Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 01/05/1988 City of Kent City Council Meeting Agenda BUT _ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Council Chambers CIT City of Kent January 5, 1988 ,._ Office of the City Clerk 7 : 00 p.m. NOTE: Items on the Consent Calendar are either routine or _ have been previously discussed . Any item may be removed by a Councilmember . CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1 . PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Oath of Office for Councilmembers B Employee of the Month - Certificates of Appr ciation for Kent 2000 Committee 2: - "PUBLIC BEARINGS Hill Community Well Annexation Area 4#2 - Zoning Parcels A & B , - Summer Woods Rezone Appeal 3 . CONSENT CALENDAR -• _ Minutes Bills C. Formation of L. I .D. 331 - Ordinance ,-D_. Amendment J)to Zoning Code - Ordinance ��i �;�.��.-2,t-In`>� J'�l.',LF{.{�• f�'..L'L�l d ''� "�:a . }.� ,c i . . {J.:.U� - �;col bl .�.�!.1 i1!?"L/1 T.G!-i'.ti L i' CL, 4 . OTHER BUSI4�TES J 7 -A.. Council President Election Appointments 5 . BIDS � 6 ._,-I�EPORTS CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Citizens wishing to address the Council will , at this time, make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly heard. ' A. Oath of Office for Councilmembers Steve Dowell , Paul Mann, Jim White and Judy Woods B. Employee of the Month 1 C. Certificates of Appreciation for Kent 2000 Committee ys. j"J r ct; Kent City Council Meeting Date January 5, 1988 Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: EAST HILL COMMUNITY WELL ANNEXATION AREA NO. 2 AREAS A & B -- ZONING AZ-87-2 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date is the second and final hearing to consider the Hearing Examiner ' s recommended zoning for the East Hill Community Well Annexation Area No . 2 , Areas A & B. The first hearing was held on November 17 , 1987 . Thy.-.Hea.ring �--re-oom*e-nd `s -o4A-1-ined in the attacared—Fi-nT tags aid Recommendations slat d October 7 14 / . 3 . EXHIBITS: Minutes of 'City Council Meeting of November 17 , 1987 , Memo, Staff report, Hearing Examiner Minutes , Findings and Recommendations 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner , 10/7/87 — (Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc . ) is€ R19 . 6 and R17 . 2 single family residential for area A and 0 professional and office and CC Community Commercial for Area B. r W 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS : _ OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT: ` CLOSE HEARING: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves , Councilmember ����� �� seconds to _ [modify ncu the findings of the Hearing Examiner to cor._- witV isagree with the Hearing Examiner recommended zoning an to direct the City Attorney to prepare the required ordinance . ,_. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No . 2A November 17, 1987 STREETS family property might favor the proposal if the zoning was changed. After all who wished to speak had done so, the public hearing was closed by motion. JOHNSON MOVED that the memorandum from the Public (LID 331 ) Works Director be made a part of the record and the City Attorney be directed to prepare the ordinance creating LID 331 . White seconded for the purpose of allowing discussion. Johnson stated that the City would lose the grant if the LID is abandoned. He pointed out that the City ' s No. 1 priority was to resolve the transportation problems. If the City were to have to pay the LID costs, taxes would have to be raised. Bailey concurred with Johnson that, in view of the County ' s plan for improving 240th to the east, that this portion should also be improved. He stated that he sympathized with the comments made tonight, but that there was no alternative but to do the job while the grant money was available. White concurred that the need for the improvement was great and he asked for time to consider whether the properties would be benefitted in an amount equal to the assessments . Wickstrom noted that time was important as UAB funds would be allocated on a first come, first served basis . It was determined that the Public Works Committee could consider the problems and make a recommenda- tion for the December 1 Council meeting. WHITE SO MOVED and Houser seconded. Johnson spoke against the motion to delay. Upon question, Kelleher noted that the motion to refer to committee would super- cede the former motion. Jim Leonard suggested that this could be made into two projects, funding the portion from 108th to 112th Avenue S.E. with - UAB funds and for the City to find some other way to finance the portion from 112th to 116th Avenue S.E. The motion carried with Johnson voting against it _.. and Bailey abstaining since he will not be present for the Committee meeting. He noted that Dowell would attend in his place. ZONING OF EAST Areas A and B - Zoning This is the first of two HILL COMMUNITY hearings to consider the Hearing Examiner ' s recom- WELL ANNEXATION mended zoning for the East Hill Community Well AREA NO. 2 Annexation Area No. 2, Areas A and B. The second hearing for Areas A and B is scheduled for January 5, 1988. 