that the developer would comply with City drainage requirements and would ask that a condition be put on to provide offsetting storage for natural on-site ponding and also maintain the natural drainage swale through the property. Another issue looked at was landscaping. Largely in light of the impact of this development should it occur on adjacent properties. The, several of the apartment buildings in connection with the rezone would be 30 feet high and these would abut, on the eastern property line, with the single family uses. Parking areas, carports, recreational vehicle parking would also be proposed near the eastern boundary. Should the rezone be approved, the condition was then -- pointed out trying to mitigate the impacts of this development on single family residences east of the site. This would be a six-foot- high solid wood fence placed on the east property line and Type II landscaping also planted along that property line to help mitigate these impacts. Another conditions or another aspect addressed was aesthetic and noise. It was pointed out in the SEPA review that the proposed buildings on SE 240th would be set back only 20 feet. This is a major arterial. This is, of course, the minimum required by the Zoning Code. Given the amount of traffic, I mentioned before, I believe it was 19, 000 vehicles trips--16, 100 vehicle trips per day, on this major arterial. The setback could well produce excessive noise levels in the dwelling units. The building elevations were not submitted with the proposal but it appears that the structures are basically a very similar design and the a real lack of diversity was mentioned as an element in these in the SEPA review. And, this, of course, would have an impact from the aesthetic point-of-view on the adjacent land uses to the north, south and east. So, should the rezone be approved, it was recommended in the SEPA review that the developer refine the site and building design to address these noise and aesthetic concerns. In reviewing the proposal, the City Comprehensive Plan was looked. This was, of course, first adopted in 1969, and is an expression of community intentions and aspirations regarding the future of Kent and the Kent Sphere of Interest. It is used to guide, growth and spending decisions within 3 Hearing Examiner Minutes September 2, 1987 Verbatim Minutes for Summer Woods the City. Also, the City has adopted a number of subarea plans. The one that is applicable to this particular site is the East Hill Subarea Plan and the maps associated with this Plan would designate the subject site as Single Family-6 which would be single family development, 4 to 6 units per acre in the Comprehensive Plan. I would like to review a few elements of the Comprehensive Plan that were looked at the in the staff review of this rezone request. First was--within the City-wide Comprehensive Plan the Public Utilities Element. The overall goal which is to provide a planned, coordinated utility system. Within this there are goals both concerning high quality and adequate pressure, a planned, coordinated and efficient sanitary sewer system and an efficient and coordinated storm drainage and retention system. In developing these, and in trying to carry out the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, the City has developed plans for water, sewer and storm drainage utility networks and these are based on planned development patterns and land decisions, projected land use intensities which were shown in the land use, the zoning ordinance on the map and the Comprehensive Plan Map are major component in trying to analyze what these future demands on water and sewer and storm utilities will be and in trying to actually prepare for them. The current zoning was R1-7.2 and based on this zoning, the subject site of 9 . 2 acres would have a development potential of up to 55 units at the maximum development potential. With the proposal of 168 units this would be, the report says 300 percent increase, it's actually 300 percent of the 55 or 200 percent increase. But, it would actually be a 200 percent increase over the potential housing units under the current zoning. When the City' s planned network of water, sewer and storm drainage was being designed to provide for utility needs in an orderly manner based on the planned uses in the zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, this kind of 200 percent increase could not possibly be prepared for and this kind of change is inconsistent with orderly planner for an efficient, coordinated utility network. Another Comprehensive Plan element looked at was the Housing Element, the overall goal which is to increase the residential population while assuring a decent home and suitable living environment. This includes the objective of encouraging the production of a variety of new dwelling units. In looking at this objective, the major distinction in the variety of dwelling units is it' s used by a number of different agencies but it is a distinction between multifamily and single family dwellings. The Zoning Ordinance is designed to provide an adequate supply of land for both multifamily and single family and thereby provide a balance of housing types. In recent years, the City has seen a tremendous increase in the number of new multifamily units and a very, very slow rate of development of new single family units. So, since 1970, the shift of housing from single family, at that time is was 66 percent single family in the City of Kent and 35 percent multifamily, excuse and 26 percent multifamily, it shifted to today' s 4 Hearing Examiner Minutes September 2 , 1987 Verbatim Minutes for Summer Woods 35 percent single family and 59 percent multifamily and that even incudes the recent annexations. So that, within recent years, the single family construction has not kept pace or even begun to keep pace with multifamily construction. In fact, since 1980 over 4,800 multifamily units have been added to the city' s housing stock. However, if it weren't for the annexations, the demolitions of new, of single family units would be out pacing new construction of single family units. If nine acres is rezoned from single family to multifamily, this would even further upset the balance the City is trying to achieve between single family and multifamily units. It would result in reducing the supply of single family zoned land, further constraining the development of new single family units and encouraging this imbalance in single family and multifamily units that has been so pronounced in recent years. So that, in fact, would be a reduction in potential for the variety of new housing units which is contrary to this Housing Element objective. Looking at the subarea plan, the East Hill Plan, there are a number of policies in this which were also reviewed in looking at this request. One of these being the Transportation Element. The goal of which is to establish and maintain the highest feasible level of service for East Hill. There' s a number of objectives and policies under this designed to be a planned level of service, to coordinate with the cities, counties and state to maintain planned level of service and coordinate transportation planning with land use patterns and plans. The City's Master Transportation Plan, of course, was adopted by the City Council and uses the land use patterns of the Comprehensive Plan to develop projections on the future of the street system. These are carried through in an orderly way to set priorities for improvements and develop an efficient street network. At the current R1-7 .2 zoning which was used in working with the Master Transportation Plan and trying to plan the efficient street network, the maximum additional vehicle trips per day on this site would have been 363 or would be 363 , this would include 33 p.m. peak hour trips. The development, this multifamily development associated with the rezone request, would result in addition 1, 109 vehicle trips per day with 101 p.m. peak hour trips. This is over 800 additional daily vehicle trips above what could have been projected in planning with the R1-7 . 2 zoning on which the Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Plan is based. This would impact the major arterial, SE 240th, and this intersection which I mentioned before which is already at level of service E to F. Of course, almost any transportation impact can be mitigated if you spend enough money but estimates are that mitigation of this impact would, of course, required additional turn lanes and other improvements at an estimated cost of $300 , 000 to $400, 000, so extremely high cost to mitigate these impacts at this time. So that, it' s considered that the existing road system in the vicinity of the proposal is not adequate to support the multifamily development which would result from this rezone and that granting the rezone would not be in keeping with the City's orderly process for extending street improvements based on projected land use patterns in the zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. 5 Hearing Examiner Minutes September 2, 1987 Verbatim Minutes for Summer Woods Another element reviewed in the East Hill Subarea Plan is the Human Environment Element. The overall goal of which is to enhance through good design the aesthetic qualities of the natural and manmade environment to promote the health, safety and welfare of the community. An objective under this is to discourage development that would result in continued sprawl and disjointed growth. Of course, a major tool that the City uses to try to discourage that kind of disjointed growth is the zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan which try to encourage an orderly pattern of growth. The zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan both draw a boundary between single family and multifamily uses on the western boundary, outside the subject site. There's also a physical separation there of 112th Avenue SE, consider the intrusion of the multifamily use into the lower intensity, rural character properties to the east of this line, is not keeping with the orderly pattern of development provided for in the zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. I would like to sum up the points of special interest in the Planning Department' s review of this proposal. The Department did review the application in relation to the Comprehensive Plan and present zoning, the land use, transportation, and utilities and the comments from other departments--City departments and finds that, at first, the Comprehensive Plan Map and East Hill Subarea Plan designate the site as SF-6, Single Family Residential, four to six units per acre. The applicant proposes a multifamily development of 168 apartment dwellings. This rezone proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map. The site is currently zoned R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Residential, approximately six units per acre. The proposal would be to change the zoning to MRM, Medium Density Multifamily, up to 23 units per acre. This would be a major increase in intensity and density of land use. Third, land use in the immediate area is primarily residential ; north, south and east of the subject site are large, single-family lots of a rural character. The exception is to