4 - November 17, 1987 ZONING OF EAST Kathy McClung of the Planning Department noted that HILL COMMUNITY the Hearing Examiner ' s recommendation is as follows: WELL ANNEXATION AREA NO. 2 AREA A 1. West of 100th Avenue SE (extended) : R1-9.6 (single family residential with a minimum 9,600 square foot lot size) . - 2. East of 100th Avenue SE (extended): R1-7.2 (single family residential with a minimum 7,200 square foot lot size) . AREA B 1. 0, Professional and office, for that portion lying south of SE 244th Street. 2. CC, Community Commercial, for that portion north of SE 244th Street. McClung noted that the recommendations for zoning were determined by the Comprehensive Plan. The Mayor declared the public hearing open. Mel Kleweno, representing Goodwin, Ruth & Guinn, who own property on S .E. 244th, noted that the East Hill Plan desig- nates this area as multiple zoning. He pointed out that the properties were located at the rear of the proposed new Fred Meyer store and would be difficult to sell for single family residential with a minimum of 7200 sq. ft. lots . He suggested that this area should be zoned MRM in compliance with the East Hill Plan and because it is consistent with good planning practice to provide buffer areas. There were no further comments and WOODS MOVED to continue this matter to the January 5 public hearing at which time additional input may be received. White seconded. Motion carried. Area C - Zoning. Woods noted that the zoning hear- ings and the appeals of W. J. Carey and Michael Bergstrom have been scheduled for December 15 , 1987 and January 19, 1988. She MOVED to change these hearing dates to January 19 and March 1 , 1988. Houser seconded and the motion carried. COMMUTER RAIL Mayor Kelleher noted that Metro has withdrawn its proposal to the legislature for full immediate fund- ing for the Commuter Rail project from Seattle to Auburn. Metro is still asking for funding of the Phase 3 portion of the study, which is the engi- neering work to get the project ready, should the project be implemented. On November 25 the Metro proposal will be before the State Rail Commission. Puget Sound Council of Governments has stated that - 5 - KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT November 12 , 1987 MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director SUBJECT: FIRST HEARING ON THE PERMANENT ZONING FOR THE EAST HILL WELL #2 ANNEXATION; AREAS A AND B On October 7 , 1987 , the Hearing Examiner issued the recommendation on the permanent zoning for Areas A and B of the East Hill Well #2 annexation. The first hearing for Areas A and B will be held on Tuesday, November 17th and after testimony has been taken, will be continued to January 5, 1988. Area A lies westerly of 104th Avenue SE while Area B lies on both sides of 104th (see accompanying map) . The Hearing Examiner's recommendation is: AREA A 1. West of 100th Avenue SE (extended) : R1-9. 6 (single family residential with a minimum 9 , 600 square foot lot size) . 2 . East of 100th Avenue SE (extended) : R1-7 . 2 (single family residential with a minimum 7, 200 square foot lot size) . AREA B 1. O, Professional and office, for that portion lying south of SE 244th Street. 2. CC, Community Commercial, for that portion north of SE 244th Street. Staff will be present to review for the Council the exact location of the Examiner's recommendations and what each proposed zoning district means in relationship to density and land use. JPH:ca »w " CITY OF KENT N C) No planni� . 4 KIRK OOf n 000 a: 3N y ^I pp 1� le Z N CUPK AVE •► AVE n� m L NEN INOTON rr1V>''•AVE MN3 9 S►r�l • n� (L N A N TO tl� Wl p1p0 3 y Xfy3 '^r N lASON 6 AVC -. r o y s n s rND ,1i 11• ' _ n 2 S VANOC ANTER AVE L N ►ROS► ;If`_MAR ON yy SALE%A A �1 S y RA AVE m DER n;• s •aPLS SCREST AVE T a �' p �4N NAEELVE U . ,(D ONES FINER * u 2 > F yY O! yyL ^< ry.17 1 IN b n _ y y r R/ MPI S'.\:- Z y nj 'ro IELO m L c 0 _ y r O ...:, -%(` N AVE E •]i r n Z T u n 2 r4 `Od'1 },(<', u ALVORD A< ,y'I�A LANE r -1 u to `• f -.4_?J y AVE > AVE y o1. 0} N F a ::1.• QVEL'L y. y VIEW ,.IY i:• ( E N SUMMIT, HILLTOP AVE S REITEN :c", ' O u S AVE -1 S 9:No r y 3 MAPLEWOOO AVE. ~ •C�'A.`LI \,,. O X> 1 1 .1 -1 N 4 ].- _. fO1m u v S NIMBE RlA p11• iCl:✓L ���1C ,e4 N NON r N V o W AVE ] •3AV- aN' p76♦1+�. �Q Ni/ AVE S 1 11 ^6T11 A� ..A 1. �'.RQ�•t• �/� O _ N i r x .... ..'L�•EhLt TD Nam' y ` -] mE�1 O FAWB PRY N. C•'. 9 H 4lLb. O, D _ � N 99TH AVE S O T q • "Q 9 ... WA n� �- ■n 03IDOTH AVE L 3E yx IAm L BE _� O3-Ni 33 IAj 0zi r�r IOINO. :.Barricade .(8D N m z AVE 3E D j r) Z ro 104TH 9.9•L ——__ r .._. _ W •_1 N m L^ ]MT PL BE WW N _' �n w �1•�y' a 1 N W =3 = 109TH AVE BE 19TH i. yl �� • A N E SF 108TH AVE 3 11111111111II II I•i IeII \ /9�y 109TIl r PL BE— IITN AVE SE MOTH r •- � PL BE y L r r la r i� (Pull 113TH AVE BE In111111I11111111 11111 od r r nr ■/r r r r x MATH A E I4E -i 111111111 � ® -O { 11 T, - ti _ S,vE • `.' - 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 f 1 1 I11111� r V' N N '--'I I)TN PL ' 1-. 01 APPLICATIE HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION _ LEGEND : EAST HILL WELL ANNEXATION AREA 2 Number_ #A2-e7-2 _ anlicalioo site '1111'LllllrE, q Arc-m A reposed Re UCSIg _ Zoning bndry city limils ■ININI F SCALE = Vicinity Map 1" = 1000' FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT FILE NO: EAST HILL WELL ANNEXATION AREA 2 #AZ-87-2 APPLICANT: CITY OF KENT REQUEST: A request to apply permanent zoning designations to properties lying within the East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 boundaries. LOCATION: The annexation area consists of approximately 370 parcels and 410 acres. APPLICATION FILED: April 24 , 1987 ,.. DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE: July 8 , 1987 RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: October 7 , 1987 RECOMMENDATION: AREA A 1. West of 100th Avenue SE (extended) : R1-9 . 6 (single family residential with a minimum 9, 600 square foot lot size) . 2 . East " of 100th Avenue SE (extended) : R1-7 .2 (single family residential with a minimum 7, 200 square foot lot size) . AREA B 3 . 0, Professional and Office, for that portion lying south of SE 244th Street. 4 . CC, Community Commercial, for that portion north of SE 244th Street. ••- AREA C 1. For the area west of 112th Avenue SE extended and north of SE 248th Street: R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Residential (7 , 200 square foot minimum lot size) . 2 . For the area south of SE 252nd Street: R1-7 . 2, Single " Family Residential (7, 200 square foot minimum lot size) except the 4 .80 acre parcel known as Stratford Arms. -._ 3 . Stratford Arms: MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential , allowing 23 units per acre (entire Stratford Arms site, including the undeveloped portions) . 1 Findings and Recommendation _. East Hill Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 4 . H. L. Bainton property south of SE 248th Street, adjacent to former City boundary: MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential, maximum of six dwelling units per acre. 5. Property east of 112th Avenue SE extended, north of SE 252nd except Bainton property: R1-9 . 6, Single Family Residential (9 , 600 square foot minimum lot size) . STAFF REPRESENTATIVES : Jim Hansen, Planning Department Kathy McClung, Planning Department Greg McCormick, Planning Department Gary Gill , Public Works Department PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Various members of the public WRITTEN TESTIMONY: Several letters received After due consideration of the evidence presented by the applicant, all evidence elicited during the public hearing, and as a result of the personal inspection of the subject property by the Hearing Examiner, the following findings of fact and conclusions shall constitute the decision of the Hearing Examiner on this application. INTRODUCTION The City of Kent requests various rezones herein in connection with property recently annexed to the City of Kent. The annexation area is known as East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 and covers 410 acres in 370 parcels. There are approximately 894 persons who reside within the annexation area. The annexation area is located north of SE 256th, south of SE 240th Street, west of 116th Avenue SE and east of 94th Avenue S. The annexation area: is bisected by 104th Avenue SE. Further, local collector arterials such as 116th Avenue SE and SE 248th Street serve the area. The annexation area has been divided into three areas for purposes of this hearing. The public hearing regarding Areas A and B was held on August 19 , 1987. The area described as Area A lies west of a line approximately 300 feet west of 104th Avenue SE. The area described as Area B lies adjacent to 104th Avenue SE, both east and west for approximately 300 feet. The public hearing for Area C which is the easterly portion of the East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 was held on September 2 , 1987 . 