the west of the site, across SE 112th, is a large apartment complex which was completed earlier this year. The proposed rezone, and multifamily development, are considered not in keeping with large lot, rural character of the uses surrounding the property on three sides. Fourth, through the Master Transportation Plan and Subarea Plan, the City utilizes land use patterns of the zoning map and Comprehensive Plan Map, to set priorities for street improvements for street improvements and develop an efficient and orderly .street network. Developing this subject site under current zoning would result in the maximum potential of 363 vehicle trips per day including 33 p.m. peak hour trips. The proposal would generate an estimated 1, 109 vehicle trips or over 800 daily vehicle trips beyond what could be projected based on the existing zoning. This would seriously harm the City' s systematic transportation planning effort. Of course, the projected 1, 109 daily vehicle trips generated by the development would seriously impact the intersection of 104th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street. With the proposed development' s projected growth, this intersection would be downgraded 6 Hearing Examiner Minutes September 2 , 1987 Verbatim Minutes for Summer Woods to level of service F. Mitigation of this would, in fact, cost an estimated $300, 000 to $400, 000. Fifth, in the years 1984 to 1986, SE 240th Street between 104th Avenue and 116th Avenue SE experienced 17 additional accidents involving property--17 accidents involving property damage only; an additional ten accidents involving personal injury. This is an abnormal number of accidents on a stretch of road and the increased traffic generated by the rezone and associated development would only worsen an existing hazardous situation. The City's plans for water, sewers and drainage utility networks based on projected development patterns, particularly evidenced in the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan, at the currently zoning designation the site has a development potential of up to 55 housing units. The development associated with the rezone results in 168 units-housing units, this would be a 200 percent increase over the growth-the current zoning. This is inconsistent with the City' s orderly planning for a coordinated and efficient utility system. Next, the City' s Comprehensive Plan encourages a production of a variety of new housing units within the City. In order to achieve the variety, the zoning ordinance and map attempt to provide an adequate supply of land in various densities. Rezoning nine acres from single family to multifamily, this would upset the balance of supply which the zoning ordinance attempts to achieve. This would result in reduction in the potential for a variety of new housing units which is contrary to this Comprehensive Plan objective which was discussed earlier. Finally, in December 1986, the City Council passed a resolution, Number 1123 , this was expressing the council 's intent to achieve a 20 percent reduction in the density of undeveloped multifamily land and the intent to encourage single family development. The conversion of single family zoned land to multifamily zoned land as the proposal requests would run counter to Council 's intent as expressed in Resolution 1123 . In the event that the rezone is approved, and this proposal has discussed with a number of staff members throughout the City including Public Works, the Fire Department, the Building official and Public Works. In the event that it is approved, a number of mitigating conditions are considered appropriate for applying to it and these are stated in the report. There are seven mitigating conditions listed in the report but I would emphasize that, that would be in the event the rezone is approved, the staff recommendation is that the--this proposal be denied. That concludes my report. Diane VanDerbeek: All right. I have a couple of questions. You've indicated that this site was annexed into the City in 1984, was that your testimony. Stroh• Yes. VanDerbeek: What was the zoning on the site prior, when it was in King County. 7 Hearing Examiner Minutes September 2 , 1987 Verbatim Minutes for Summer Woods Stroh: It was, I believe it was single family. I would need to check that to be--to confirm it. The initial zoning that was placed on it after the interim zoning was single family, 7, 200; which is the designation now. VanDerbeek: All right. I 'm just curious as to whether it was zoned multifamily when it was in King County. You don't think so but I would be interested in finding that out. All right. Any further testimony from staff on this application. Mr. Gill. Gary Gill: Gary Gill, City Engineer. Just a couple of brief comments. As part of the conditions that were made part of the Rowley Annexation ##4 , the additional right of way that would be required to widen S. 240th Street and also eventually constructing 112th Avenue SE. Conditions of the zoning that was proposed as part of the zoning that was attached and approved when the property was annexed into the City of Kent, so it isn't mentioned in the staff report as a condition but it's understood that it was a zoning condition that was applied when the property was annexed. So, there' s an additional eight feet of right of way that would be required on S . 240th, on the south side and the north side to be able to widen the roadway to a future five-lane facility. And, we would require an additional 30 feet from this property for the construction of 112th Avenue SE. We currently have 30 feet from the adjacent property owner which is Royal Firs. The note in 'the staff report concerning the ponding water, just make a brief comment on it. It said that the geotechnical report stated the ponding was caused from the Royal Firs development and, as can be seen on the topography map, that ponding area, that low area, existed well before the Royal Firs development was constructed. And, we' ll have to take a look at it but the storm drainage plan that was designed for the apartment complex does not discharge water into this low area. It. . . VanDerbeek: Excuse me, this is not an informal hearing where people yell from the audience. If you want to testify you will have the opportunity to testify at a later time. Sorry for the interruption, Mr. Gill, you may continue. Gill: At the time that the project was being designed, we had the Royal Firs engineers look at the drainage situation. They were also responsible for providing off-setting storage that was displaced from the construction of the apartment complex and they were to look at up- stream factors and design a system so that the water could still flow their site and not be causing a back water situation on adjacent properties. And, we would have to take a look at the actual final asbuilt drawings which we believe have not been turned into the City to determine whether or not they were constructed in accordance with the plans but they were designed to allow full capacity flow from up- stream properties through the site. But, would not take into account any localized low areas where standing water took place before hand. Those would still exist. 8 Hearing Examiner Minutes September 2, 1987 Verbatim Minutes for Summer Woods VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your comments. Any further testimony from City staff. All right, I will hear testimony from the ,.., applicant or the applicant's representative. Stuart Stoven: I 'm Stuart Stoven an architect for Steven P. Elkins, Architects at 610 Market Street, Suite 201 in Kirkland. I would like to, I 'm one of two representing the applicant today. My part will be rather than address the staff report specifically, will be to address the staff report specifically, to describe our process in designing ... this project, the actual bits that we saw on it that are positive and why we think it works out to be a potential successful project both for the people who would occupy the project and the surrounding area. VanDerbeek: Well, I 'll certainly hear that testimony. But, I don't know how relevant that testimony is to the rezone issue. I ' ll hear it, but. Stoven: O.k. I believe that, item specifically in the report and would, could be related specifically to the report, if you like. First of all, the project would be, while we are proposing to go into an MRM zoning designation which would be potentially under current area requirements under the Zoning Code, if we were to go into that zoning designation as we are applying it, we would be permitted 213 units on that site. We are applying for 168 units which potentially for the occupants will allow them a less dense project than they would find on a similar zoned area elsewhere in the City. We also feel that they would find good access to the site and compliance with the City requirements. The access to the site is limited to 212th Avenue SE and will not require them to try to turn into heavy traffic on SE 240th. At the same time, they find it is convenient to 240th, a major arterial, and convenient access to that street and surrounding area. We have, by the site plan that we have submitted, which is preliminary in nature but in which we intended to address the major impacts of the project. We have allowed for the on-site handling of storm water runoff and addressed it in the application. And, there's room of the site for that and I would ask, if I may, if there's a view foil prepared of the site plan that I could put up there. Thank you. This shows the access off 112th into the site, 240th is at the top of the plan and we have no access onto the street up to that point. The ponding area would correspond to the low point on the site down in the southwest corner around which we have also located the amenities of the project. The recreational building, the pool and the recreational court. If I can describe the units briefly. May I ask if you have a view foil of that, the unit plan. O.k. The units are designed to be a quality project, one that would complement the area. They are equivalent quality to the Royal Firs project to the west which we also designed. They would have balconies, fireplaces, washers and dryers, covered parking, they would tend to be, they have slightly more space than the average apartment unit. They would tend to attract good rents and, as signified by the Royal Firs project next door which is rented 9 Hearing Examiner Minutes - September 2 , 1987 Verbatim Minutes for Summer Woods up very quickly even with the quality product, it' s going to be, likely to be a successful project which means the long term impact on the project would be, it would be well-maintained. The landscaping would be well-maintained and it would be a complement to the area. As far as the building arrangement, we also took into effects from the impacts noted in the report, for instance, along 240th, despite the proximity, setback ten feet plus, twenty feet plus the ten proposed dedication from the current property line for a total of 30 feet in which there would be an amount of landscaping. We've turned all the buildings 90 degrees to the street and, in which this would be a blank wall without windows so that the occupants would not be facing the street and their windows would not be exposed to the noise. So acoustically and aesthetically for the occupants and for the passersby we feel that. . .we've started adjusting that project with the density that we have there' s still potential for working with the Planning Department and adjusting the site to accommodate that. Also, on the adjacent properties, to the side we've also turned, where we could turn the buildings 90 degrees to the site to help reduce the potential privacy conflicts along the property line. And, those are set back also a substantial distance from the single family zoning in that area. So, I think that by showing that would be a quality project for the occupants we can show that it would be a successful project and successful for the community as well. In addition, as far as the surrounding neighborhood goes, we felt that by looking at the zoning along 240th, and if I may use this plan, the current uses along 240th out to our side are primarily commercial and multifamily residential and with the projected growth of 240th as a major corridor, we feel that it is a positive use for that site to provide a buffer between the heavily traffic area and the single family area potentially developing to the south as opposed to having single family right up on the street. Now, that ties into the potential of what could develop there if it were not multifamily, if it were single family. We cannot say, of course, it' s strictly speculation but we find it might be unlikely that a quality single family development would be unlikely to be that close to 240th because of the potential noise problem. With the large site that we have, we can adjust buildings on the site to help set back from the street and mitigate the noise problem and the exposure whereas in individual lots the houses would be limited as to how far they could make that adjustment. VanDerbeek: But don't you have four units in each of these buildings? Stovin: Let's see, there are. . .actually eight units. VanDerbeek: Actually eight units in Buildings 1, 2 , 3 and 4? Stovin: Let' s see. VanDerbeek: It doesn't say how many units in each building on this plan that I can tell. 10 Hearing Examiner Minutes September 2, 1987 Verbatim Minutes for Summer Woods Stovin: No, excuse me. There are actually 12 units in each of the three story or two-and-a-half story buildings. VanDerbeek: So 48 units along 240th. Stovin• Yes. VanDerbeek: Well, then, your argument about not putting residential dwelling units along 240th isn't quite correct because you're going to put 48 multiple family units on 240th and under the current zoning you can only put 55 units on the whole site, then. . . Stovin: Well, I was adjusting the potential quality of the kind of housing that could go there. We find that, using Royal Firs as an example, those are a good quality apartment units that are marketable and are near 240th, whereas a single family development close to 240th would potentially be a difficult, more difficult to market than an apartment project. In other words, I guess that speaks a little bit to the fact that people in an apartment development are in, by definition, a more densely populated space to begin with and they will and, that is a function of the nature of the multifamily unit and, as such, does not effect with a quality product and still have something that people will find attractive to them. And, again, we are hoping to mitigate the noise in effect by turning those buildings away from 240th. And I think that the, again, the similarity to the Royal Firs next door and the usefulness of having a more dense use close to a busy street as opposed to a less dense use of single family is a positive aspect of this project. In summary I would say that the two questions that we looked at in feeling that this is a good project is what would be, as far as providing for a multifamily site, this is an attractive site as evidenced by the fact that the adjacent units rented up quite quickly as compared to other potential sites this is a good site for multifamily use in relation to other sites that would be used for multifamily and we also consider, in our opinion, that the other uses possible for that site should multifamily not be there, would have some of the same impacts that this project would have and it would be, we would like to put into perspective the impacts that those other uses would have on the type of development that would go there if, if it' s not multifamily. For that reason, that felt that this was a good project. Do you have any other questions, I think that' s all my comments. VanDerbeek: No, I don't have any other questions at this time. Thank you for your testimony. _ Stoven: All right. VanDerbeek: Is there any other representative of the applicant who intends to testify? 11 Hearing Examiner Minutes September 2, 1987 Verbatim Minutes for Summer Woods Jack Nelson: There is. Good afternoon, Madam Hearing Examiner, my name is Jack Nelson and my address is 601 West Gowe, Kent, WA, I 'm an attorney and I'm here on behalf of the applicant. I would like to address several things in the staff report, obviously arguing against the recommendation for denial by the staff and I going through the report, I do notice that they make reference, I 'm going briefly go over, they make reference to certain points regarding Comprehensive Plan requirements as to adequate water, sewer, drainage and so on and, in fact, in each case, it seems to me that the staff report concludes that there are no insurmountable problems that are created by this project or by the rezoning that is recommended in this case, excuse me, rezoning that has been applied for. On the question of traffic, and the staff in their presentation has made a point regarding traffic, putting a large burden on this, if this is rezoned, then it' s throwing the whole City out of whack and the traffic patterns are, is going to create terrible problems, $300, 000 or $400, 000 to mitigate the damage that is going to be done by this rezone. One point, it has been made both by the staff, it's in the staff report and also it was made by Mr. Stovin and that is the fact that the applicant is only proposing a 80 percent density of that, that would be allowed by the rezone. But, in addition. . . VanDerbeek: I have a question about that. There's not indication any where in the application that the applicant would agree to be bound to put only 168 units on the site nor is there any condition in the staff report recommended that if I were to recommend approval of the rezone, they would be limited to 168 units so there' s absolutely nothing to prevent the applicant if the rezone is granted from building to the highest permissible density permitted under the zoning. Nelson: On behalf of the applicant, we have no objection to that being a condition of the rezone or a mitigating condition of the rezone that is the proposal by the applicant, the proposed use. One thing that was not brought up, almost commensurate with this application or, at least, with the hearing, the City of Kent is proposing an LID for the improvement of SE 240th from 108th to 116th. It is their intention or their request and their intention to five-lane that, they have obtained a commitment from the State Urban Arterial Board for sharing funds for that project. If that does go through, I think, I believe the proposal was for completion by 1988 but I think it does have a bearing on the nature of the type of zoning that could be or should be in this area. It will be five-lane, that's the proposal, it will include complete drainage, storm water, excuse me, storm water drainage, sewer system, well the sewers in, but the utilities will be moved to accommodate the five-lane street, there will be curbs, sidewalks on both sides, I believe concrete sidewalks, lighting, landscaping, and, as mentioned, the road widening. The five-lane will accommodate a two-way left-turn lane during the entire eight blocks of the distance and this will cover the area that's in front of the project. And, I think, as I said, that' s significant, this very area that is involved in that in this 12 w Hearing Examiner Minutes September 2, 1987 Verbatim Minutes for Summer Woods location and I said in referring to 240th. It would also seem an opportune time to incorporate the improvement of 240th with a project in this area if that MRM zoning--rezone is granted. I suggest that denying the rezone at this point will merely force this type of building or additional residential building further east and lengthen the travel and the additional road problem, will have to travel further. This is relatively in close, a major commercial intersection at 240th and 108th, excuse me, 104th Avenue SE, seems to me a very appropriate location for this type of zoning. One point that I want to make clear, well, it's been made, but, immediately to the east of this project is an identical project to which, is a, well Royal Firs, which has been referred to. Of course, that' s multifamily residential and it seems to me to be appropriate to keep them contiguous which they would be. This will allow the improvement of 112th which will be between them and provide an access road to the subject property and it will continue that type of use and on 240th. There was a reference to a resolution that was passed by the Kent City Council in 1986 referring to Resolution #1123 in the staff report, I ,... suggest that it was incorrectly, well it wasn't quoted, but the concept was incorrect although I think it may have been correct here today. The staff report states that it was the City Council 's intent to achieve a twenty-percent reduction of undeveloped multifamily land and ` that is absolutely not what the City Council resolution says because that would require taking multifamily residential zoned land and, I take it, rezoning it to some lower density use. I think it is important that what the ordinance, in fact, says, is that, that multifamily zoned land, I ' ll quote from it: It was the goal of the Council to achieve an average density reduction of 20 percent on all .., undeveloped multifamily zoned lands. I believe that is a distinction with a difference because they are saying that for multifamily zoned land they are hoping to achieve a reduction in the amount of, in the density that might be allowed otherwise. In this particular case as I said and it' s, the applicant has absolutely no objection to a condition being put on there, on the rezone or the development, we are asking for 168 units of a potential 213 units which is 80 percent of the potential density. And, I might put out, would be consistent with the, in that sense, would be consistent with the resolution that was passed by the City Council. I, there was previous testimony given, which I was present and the East Hill Well Annexation hearing, regarding the number of single family building permits that have been granted by the City of Kent recently and the staff might correct me on this, as I understood the testimony at that time, in 1984 there were 23 single family building permits granted and I don't know if, well, I would entertain an objection if this is a wrong quote at this time and then in 1985 that amount of 12 and then in 1986 that had been reduced to ten, or not reduced but I mean, in fact, ten had been granted. If that testimony is correct, and I said I suggest