2 Findings and Recommendation East Hill Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 The time for the deliberation and recommendation on this matter was extended by the undersigned on September 16, 1987 setting a deadline of October 7, 1987 . As a result of the recent annexation, all of the subject property has an interim zoning designation of R1-20, Single Family Residential, minimum lot size of 20, 000 square feet. FINDINGS OF FACT AREA A 1. The portion of the annexation area known as "Area All is approximately 135 acres in size. The location of Area A is described in the introduction. 2 . Land use in the vicinity is predominantly rural, single family. Most of the lots located to the west of 100th Avenue SE are at least one-half acre in size. Many parcels are vacant or underdeveloped. There is one lot to the west of a plat known as Link Addition which is 6, 000 square feet in size. However, the Link Addition plat contains lots which average approximately 9, 400 square feet and most of the lots in the vicinity where R1-9 . 6, Single Family Residential, zoning is recommend exceed 9, 600 square feet in size. 3 . The evidence establishes that the topography of the area is varied. The land slopes generally from east to west with an average grade of four percent. There are no significant streams or creeks. The vegetation in the vicinity is that typically associated with rural-type single family homes with residential landscaping. There are some small orchards as well as open fields and pastures containing grazing animals. 4. All of the existing streets in the vicinity contain two lanes with narrow gravel shoulders in some areas and generally open ditches. There are no sidewalks in the vicinity. The significant streets within Area A are 94th Avenue S, 98th Avenue S, SE 248th Street and SE 244th Street. Currently, 100th Avenue SE is not a through street. The closest major intersections within the vicinity (104th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street and SE 256th Street and 104th Avenue SE) are already operating at level of service "F" . 5. The City is in the process of upgrading the water lines in the vicinity. Sanitary sewers serve some of the area and will be extended as the Comprehensive Plan Sewer Plan Map suggests. 6. The City of Kent Planning staff is recommending that Area A be zoned R1-9. 6, Single Family Residential with a minimum of 9, 600 square foot lot size, west of 100th Avenue SE extended and R1-7 . 2 , 3 Findings and Recommendation East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 Single Family Residential with a minimum of 7, 200 square foot lot size east of 100th Avenue SE (extended) . 7 . The East Hill Subarea Plan Map designates the area west of 100th Avenue SE as SF 6 (Single Family, 4-6 units per acre) and the property east of 100th Avenue SE as MF 12 (Multifamily, 7-12 units per acre) . 8 . Considerable testimony was given at the time of the public hearing concerning the possible impact of the proposed Fred Meyer development which is located across from the East Hill Elementary School on 100th Avenue SE. Witnesses expressed concern with respect to how their property would be affected as a result of the proposed development, and whether property zoned R1-7 . 2 in the vicinity of the proposed Fred Meyer development would be marketable. The testimony from the Planning Department establishes that the Fred Meyer development has not obtained any building permits and has only recently submitted an environmental checklist. AREA B 9 . The. area known as "Area B" , with the location described in the introduction, is approximately 12 . 26 acres in size. Land uses in this vicinity consist of a mixture of single-family residential and light commercial uses. That portion of the area which is directly adjacent to 104th Avenue SE is largely developed for residential uses, although the widening of 104th Avenue SE and development of this street into a four-lane facility with a continuous left-turn lane has made further utilization of the already developed residential uses questionable. 10. The area is generally flat with a slight slope from the northeast to the southwest. There are no significant creeks or streams. The vegetation is typical of that associated with residential landscaping. 11. As indicated, 104th Avenue SE which bisects the site is a four- lane facility with a continuous left-turn lane and is classified as a minor arterial . The other major street within Area B, SE 248th Street, is a two-lane road with graveled shoulder and no sidewalks. 