rebuttal by the City, but, if that testimony was correct and is correct, then there has been a substantial erosion, there has been not only few but less single family residential permits granted or, excuse me, building that has gone on recently in 13 Hearing Examiner Minutes September 2 , 1987 Verbatim Minutes for Summer Woods the City of Kent. I suggest forcing all the land into single family residential zoning will not achieve that, obviously that doesn't. There's been no suggestion that there has been a change in the number of zoning that's available for single family residential building and yet it has continued to go down. It seems to me to be inappropriate then to enforce this type of zoning because you are essentially saying or forcing the owner of any such land then to stop building. Granted, that' s not the particular case and I understand its an overstatement but the point I 'm making is that if we are not going to force this type of building merely by holding to that type of zoning until there is no such more available, apparently the building will just stop. And, it seems to me that such a, again, referring to the Comprehensive, Kent City-wide Comprehensive Plan and under Housing, the Housing Element, which has been used by the staff in this case, it seems to me to fly in the face of the very intent of the Kent City Council, Goal 2 under the Housing Element is to guide new residential development into areas where the needed services and facilities are available. This seems to me to be a particularly, a location that is particularly suited for such a development as is proposed and I suggest that the services are,in fact, available. Modifications may have to be made, that' s very commonly the case, there are areas around there for which there would be far more modification necessary than would be needed at this point. But policy, one of the policies under this Housing Element is to permit and encourage medium and high density residential development, which is suggested here, but only as the services are available. And again, I suggest that the services are available at this location and this is appropriate for rezoning. As I said, just a recap, the City of Kent is proposing and hopeful of improving this location at 240th by granting this rezone and attaching appropriate conditions to the rezone and any building permit that is granted. It seems to me that this would only promote the proper improvement of S. 240th and, again, that Mr. Stovin is correct that this will provide a buffer from 240th to any lower density housing to the south, for example. Previously, when he was being questioned as to what would front on 240th, what we are proposing at this time is to put a bunch of single family residences along a five-lane road with a, granted with a concrete sidewalk on each side and appropriate lighting. And, it seems to me that to have that 240th fronted by the apartments that are suggested with no access except through 112th would be more appropriate because of the noise that would be created by the five-lane roadway. Why a five-lane roadway with a two-way left turn lane. . . .well, excuse me, why, what, the type of development at 240th. The point I 'm trying to get at, it seems to be more appropriate for a heavier density use that's suggested here and that we are requesting. I would draw the Examiner' s attention, finally, as a last point, to the, in the Housing Element as quoted by the City, one of the Overall Goals stated there is increase residential population in Kent, assuring a decent home and suitable living environment for families desiring to live in Kent. And, if, if in fact, the building permits that have been issued for single family have reduced the number that I 've stated previously, then certainly by requiring or by denying this rezone the very dictates and requests of 14 Hearing Examiner Minutes „ September 2, 1987 Verbatim Minutes for Summer Woods the City Council and increasing the residential population in Kent are being denied. This is an opportunity for, as Mr. Stovin said, a quality development to go in at that location, for a buffer to be created between S. 240th and any single family residential to the south, for the utilities to be improved in that location, for SE 212th Street or 212th, excuse me, 112th Street SE to be improved and I believe it is certainly appropriate, it continues on with the Royal Firs immediately adjacent multifamily residential project as is in this case and I suggest that the rezone should be granted. Are there any questions. VanDerbeek: Well, yes, I have several questions. As you know, Counselor, under State law there is no legal presumption in favor of a rezone and it' s the burden of the applicant to show that conditions have changed since the original zoning was placed on the site such as to justify the rezone. Your client is proposing a 200 percent increase in the suggested density which I don't think that's what the City Council had in mind when they passed the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan about increasing the residential population. Also, the additional traffic impacts from this proposal are 800 additional trips per day over the current zoning for a total of 292 , 000 trips per year. Those are some fairly relatively heavy duty impacts in my view anyway and so I haven't heard any testimony from the applicant about what has changed sufficiently to permit a favorable consideration of the rezone as is required, that's a required burden of proof under, under cases in Washington for decades, as you know. Nelson: O.k. The only response or additional comment I might make would be that I was listening to the testimony of the City on the issue of the traffic increase and I believe that the testimony was that it was 1, 100, approximately 1, 100 peak hour traffic trips that would be created by this project. VanDerbeek: Which was 800 trips over the projected trips if the property was not rezoned, that was my understanding of the testimony. _... Nelson: O.k. , and, well, the only point that I don't have, just the facts that were available, there were 1, 600 daily trips there. It seemed to me, there was also testimony that the project to the east, excuse me, the project to the west, which is 186 units and this project is 168 units which is actually smaller, that number of trips, well, I guess, I don't know if I was missing, there was not a, I going to have to retract that because I understood there were 1, 600 trips and I don't - know if that can be compared, excuse me, 16, 000 daily trips, this would create 1, 100. VanDerbeek: There's 16, 000 daily trips on the street but 1, 109 trips being generated by this proposal which is 800 trips per day more than would be generated by a single family development of approximately 55 homes on this site. 15 Hearing Examiner Minutes September 2 , 1987 Verbatim Minutes for Summer Woods Nelson: That's correct. That was the testimony, correct. VanDerbeek: That was my understanding of the testimony. I guess the only thing that I see, the only change that I see in terms of a rezone that has occurred since the original zoning was placed on the site is the development of the multifamily , the adjacent multifamily development across 112th, but other than that what has changed since the original zoning was placed on the site to justify a favorable consideration of a multiple family rezone proposal, is there anything else? Nelson: The only other point being that the proposed improvement of SE 240th Street. Which I think is, I 'm sure there will be a response from the City on that and that, in fact, that is admitted as an intention of the City of Kent at this time. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony, Counselor. Nelson: Thank you. VanDerbeek: Any further representative to speak on behalf of the applicant? All right, is there any interested member of the public who desires to give testimony with respect to this rezone application? All right, please step forward Sir and then you can testify next, Ma'am. Mark Welch: My name is Mark Welch. I live at 11223 SE 240th which is half of the property involved. Just a couple of things I wanted to remark. The staff, either by oversight or intentionally, did not mention that we've had 39 acres of apartments right across 112th and 240th for over 20 years. So, this is not something that is changing 240th a great deal right at that location. Also, on the East Hill Plan the original ten acres right east of the shopping center was MRM, Multiple, and subsequent to the original zoning, they changed that to business. So, in fact, the way I look at it this project does not add any multiple or apartments than what the original East Hill Plan did. As far as the water there's a misunderstanding there, some water ponded down there about a foot high last winter, during construction and then digging the holes it was about four-and-a-half feet deep and that was, they claim that they corrected it since, I don't know. We won't know until we get the water going through there. But, it got real deep which it never was before. And as to the statement that they had right of way on 240th and 112th from us, the initial zoning recommended the property owner give that right of way when developed, all the paperwork says that, they don't have it yet. VanDerbeek: There' s no testimony that they had it, just that it was a condition of the zoning, no one said that they had the right of way. Welch: Oh, I misunderstood him then. VanDerbeek: All right, anything else you would like to tell me. 16 ,.,.. Hearing Examiner Minutes September 2 , 1987 Verbatim Minutes for Summer Woods Welch: Also, one other thing. Of course, it's quite obvious from the number of permits, no developer or builder that I talked says it's practical to build residential homes on a major freeway which that' s going to be. Thank you. VanDerbeek: All right, thank you for your testimony. Do you wish to testify? All right, please step forward. Leona Orr: My name is Leona Orr. I live at 24909 114th Avenue SE. I just wanted to make a couple of comments as a private citizen who lives in the area and drives on the streets. For one thing, they indicated that there would be no access to 240th because the traffic would be coming out on 112th and I assume that if it comes out on 112th, it's going to have to somehow get to 240th unless the street is going to be opened up to 244th. And, 240th right now is definitely not adequate to handle a large amount of additional traffic in that area until some of the improvements are made and if the street were to be extended the other direction to 244th, that street is a very narrow street without even a center line painted down the middle of it, so that would not be a very good street to handle additional traffic. Now one other additional comment I would like to make is that fire protection on the east hill right now is not really adequate and it will be according to the staff report that' s for the East Hill Annexation that I 've gotten because I 'm in the annexation area, it will be a few years before that is built and staffed and equipment there so that it' s fully operational, so until some of those things are met, it just does not seem like a good idea to add additional traffic to an area that is already over burdened right now. Thank you. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Any further public testimony in connection with this application. Myron ViGoren: I 'm Myron ViGoren. We, our family owns the property, well here, this property right here. VanDerbeek: South of the application site? ViGoren: Yeah, just south of the application and. . . VanDerbeek: Could you state your address for the record and also. . . ViGoren: 11208 SE 244th. I 'm a real estate broker, a builder and a developer and I 'm amazed at the tack that they are taking here in the City of Kent. If you want a street opened, the best thing you can do is hang a carrot out there and get it opened. We are not going to go at 9.2 , I 've talked to some banks, I 've talked to some real estates, I 've talked to some developers, they say, "Hey, it won't sell! " So, you're going to zone ours 9, 200, it won't sell, so we have no other choice but to sit there and wait and we're not going to put 200 or I mean 116th in and we're not going to be very anxious for anyone else to 17 Hearing Examiner Minutes September 2, 1987 Verbatim Minutes for Summer Woods put it in until it is developed. If you want to get the street opened, let's develop it open, let's put the carrot out there and get it developed to get it opened and then they are talking about noise. You know the dog that used to bark over there on the Keel (spelling?) property where Royal Firs is now was a lot more noise than Royal Firs has. We've been up there with the windows wide open all night long, I used to have to close the window at night because the dogs that barked over there where Keel 's lived and there was one house and five acres and that went on for 40 years, so I don't see Royal Firs as creating an undesirable amount of noise. If I can understand correctly when I got down on my hands and knees and tried to read the posting on the property, I understand that they are going to put a light in at 116th and 240th. Now, I may have read that wrong because when you're reading on your hands and knees you can get very close to it and when you get my age why sometimes eyesight fails, but if I understood that correctly I think you're going to solve the enormous problem, I don't know if any of you ever stood there and watched the school buses come down from that grade school up on 116th and try to get onto 240th but I tell you I've gasped many a time, our breakfast nook looks right out at 116th and I 've gasped many a time wondering if that school bus is going to make it and if that car was going to get stopped in time for that school bus to get out there and I don't know if there' s another access for that school, I haven't paid that much attention but I 'm sure that' s a very dangerous corner for children to be going through and so if you got nothing out of this development for the traffic situation except to get that corner lighted with a traffic light, hey, you've accomplished a whole big bunch because that's a dangerous corner for kids. And, I can't understand this City of Kent being afraid of development. Where do the cars come from that are on 240th. It's vacant land now so they don't come from there. How many trips a day come off that land now and yet 240th, man, I don't know (unclear) see six cars a day past, there back in the days where there's gravel road. 244th didn't even go through and now what've you got, 11, no 16, 000 cars a day. Well, they certainly didn't come from that area because there has been that much development there. So, I would suggest that if traffic flows are a problem, it' s not that area and that area could help to pay for some of the other situations that are coming into that area. It is only sensible to build as close to the factory or the place of employment as you can get. I don't know how this K-Mart thing is going to come along but would think that they are going to employ at least 150 people so there's another big employer. You've got Boeing down the hill, you have all this stuff down in the valley here, that' s where the people work, that's where they get their money from and the further away you put them the more traffic lights they have to go through, the longer it's going to take them to get there. I would say that the sensible thing for Kent to do is to get busy and develop these streets and one way they can help develop these streets is to open some of this up to the highest and best use so that these people could pay for some of those facilities because to me it's just unrealistic to think that you are going to zone away your problem. You're not you're going to complicate your problem because you're going to push them that much 18 Hearing Examiner Minutes September 2, 1987 Verbatim Minutes for Summer Woods further out, you're going to have to drive that much more past. You heard me. I 'm in favor very definitely. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Any further testimony on this proposal. Bill Carey: See my name is Bill Carey and I live at 11236 SE 244th. I would like to make comments regarding mitigating circumstances, affordability and the traffic. Now you asked for mitigating circumstances that would justify this rezone. Now, look at the industrial growth in the valley, they've created a need for more housing. Boeing is going to build a $200 million plant in Auburn, going to add 2 , 000 employees. Now, those people are going to have to live someplace which brings me to the next place, affordability. The medium priced house, single family house, in the United States is $120,000. I don't know what it is here in the Kent area but the people that really need, see one of the policies of the Kent Planning Department is to provide adequate housing. This is stated right in their policy. People that can't afford single family homes because of the high price so, therefore, I think, these are legitimate mitigating circumstances. . .the growth of the area since 1984, the added growth that's going to be brought on by Boeing' s building $200 million plant in Auburn and, I think, consideration should be given to the price of a single family home. Now the third point I would like to comment on is the traffic. Well, certainly, we all know there's a serious traffic problem at 104th and 240th. How much of this traffic is generated in this area--15 percent. Most of the traffic is generated beyond the control of the City of Kent. Mostly generated out east of Kent, east of 116th, so really this project will generate some traffic but percentage wise it will be a very small percent considering the whole. I would like to strongly recommend that this request for rezoning be approved. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Any further testimony on this proposal . ViGoren: Can I make just one little comment. VanDerbeek: So long as it not repetitive, sir. ViGoren: O.k. VanDerbeek: You can't testify from sitting down, sir, you have to identify yourself for the record. ViGoren: I 'm Myron ViGoren and the ponding problem. We own the property that' s adjacent what's being tentative job. And the ponding problem as was stated by the owner of that property which they are trying to rezone now, there was never, ever, ever, ever in the hardest rain the amount of ponding that took place last winter and immediately upon them releasing that, that water dropped three feet or four feet 19 Hearing Examiner Minutes September 2 , 1987 Verbatim Minutes for Summer Woods down to nothing. They did it so late in the year that we can't really measure how it's going to affect the future ponding. But the ponding last winter was like it' s never been before. VanDerbeek: All right, thank you. Any further testimony on this proposal, any further public testimony? All right, I will hear rebuttal testimony. First from the staff. Stroh: Dan Stroh, Kent Planning Department. First of all, I would like to respond to the point on the maximum permitted density on this site. This was brought up several times by several different speakers. Currently, the maximum permitted density is 55 units. The MRM designation has not been applied to this site, that' s the request. It could just as well be a request to MRG, Garden Density Multifamily, that' s 16 units per acre and if it had been a request for Garden Density then it would be well over 100 percent of the density that would have been allowed at the Garden Density rezone, so, it seems rather backwards logical to argue that only a portion of the permitted density is being requested for the site when, in fact, the MRM zoning doesn't exist on this site neither in the Zoning Ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan. Second point would be the SE 240th, it is true that SE 240th is a major arterial, it is a corridor but in this area, grades into a very rural character. There's a very perceptible line that' s crossed between the multifamily development on the East Hill within the City boundary and these large rural lots or these large characteristically rural lots in single family that are in the vicinity of this site on three sides. Another point was made about what would happen if this project does not occur, what more intense use could happen to this site. Well, the City would expect that if this project didn't occur this site would be put to (unclear) single family, that's what the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance shows. And we did look at the impact, we didn't make the assumption in the staff report that there would be no development on site if this proposal would not go through. We looked at impacts associated with single family development and 55 units and we think that is a realistic expectation as to what would occur to this site if this proposal were not to go through. Comments were made about traffic and I ' ll try to keep my remarks brief, but, it is the projection of the Public Works Department that there would be are 16, 100 vehicle trips per day on SE 240th. This project, it is projected, would create an additional 1, 109 vehicle trips per day. I did a quick calculation sitting here and that would be at seven percent increase right there caused by the this proposal of 168 units and the additional 1, 109 vehicle trips so that' s seven percent of the 16, 100 trips that exist on SE 240th today and impact the area the Police Department is concerned about and the area of the intersection which was discussed in the staff report. 