12 . Area B is now also served by City of Kent water and the City' s in the process of upgrading water lines which were part of the original East Hill Well system. 13 . Portions of the newly annexed area are serviced by sanitary sewers and extensions will be required in accordance with the Comprehensive Sewage Plan. 4 Findings and Recommendation •••- East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 14. At the time of the public hearing on Area B, there was little public testimony in opposition to the Planning Department's recommendations. One witness expressed concern with respect to limiting the permitted retail uses in the vicinity which would result, in the opinion of the witness, in further deterioration of some of the existing residential uses along 104th Avenue SE. 15. The staff is recommending that the portion of Area B north of SE 244th Street be zoned CC, Community Commercial, and the area south of SE 244th Street be zoned O, Professional and Office. 16. The EAst Hill Subarea Plan Map designates the property north of SE 244th Street as community retail and the property south of SE 2448th Street as O, Office. The Planning Department's recommendations are in compliance with the East Hill Subarea Plan. AREA C " 17 . Area C is the largest part of the East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 territory and consists of 290 acres total . 18. The location of Area C is described in the introduction hereto. 19 . Land use within Area C is primarily residential. There are two churches located north of SE 248th Street. In addition, there is an existing 86-unit apartment building located along SE 256th Street known as Stratford Arms. 20 . This portion of the annexation area has the most varied topography with elevations ranging from 400 feet to 475 feet. There are natural drainage swales and seasonal ponding which occurs on the .-, easterly portion of the site. 21. The rural, single-family development previously described has vegetation patterns which are associated with typical residential development. However, in light of the rural character of the vicinity, there are many small orchards and open fields and pastures. 22 . The significant streets within Area C include SE 240th Street, SE 244th Street, SE 248th Street, 116th Avenue SE, and SE 256th Street. Other streets, including 118th Avenue SE, SE 252nd Street, and 112th Avenue SE, could be improved and extended to serve this area. Most of the aforementioned streets, except for SE 256th Street and SE 240th Street are typical for rural development. Specifically, these roads are two-lane with narrow gravel shoulders, open ditches, and no sidewalks. 5 Findings and Recommendation East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 23 . Most of the area is currently served by City of Kent water. As with the other portions of the annexation area, the City is in the process of upgrading some of the lines which were formerly part of the old East Hill Community Well system. 24 . Sanitary sewers serve only portions of the area and extensions will be required throughout this section pursuant to the Comprehensive Sewer Plan Map as developed dictates. 25 . The staff recommendation for Area C is as follows: 1. West of 112th Avenue SE extended and north of SE 252nd: R1- 7 . 2 (single family residential with a minimum 7 , 200 square foot lot size) . 2 . Property south of SE 252nd Street: R1-9 . 6 (single family residential with a minimum 9 , 600 square foot lot size except for Stratford Arms) . 3 . Stratford Arms (an existing multifamily development) : MR.M Medium Density Multifamily Residential . 4 . East of 112th Avenue SE (extended) : R1-9 . 6 (single family residential with a minimum 9 , 600 square foot lot size) except a parcel south of SE 248th Street, adjacent to prior City limit line. _ 5. Bainton property, south of SE 248th Street, adjacent to former City limit line: MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential, with maximum six units per acre. The East Hill Subarea Map designates the area west of 112th Avenue SE extended and north of SE 248th Street as MF 12 , Multifamily, 7- 12 units per acre. The area east of 112th Avenue SE and north of SE 252nd Street is shown as SF 6, Single Family, 4-6 units per family. The remaining section lying south of SE 252nd Street is designated MF, Multifamily, 12-24 units per acre. 26. Numerous citizens spoke in support of keeping Area C as rural as possible. At the time of the public hearing, exhibit 4 , a petition signed by over 150 citizens in Area C recommends zoning all of the undeveloped portions of Area C as R1-12 with a 12 , 000 square foot minimum lot size. The citizens who signed the _.. petition evidenced by Exhibit 4 , and many of the other speakers in their public testimony, expressed concerns with respect to an inadequate streets system and lack of adequate fire and police protection. Further, witness after witness repeated the desire to retain the rural character of the vicinity. 