20 Hearing Examiner Minutes September 2 , 1987 Verbatim Minutes for Summer Woods As far as the adjacent land uses and multifamily being in the area, it is correct that the west side of 112th to the northwest of the site, there are multifamily properties in that area. The, that would be up here that are existing multifamily developments. This whole area here, in fact, is zoned multifamily. The line in the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning ordinance is drawn in this area between multifamily and single family and that line was very deliberately drawn there. When looking at the adjoining land uses, the staff report discusses the uses directly north, directly west, directly south and directly east of the - proposed development. In this area, in the area that is currently zoned MRM it is true that there are multifamily developments but there is a line there that' s a very definite line that was drawn quite methodically when those earlier zoning decisions and Comprehensive Plan decisions were made. Some points were made about Resolution 1123 and I do have a copy of 1123 here. . . VanDerbeek: I was hoping that someone would give that to me sometime. Stroh: I would like to enter that into the record. VanDerbeek: All right. Stroh: It's a portion ' of this recent staff report on multifamily density done by the Planning Department in July. If I could just quote a couple of sections from Resolution 1123 . The preamble says that whereas, if I could just quote portions of it, the main housing problem cited by Kent residents were the profusion of apartment and overcrowding, whereas, the City Council is concerned with the adverse impacts of uncontrolled growth in the city's infrastructure and it's ability to deliver sufficient services to residences; whereas, the City is concerned about the projected proportion of multifamily development to single family development. Those are a few of the things in the whereas of the resolution. Section 4 of Resolution 1123 states, the City Council desires to promote the development of single family -- residential use and it goes on from there. I think that the interpretation of Resolution 1123 in the staff report is very consistent with the stated intentions of Council in Resolution 1123 and I would like to enter that into the record. Comments were made about single family building permit numbers. It's true and, in fact, we pointed out in the staff report that very few - single family buildings permits have been issued in recent years in Kent. The situation seems to be changing a little bit today, we had an earlier subdivision which was approved earlier this year, I believe it was in April, for the Brealey subdivision which is a zero-lot line, it's about 82 or 84 units, I believe, that's phase one. If phase two is also approved, that would be a total in phase Qne and phase two of over 200 single family new lots created and eventually a new single family development. That was earlier this year. There' s a pending 21 Hearing Examiner Minutes September 2, 1987 Verbatim Minutes for Summer Woods single family subdivision that is set for a later Hearing Examiner meeting this month. So, there is some single family subdivision activity certainly going on this year. I would also like to make a point about the availability of multifamily zoned land. This particular requests ask for a rezoning of land which is currently zoned single family and would constrain the, as I pointed out--as the staff report pointed out, would constrain the existence and availability of single family zoned land. There is a large amount of available multifamily zoned land currently within the City. The staff report which we will be entering into the record, not the staff report but the Planning Department report on multifamily density, actually looked at available multifamily zoned land within the City and about 1, 176 acres currently zoned multifamily about 570 of these were determined available. Land currently zoned multifamily available for development either because its vacant or significantly underdeveloped at its current use. There was a point made about affordability. It is true that it is a policy of the City to encourage the affordability of housing but this doesn't have to be done at the expense or multifamily development may be an affordable housing option but it doesn't need to be provided at the expense of encouraging single family which is another City policy and with the available acreages that I just pointed out, it doesn't need to be either. With 570 acres available currently in the City for multifamily development. That' s all the remarks I wanted to make, thank you. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Any further rebuttal comments from the City. Jim Hansen: Jim Hansen, Kent Planning Department. I had two general remarks. one was to address the marketability argument that was raised earlier by Mr. Stovin. VanDerbeek: I 'm prohibited by staff law from considering economic consequences when making land use decision. I will hear your rebuttal comments but I can tell you that I 'm not going to consider what the applicant said about it, so. Hansen: Fine, I was merely going to raise that question. VanDerbeek: All right. Hansen: Thank you. The other overall comment I wanted to make is that, I think it was Mr. ViGoren made a statement about the City being afraid of development. This City in the past five years has averaged over a hundred million dollars of development every year, a good portion of that being multifamily. What we are trying to do and what the City Council, I believe, attempted to do through Resolution 1123 is to stage our growth as much as possible and try to put in a number of needed improvements for street, water, sewer and the like at a pace 22 Hearing Examiner Minutes September 2 , 1987 Verbatim Minutes for Summer Woods that is somewhere equal for the demand for the growth and it is very difficult to do but we're making an attempt through implementing Resolution 1123 to do that. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you. Any rebuttal comments from the applicant or the applicant' s representative? All right, there appearing to be no rebuttal comments I will close the public hearing with respect to application #RZ-87-2 , the Elkins rezone request. I will issue my written findings of fact and conclusions of law within 14 calendar days from today' s date. 23 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 KENT LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER IN RE THE MATTER OF ) SUMMER WOODS ) ORDER REGARDING TESTIMONY OF MARK WELCH #RZ-87-2 ) THIS MATTER came on regularly before the undersigned Hearing Examiner on September 2 , 1987 at 3 : 00 p.m. A request has been made concerning the testimony of Mark Welch in regard to the multifamily development on the East Hill, it is hereby, ORDERED that the verbatim transcript concerning his testimony shall be made and is shown below: VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTION OF MARK WELCH OF SEPTEMBER 2, 1987 (1-1977) Mark Welch: My name is Mark Welch. I live at 11223 SE 240th which is half of the property involved. Just a couple of things I wanted to bring up. The staff, either by oversight or intentionally did not mention that we've had 39 acres of apartments right across 112th and 240th for over 20 years. So this is not something that is changing 240th a great deal right at this location. Also, on the East Hill Plan, the original ten acres right east of the shopping center was MRM, Multiple, and subsequent to the original zoning, they changed that to business. So, in fact, the way I look at it, this project does not add any multiple or apartments than what the original East Hill Plan did. So, as far as the water, there' s a misunderstanding there. Some water ponds down there, a foot high last winter during construction and digging some holes, it was about four and a half feet deep. They claimed they have corrected it since, I don't Know. We won't know until we get some water going through there. But, it got real deep which never was before. And those, statement that they had right of way on 240th and 112th from us, the initial zoning recommended that the property owner give that right of way when developed. All the .paperwork says that. They don't have it yet. Ms. VanDerbeek: Well, there' s no testimony that they had it, that it was a condition of the zoning. No one said they had the right of way. Welch: Well, I misunderstood him then. One other thing, of course, it' s quite obvious from the number printed, no developer or builder that I talked to said it' s practical to build residential homes on a major freeway which that' s going to be. Thank you. End of verbatim transcript IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner issued on October 71 1987 shall remain in full force and effect as signed. DATED this 7th day of October, 1987 . DIANE L . VAYDERBEEK HEARING EXAMINER 1 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER IN RE THE MATTER OF ) SUMMER WOODS ) ORDER EXTENDING TIME #RZ-87-2 ) THIS MATTER having come on regularly for public hearing before the undersigned Hearing Examiner on September 2, 1987, and the undersigned, having reviewed the record and file herein and deeming herself fully advised, it is now, HEREBY -- ORDERED that the time for consideration of this rezone shall be extended and the undersigned shall issue a written recommendation concerning same on or before October 7, 1987. This extension is issued pursuant to the authority granted the undersigned in City of Kent Ordinance #2233 . Dated this 16th of September, 1987 . D ANE L. VANDERBEEK HEARING EXAMIENR .... 1 nnnn,,Jy� 4 Kent City Council Meeting Date February 16, 1988 V Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: HEHR ANNEXATION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set to meet with the petitioners on the Hehr Annexation. The petitioners have been notified of the meeting. It is recommended that circulation of the 75 percent petition be approved . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from the Public Works Director and City Attorney i 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commis s ' n, etc. ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ % / SOURCE OF FUNDS: PUBLIC INPUT: CLOSE HEARING: J 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: / Councilmember A la 111 moves , Councilmember �ti�\ seconds - that Council co curs 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 . DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No . 4B DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS February 11, 1988 TO: Mayor Kelleher a d City Council FROM: Don Wickstrom ._. RE: Hehr Annexation This date has been set for a public meeting with the petitioners of the Hehr Annexation. The proposed annexation area consists of approximately 5 acres in the vicinity of 116th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 228th. The total assessed value is $199,500 and yearly taxes are $2,859 .08 . Comments received from other departments are: Planning Department - The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this property as Single Family 4-6 units per acre. Fire Department - As with all annexations to the east, this has the impact of reducing fire district revenue. Also with the acceptance of the responsibility to provide protection not only do costs remain the same but it further intensifies the need to provide for adequate •_ staffing on the Benson corridor. As long as we address this need, recognize the reduced responsibility and revenue relative to the fire district and consider proactive protection and future development, it should not create a major concern since it is currently undeveloped. Finance Department - No Comments. M It is recommended that Council authorize the circulation of the 75% petition subject to the existing bonded indebtedness to the City and the land use plan for the annexation area. r .5 * r � SING GOUN�TV`aA�SESSOR ` SCALE 1`— 100 Ia�t7-. t' )1 t7 i r II.. r h f tf K /15art �'•v+ '.:y �,� dG `` may' IN e 1•� R o h ,px /]IS , + , 1.btu� f t r < ..fir ', p �'L „ t .y \ a •F •f '.\• 6 I •'! I. _a yl I t r r 1 1 . f r'•V t 1 ( YI ' . ,r 1 i' ) \E i of- K. N .. 1 r 7 v�!' ° .� b r '.` I f 'r vti.. r +r I•r 'r ]� ,. H `h A t r tt a ,t ';�: 27 P ! 4 V f °f/ r 0/° h ✓1 l./ oIf 7I .�'. 7N�.' J r `t"t ^ t t +,+r >, t IvS tr 4 .1 , ! g•1✓,ir 11'r/y L/ >� •°+If •t•r f/' 1' .�Yr .] pp 'h . 5rld +?`. © ,r I \ �.. >r ' a t a rr C t i > 1 )' t 't•o': .{` if r. ���� '7J t{ 7I..; 1 t •� ilr 4 rNa v. a a plo la r ? f71e♦♦1�..' n t.K.. .._. .. f! ]•o��r^'`.o • -•,ce+° Q.r•l Gc )s I � , • fe luo aF n cr JC ; a^• .J..].. •e.TAr No S7_72 73 j a- to W:. J { C.KTO i afr> .r. �h. 7I eu1..'l 1 n -,. ? 802570 - ✓,♦.«...wls i �a'+o .a r.ea.a W polls w sl ru �' f♦ r • SE.225TN ST. •♦4•• a 1 ,y '' Q l • .. •a..- t f, fi /_r.%l•-•;�.i"� ! r;�0 w •a0. a; ; w - w i f r " fe ^ .Vf L» SO w:l S/ w as/u 2 IS- f, Id x .L :am a o40 to J./r - ! r Vn u , pe ,p a'° ww " ow/ a- N." /no a4 •u _ +•��. Y -.JG tF Ip 't r' « JI rr.. t r» r ` a• a].t as 1 >.u• '• \q]\\ 7ila >Ja4! I:lo,- ' raa� f ,� ✓ ar,. w / •'. f +� i n a♦ 1+] tt v ' .a o- u• n t + nu . I1 'e A It Is)I o'e ]Ir 's- t IV n at o.r Joe li Y. r a o Ir ..• .=•n Ia4 al �.�' Q1 !`r�.i 37 jw�m// w .^ �4].1 i r♦a a°' Gill r+ L4.' .i :e . •• w.Ir aass ! •a' by '�)1 I r1•r ..>c' .at Ialoto• �. 1 LL ». r 'Tn. t " SE 726TH• , �.• r . . aj: i1r— a usa 1 1 ♦ 1 • r� L ` ;e �;-• n 11 f »,v 1 �' . •ip a •-•✓ i+C Y. a er` a •. ao I 7 n... JJ La 4{ 'f a• t r r i Est +ct 1 �ii i r a.s Ji /a �o`'.i• pp��o ItMr L p4 ^.n tl..! "as IW r •,n• o J/ NI• + f• t O 1• of y(]• J rrN / ✓ INIYr ; L 1T' 7r f-` 7YlwI— It'1tt+r't✓. ••.�" 1 ral�T •,�f-.l+ l���l\' t+a� ✓+ Nw, ; Jy•"% .�3� \'l„VtJ,f.l LI .. ; Mr' Z i. •] .'y ' fY` fir. 9 1 a' nvO �a • / ••n ,wa a • . 9$ 226TH ST. .l.h N ,.• +t G'S !•Io` o ua '" W.�]�;nN vat • .'-r��' M N° .•✓ . 1 ✓ ✓e' 4a V. N• II roaa, �./' j' "nYtT III a • •( ✓♦ ( j"(\ ul rIt •a11. /% I, •�aMLI •••ate ...J it l•�• t�! �' s. 'I �w •e lY _ •' w� ✓�...% ✓'. .rs � ^ ; l . ! ras t Ya '•'t +, Ma°••• .�'Z,]a .� �0-y2[\ ! ♦ •�fu � • : ro �• •• ♦• .,' • aI [ • ra0 17 rial N4 •,Of4 .� .. - .. 'fI,Y'✓'$ i`�i r 1 IA -• 1 ••• ✓+ ° 17• "aN a a l - J _ala l0 7 1 ♦ I H t n n � 1r r 7 I..• rIW i NI ]u• ]r i na •n1` t ♦ ,,� ddd a n7». it II• �Sri1 ,SW •�Ol O Os°. �F +• taY Y' I t t• W +N Wp. + ♦Iraa n :' 7 1_ u• „ ea1t _ aa• ••.�t; ya IJ-7 ;J 1 la.••• Q ^• l r ] j'...:!4 a.o Hh. !' ] io+� a ri SE.[26TH PLi .. L^ .ul•a v ' IW 1 11 r - I' Oa • n!H' "NI , r•b H-I, i\�'1 a . _,. t•t ✓ c• w no ,, • ,' . 'lal 'i Ilt• JIO IIa1• a `• 1 OI r!11 �' 277Tr ?f u1 I rr • r I. 1 l\\. �'.,r I ito✓. ❑ItO 1 ) atA ,'� 9� r.l.a"'ru .-tr, •' ti � t u Iaal IY •}r + tr .4.e 11 .111aa ' IIaj4 ..Y F via � to •.��-W a •.� •✓ � �^ \�C .. 1 .1.1• . .t 1:.7 ua+o) l �� Z '� n � I,s4� .dJ't uJ�r. Np.•,+'' ! x all 4 V t1 I. :.\a� t •• I-• t Y, t \` f ; J+1 : y1r. f•2 , ••e He 1W��i. 11 • J r r 4] A i ] �� 1 • •I 'jr✓' •.. .• ]✓ !a � aav a: m` 7. Idaaet ii a q �/• f+ -� iyi..ei L )1 t: It ;/ 3'n]J ♦ Ia l.0 11.r..=.11tw•»r.n 2T+, 227 TH ML 1 ^W i ♦ u a ;'» � » h rn J 1 t to ra4 pv ••° Y NfO ✓ W t r1O J4. OIN a M• ,••' I rw1v. IM'? 1 •Ipo' •M I+oo •✓ •oa a] :IIJ ]♦ ']gas •u, �Tu • a. u. •a. •ft '� �. �b17 07'.�Y.1 n ' 4' n u [ •' r'A - f � p. I. [ .� Cf 1 � . ..1 r -..�t Br•Po 7 ...r �1. r` _•,;. •r Jv �1 ,M.1 f't�u.Ln �rLL Mir ♦ ..fiif .• ' rN 4{'.Y.MX 1n43 ♦ v V n. J. 1 ry'e` :� 1 yy., V �1r'Ir>I M•'f i �T ♦ hr. 1^•,,..M. V lh1L,.K: x,. >I•d e �i = 1+ Id �ffl.r+ ♦ •n b! .N•1 yl�.•'+ � ,t'a 4\ �"y1' 1, .. `` { IvT �• ♦ am • t aY1`a✓i.J/� .. ( alt /t�y� i 11� .: �i 1 11 zcl� x at1 S.Ea ^226TN`P\�' . ' • e 1� a 'If �i16/Y 5 rsr ..r�.--a::r,�peY�"�L �. .✓r.^' 'I,r` _ ,. A82 B A ! 11 t ,nr1 66 JI• r. ra0 ,.'� f a. f s Y�ef a / ,��'/f.�, 0pas�D !N � a �• h It L'ol" 17 .2+ �t. 18 ' r 1� 1.y�>:. rP °;: I��Sp a �.i`.'• �+ t )o .^'a4°'r t'' �� t �rG �.. n.I• �f 1 :., 1 J% f r Y+i I 1166 V� Y`R {SI ' + ate- - lu..•.. r i 4�'ei aa�.6 y��Yhat'Ctiy}c, ham'( a /w+L+r,. ik T) ✓ 1 "^J)✓w 14 a I S I ,!•14� J4 ra{•Olrp,nCft:'V'f1>at.!!Ttl'/'3''CYS' 'ltiw:r+ii+• �.TR A"a1 ♦ 19 r� e ` a I E :•1• e1 h 1•• .O..Mr.' t.4 i v'l:aw. �. �'< d iL f. ..a,i�- tf'"r°.'.e• a e 1a L ��� , 1 - �� /a n/ I w Rl� �I� •a r r �. r -6 /a . .- a u+r r - rar ao•I. °/ aNJ'. M'1 •! M+E.La ISK ltta sH17 /a ) .19 f t LrN�) C/.1�.YI.V yT.�°i���Y/.,.lr+Fru 1'+M{•��'CO���'�J1+ •!t 1.70 Is It ��'b,J •'_Tr_ F�r/'.,) A• S Nf'...'o +.d/'Cif +^'JS f/ ) •.•M e!'"-, L,Jaf l�Li Y)o Oa•.!Is oo 44 It it 'C i nt ♦ P• III K 10 •n • ap OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DATE: February 10, 1988 TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Sandra Driscoll , City Attorney SUBJECT: 75 PERCENT PETITION ANNEXATION METHOD The Council set February 16, 1988 as the date to have a meeting with the property owners in a proposed annexation area. Set forth below is a summary of the process for such an annexation. I. INITIATION OF THE PROCESS The owners of not less than 10 percent in value of the entire property to be annexed must give notice to the City of their intention to commence annexation proceedings. II. ANNEXATION PROPOSAL HEARING The City must then set a date not later than 60 days after the filing of the request for a meeting with those parties to determine the following: A. Whether the City will accept the proposed annexation; and B. Whether the City will require the assumption of all or any portion of the existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. If the City requires the assumption of any or a portion of the indebtedness, this must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. Petitioning parties cannot proceed to annexation under this annexation method without the approval of the City Council . There is no right to appeal from the decision of the council on this matter. III. PETITION If the City approves the initial annexation proposal after the meeting, a petition may be circulated among the property owners. The petition must: A. set forth a description of the property according to legal subdivisions or plats; B. be accompanied by a map that outlines the boundaries of the property sought to be annexed; C. if the City has required assumption of all or any portion of city indebtedness, this fact must be set forth together with a quotation of the minute entry of such requirement; and D. be signed by the owners of not less than 75 percent in value of the property for which annexation is petitioned. IV. HEARING ON THE PETITION The petition for annexation must be filed with the City Council . It must be certified by the City as sufficient. Three working days after filing the petition, the officer certifying the petition must begin determining its sufficiency and also file with the City Council a certificate stating the date the determination of sufficiency was begun. When a legally sufficient petition is filed with the Council , that body may entertain it and: A. fix a date for a public hearing; and B. provide notice specifying the time and place of the hearing, and inviting interested persons to appear and voice approval or disapproval of the annexation. The notice is to be: 1 . published in one or more issues of a newspaper of general circulation in the City; and 2. posted in three public places within the territory proposed for annexation. - 2 - V. HEARING AND DECISION Following the hearing, if the Council determines to affect the annexation, it shall do so by passing an ordinance. It may annex all or any portion of the area proposed for annexation, but may not include any property not described in the petition. VI. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ANNEXATION On the date fixed in the ordinance of annexation, the area annexed becomes a part of the City. If the petition so provides, on the effective date of annexation, the property annexed shall be taxed at the same rate and on the same basis as property within the City to pay for the portion of any then outstanding indebtedness of the City that the City has required the area to assume. VII. NOTICE OF ANNEXATION A certificate must be submitted in triplicate to the State Office of Fiscal Management within 30 days of the effective date of annexation. Copies of the annexation ordinance with a legal description and map showing the boundaries must be attached to each of the three copies of the certificate. It must be signed by the Mayor and attested by the Clerk. 3660L-02L - 3 - Kent City Council Meeting l� ( Date February 16, 1988 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, February 16, 1988 (Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc. ) " 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Approximately $50,000 SOURCE OF FUNDS : Funds are contained within the 1988 Budget for this purpose 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 " DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 4C MEMORANDUM DATE: February 10, 1988 TO: Mayor Kelleher Councilmembers FROM: Mi*ebby, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1987 CLASSIFICATION AND PAY RECOMMENDATION The purpose of this memorandum is to discuss the implementation of the 1987 Classification and Pay Project recommendation affecting our non-represented staff. As you recall , the Project was conducted by the firm of Bill Ewing and Associates. The completed Project was presented and accepted by the City in early December, 1987. Funding for Project implementation was approved and is contained in the 1988 Budget in the amount of $50,000. The Consultant's recommendation has been reviewed by the Council Operations Committee. A formula has been developed that will allow the Consultant's recommendation to be implemented within the budget. The proposed implementation date is March 1, 1988 with no retroactivity. The Operations Committee, at its meeting on February 16, 1988, will review the final recommendation as well as the implementation process. Additions to our management benefit program resulting from this Study will also be reviewed by the Committee at that time. The Operations Committee, at its meeting on February 1 , 1988, requested this item be placed on the February 16, agenda. •However, if for any reason the Committee is not ready to recommend implementation at this time the item will be removed from consideration. In summary the following significant issues have been addressed by the Operations Committee: Final study recommendation covering all 185 positions. Implementation formula resulting in study implementation is within the 1988 Budget of $50,000. Effective date of implementation is proposed to be March 1 , 1988 with no retroactivity salary adjustments. Positions added to the management benefit program, recommended by the Consultant, have also been reviewed by the Operations Committee. If you have any questions regarding this memorandum or the proposed recommendation, please contact Brent or me prior to Tuesday evening's meeting. 2056W-30W 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 C 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 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 / Kent City Council Meeting Date February 16 , 1988 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: COUNCIL TARGET ISSUES 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Council President White will present the 1988 target issues and comment on the accomplishment of the 1987 issues . 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 . 