27 . The evidence establishes that were the property to be zoned to the -.. densities suggested by the East Hill Comprehensive Plan Map as 6 Findings and Recommendation East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 opposed to the staff recommendation, traffic would increase by an estimated 38 percent. Many of the intersections in the vicinity already operate at level service F. 28 . At the time of the public hearing, considerable testimony was presented concerning the disparity between multiple family and single family housing permits which have been issued by the City of Kent in the recent years. In addition, the City Council 's resolution in October of 1986 with the intent of reducing vacant multiple family zoned lands by 20 percent was described. 29 . The staff report, with its recommendation of conditional approval , is incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full . CONCLUSIONS AREA A e 1. The Comprehensive Plan and the East Hill Plan contain goals and policies to assist the decision-maker with respect to the appropriate initial zoning for newly annexed land. 2 . The Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan seeks to establish a balanced, safe, and efficient transportation system for all modes of travels. In addition, the Housing Element seeks to increase the residential population in Kent while assuring a decent home and suitable living environment for families desiring to live in Kent. 3 . Portions of the staff's recommendation do not comply with the Kent East Hill Subarea Plan Map. However, State law requires that zoning be in general conformity, and not in strict compliance, with an established Comprehensive Plan. 4 . In this instance, there are rational reasons for not permitting the multifamily density recommended by the East Hill Plan for property east of 100th Avenue SE. 5. The streets and utilities in the vicinity are insufficient to ' handle the increased density which would result from multifamily zoning. 6. The adoption of Resolution #1123 by the Kent City Council has not been considered by the undersigned in connection with the recommendation herein. Specifically, the resolution is a recommendation and is not binding. Further, although the results sought by this Resolution may be desirable, the method recommended by the resolution of a 20 percent reduction in the amount of undeveloped multifamily zoned land is of questionable legal validity. 7 Findings and Recommendation East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 7 . The arguments advanced by the proponents of more multifamily or commercial zoning east of 100th Avenue SE as a result of the proposed Fred Meyer development are unpersuasive and premature. Specifically, without an approved building permit and site plan for the proposed Fred Meyer development, impacts upon adjacent properties cannot be fully evaluated. If a retail development is approved on the Fred Meyer site, and provided further that the East Hill Subarea Plan Map is not amended, adjacent property owners may be able to establish persuasive evidence in support of a rezone proposal. However, a multifamily or office and professional zoning designation in the area east of 100th Avenue SE merely because of anticipated and unknown impacts associated with the proposed Fred Meyer development would be premature. AREA B 8 . The staff recommendation with respect to Area B is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map designations. 9. The proposed zoning of CR, Community Retail, and O, Office, is compatible with existing land uses in the vicinity. The office zoning, as proposed, will buffer residential uses from commercial uses which have more severe impacts. AREA C 10. The staff recommendation in connection with Area C calls for a density of less than recommended by the East Hill Comprehensive Plan Map. Citizens who reside in the vicinity recommend less density still. 11. The Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan seeks to establish a balanced, safe and efficient transportation system for all modes of travel. The staff recommendation would reduce traffic by 38 percent than the zoning which would be permitted if the recommendations and the East Hill Comprehensive Plan Map were strictly adhered to. 12 . Traffic is of primary concern to the citizens of Kent and the Planning staff. 