4D 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 OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES February 1 , 1988 COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Christi Houser Steve Dowell Paul Mann STAFF PRESENT: Brent McFall Tony McCarthy Mike Webby -_- May Miller OTHERS PRESENT: None APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS All claims for the period ending December 33, 1987, in the amount of $419,136.67 and for January 31 , 1988, in the amount of $1 ,084,375.05 were approved for payment. As explained to the Committee, the •December 33, payments were for goods and services received in December which are charged against the 1987 Budget. This payment against the 1987 Budget will be the last voucher charges against 1987. At the request of Councilman Dowell , a purchase order to a local veterinarian for the purchase of dog food for the K-9 was brought to the Police Department's attention. The Police Department will look at alternatives for purchasing the dog food, but initial comments are that the veterinarian is open after City Hall closes and that the veterinarian will bill the City for the special diet dog food. Local grocery store will not establish such a billing, and since City Hall is closed petty cash is not an option. The Police Department will review other alternatives. ESTABLISH COMMITTEE DATES AND TIMES At the request of Council Chair Christi Houser, the Department reviewed the options for holding bimonthly meetings. The Committee and the Council as a whole are desirous of establishing fixed dates for such meeting, and after much discussion, decided to change the meeting dates to the 15th and the 1st day of the month, as opposed to the 15th and the last day of the month. This process will make it easier to establish a consistent calendar time, but the r � Operations Committee Minutes February 1 , 1988 Page 2 Committee is still aware that when dates fall on a Saturday the meeting will be held on a Friday. If they fall on a Sunday the meeting will be held on a Monday assuming that the Monday is not a holiday in which case the meeting will be on Tuesday. The Committee understands that the staff processing schedule for issuance of vouchers will be same as it currently exists, meaning that certain vendors that require payment by the 31st of month can still receive their checks on that day. PAY AND CLASS IMPLEMENTATION Assistant City Administrator Mike Webby briefly highlighted the pay and class study project to Councilman Mann, who was sitting at his first Operations Committee. As part pf Lthat presentation, he noted that the Council accepted � the Consultant's—resemmWdat-ion- on December X and that during the interim period, various concerns have been brought to the attention of the Consultant for which the Consultant has responded as of January 30, with his final recommendations. The Committee has not received those details, but those recommendations will be discussed with the Committee at their next meeting of February 16 and the item will appear on the February 16 Council Agenda for adoption. Based upon successful recommendation by the Committee and the Council the implementation will be as of March 1 , 1988 with the adjustments appearing on the March 20 paycheck. As part of the implementation plan, which will be within the $50,000 budgeted amount, 20 additional positions are being recommended for exempt status which means that they will be have a management benefit allocation in lieu of overtime. The schedule appears acceptable to the Committee and concerns of those not on the Committee can be addressed either at the Operations Committee or at the Council meeting both of which will be on the 16th. At this time it is not recommended that the Consultant make another trip to the City, but that the staff handle the presentations. PUBLIC PRIVATE BUILDING VENTURE City Administrator McFall asked the Committee for their blessing with respect to establishing a Statement of Qualifications from potential developers, who Operations Committee Minutes February 1, 1988 Page 3 may develop the City property between the City Hall and Engineering building, for the use as City Hall office space. Brent explained to the Committee that since it was a private developer who would be leasing City land and the City would lease back for office space, that the City did not have to go through the formal construction bid proposals. He felt that the Statement of Qualifications from potential developers and a process which would allow the City to negotiate with a selected developer would provide a more open process than if a developer was selected without such a process. Based upon this the Committee concurred with Brent's proposal to develop a Statement of Qualification for potential site developers. 66F-01F • o C� C� � U �1 �; F E B 4 1988 CITY OF KENT CITY CLERK PARKS COMMITTEE MINUTES January 27, 1988 Councilmembers Present: Steve Dowell , Chair, Jon Johnson, Judy Woods, and Jim White, ounce resident Staff Present: Brent McFall , Barney Wilson, Tony McCarthy, Jack Ball , Lori Hogan, Patrice Thorell , Neil Sullivan, Helen Wickstrom, Cheryl Fraser, Robyn Bartelt, Liz Carpenter, Lea Britting and Ramona Valdez Also Present: See attached list PARKS COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: e next meeting was set for February 24, 1988, at 4 m. , in the Courtroom. Dowell announced that each mee ing erea er wou e�every a nes a•y, in the Council Chambers, 4 p.m. Call Ramona Valdez for agendas or information on meetings at 59-3995. SENIOR ADVISORY COUNCIL BYLAWS: Wilson, Par Ks and Recreation Director, reported that at the November 3 Council Meeting it was determined that the Senior Center issue was an administrative matter to be handled by the City Administrator and staff. Wilson noted that he had contacted Les Morris who refused to meet with him. Bartelt, Senior Center Facility Manager, provided copies of a proposal for bylaws developed by the Senior Advisory Council after reviewing those of other centers, and with the input of the Kent Concerned Citizens Group. Chet Hodgkin stated that he was the spokesperson for Kent Concerned Citizens which he said was a group of 169 with no interest in personnel changes at the Senior Center. He presented a proposal for bylaws using Renton as a model . The Committee will consider both proposals and make a recommendation at a future Parks Committee meeting. Bylaws will then be reviewed by the City Attorney and placed on the Council Agenda. Wilson noted that the initial meeting of the Committee of 23, was held at the home of John Wood, Chairman of the Concerned Citizens of Kent, and questioned whether these two groups were really separate. MEMBERSHIP FEE AT THE SENIOR CENTER: Judy Woods clarified that the Committee' s intent for this item was a report of the entire Department's fee structure. Wilson noted that all Recreation Program fees had been increased 10-15 percent. Dowell asked for a complete report, including Senior Center's membership fees, on February 24. NAMING OF PARK: Wilson said tat the Department had no objection to this request to name a small Green River area Eagle Park, in recognition of the cleanup efforts of Boy Scout Troup #316 and he in recommended compliance with ordinance requirements of a six-month wait. The Committee unanimously accepted the proposal . Wilson remarked that the work of the Boy Scouts was appreciated. ' Parks Committee Minutes January 27, 1988. Page 2 DEPARTMENT REORGANIZATION/BUDGET TRANSFERS: Wilson reviewed a proposal which would provide a $50,000 per year General Fund saving. The retirement of Bill Stevens, Maintenance Superintendent, created a domino effect on the Parks personnel structure. Recommendations include Lori Hogan being promoted to Recreation Superintendent and moving all Recreation staff to Kent Commons; Neil Sullivan would become the new Golf Complex Superintendent; and Jack Ball would be promoted to Maintenance Superintendent. Wilson pointed out that full use of his assigned City car was included to allow for and encourage additional program surveillance. He stated that there would be a one-time cost of $50,000 to remodel Kent Commons' games room for the Recreation staff (using temporary partitions) , the preferable space since games room revenue has declined; and because the Commons is open for 16 hours a day, this proposal would also provide better service. Other plans include moving the Cultural Division to the Parks Second-Floor area with some of the existing space being used for other City departments. McFall stated that he was very supportive of the proposal . It was clarified that the Cultural proposal to make one 1988 full-time position into two part-time positions resulted in only a small increase in benefits. The Committee unanimously accepted the reorganization proposal and recommended placement on Council Consent Calendar. 1988 CITY ART PLAN: Carpenter noted t at the plan had been accepted by the Arts Commission. McFall advised that in the 1988 Budget process, a separate fund had been established so that funds no longer need to be reallocated. The Committee unanimously approved the plan which will be placed on the Council Agenda. Woods reported that there will be an architect selection meeting for the ._ Library on January 29. KENT COMMONS SCULPTURE REPAIR: In response to Dowe s question, Carpenter reported that the best contractor for the work was the low bidder, but work starting date has not yet been set because of the contractor's other commitments. Dowell asked Carpenter to check on the timeline. CLARK LAKE: Wilson reported that he had ordered an appraisal. KING COUNTY PARKS WITHIN OUR SERVICE AREA: Due to Kent Parks' need for facilities to match growth, Wilson will meet with Russ Cahill of King County on January 28 to discuss some kind of cooperative management and maintenance of County facilities within the City of Kent service area. Parks Committee Minutes January 27, 1988 Page 3 In response to Woods' question, Wilson said he would consider managing the Forward Thrust pool if the County were to contribute toward the pool 's deficit. Eighty percent of the pool users are County residents. Woods noted that several Councilmembers are interested in Grandview; McFall said that the County's maintenance of Grandview is not up to the City's standards resulting in numerous complaints, as citizens confuse this with a City park. SALE OF THE GOULD HOUSE: Wilson had notified the high bidder and it is hoped that the house can be moved without disturbing the existing trees. This method is cheaper than demolishing the house and removing the debris. Revenue will qo to the General Fund per McFall. SENIOR CENTER: John Wood stated that he was a member of the Senior Center because he had filled out a medical card there. Dowell asked Wood to discuss the matter further with staff or himself after the meeting. Dowell thanked visitors and staff on being respectful in order to solve problems. 2641R-31R 0,00M J-cf- � a 9 V9 C-/XI(./-- Z , /RC / vrfl G �Ol//� UR�/ LOU.�' c il� /LJ[�til()[ /� i� �;7 �.�Y �'lr5 r-C '/:.�✓�� �._� :�i' L: i '� / L.�' .s t tj r) /�„/��-inn/ `•�./,/i./Lw�l-C��'-, u� L� (.��%:�... �� � /itJr� L'r.J.i � � � - � ' � \! ""1CliC� �r��ZG:/'�-- ✓� ( j G\� '`r..Z.n'L�� v ,/�,yf•:/i' '_'_____..._ `L C:•�.'l�L'i_: :'��,44-C7�C! .r % /, �, ,:� QO L f, .J ;J 1}��<'r��L(.•9 (l�}�( `/.y ��.2 q r �/ L_ )f(/✓T/ «��� �,r6).51 IX �-