13 . Establishing a density of slightly less than proposed under the East Hill Comprehensive Plan will result in less traffic impact. Reduced traffic, and effective management of the current traffic problems will promote the Housing Element of the East Hill Comprehensive Plan which seeks to assure present and future East 8 Findings and Recommendation East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 Hill residents housing that is safe, offers a desirable living environment, and is supported by adequate community facilities and services. 14 . The evidence establishes that the emergency response times in this vicinity for fire and medical personnel is one of the highest in the City. Until such time as the density of development suggested in the East Hill Comprehensive Plan Map can be adequately served by emergency services, roads and utilities, zoning to this density is not well-founded. RECOMMENDATION For each of the above reasons, the recommendation of the undersigned Hearing Examiner to the City of Kent City Council on the East Hill Well -- Annexation Area 2 is as follows: AREA A 1. West of 100th Avenue SE (extended) : R1-9 . 6 (single family residential with a minimum 9 , 600 square foot lot size) . 2 . East of 100th Avenue SE (extended) : R1-7 . 2 (single family residential with a minimum 7 , 200 square foot lot size) . AREA B 3 . O, Professional and Office, for that portion lying south of SE 244th Street. 4 . CC, Community Commercial , for that portion north of SE 244th Street. AREA C 5. For the area west of 112th Avenue SE extended and north of SE 248th Street: R1-7 . 2, Single Family Residential (7 , 200 square foot minimum lot size) . 6. For the area south of SE 252nd Street extended: R1-7 . 2, Single Family Residential (7, 200 square foot minimum lot size) except the 4.80 acre parcel known as Stratford Arms. 7 . Stratford Arms including Tax Lot 281 to the east: MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential, allowing 23 units per acre (entire Stratford Arms site, including the undeveloped portions) . 9 Findings and Recommendation East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 8 . H. L. Bainton property south of SE 248th Street, adjacent to former City boundary: MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential, maximum of six dwelling units per acre. 9 . Property east of 112th Avenue SE extended, north of SE 252nd extended, south of SE 248th except Bainton property: R1-9. 6, Single Family Residential (9 , 600 square foot minimum lot size) . The following conditions shall apply: 1. If the H. L. Bainton property is not developed as proposed under the Walnut Park zero lot line plat, the property shall revert to R1-9 . 6. 2 . Property will be deeded to provide right-of-way widths for future street development prior to the issuance of a development permit. Dated this 7th day of October, 1987 . Respectfully submitted, ` V"4 DI E L. VANDERBEEK HEARING EXAMINER Request for Reconsideration Any party of record who feels the decision of the Examiner is based on error of procedure, fact or judgment, or the discovery of new evidence may file a written request for reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner no later than 14 days of the date of the decision. Reconsideration requests should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner, 220 S. Fourth Avenue, Kent, WA 93032 . Notice of Right to Appeal The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written appeal to Council is filed by a party of record within 14 days of the decision. The appeal must be filed with the City Clerk and state the° basis of appeal which may be errors of fact, procedural errors, omissions from the record, errors in interpretations of the Comprehensive Plan or new evidence. See Ordinance #2233 and Resolution #896 for specific information. 10 CITY OF KCNT 5POti o A .T._......�mm o planni3 . V c 0 KIJKm 3NJ-1 i p pp2 /jG tRg2 N CLARK AVE Q 1 4 t) N S m '� KEN INO '�`������ AVE O00H'1i3 O S .�• �>m ' gm y H )A30N AVE3 " ANT ER AVE O S >f L N PROSP 1T AVE r-1 4 O 'A LENORA AVE 4, MAR ON" O � � &ALE%A DER N AX n:Y,- > N HAZEL AVE <a � PL S m CREST AVE r r a AVE O y �D n_C: O m O 1 2 •❑ ONES RNER 7 N > LN rIEID m m O y N' i m L A T_ x n LVORDAE AVELANE N 'eE �: "��• ? u .. AVE y O ! ELLIS u N VIEW 1_tY >E N SUMMIr. HILLTOP AVE ^ r PL '1 y PL n t m AVE C REITEN AD N t: �\" -0O -I 2 i O 92M0 P i S MA PLEWOOD AVE- �;�•f,�';\-� O �; I ' ' , v.• c11.'.t. �u 03..... S KIMBER/ 00. �O AVE 00 r 9( ' �v. .LE,•l{�. N tY y to r. 3�,ty^t,I Ci �J�,YN »0 TH 3( r5T11 yAVE AVE S N RAWB RAY N '. 9 A 2 SLb D 0 99TH AVE S T Tq ■ J] ._•. O gn �— °° (p 1 DOT H AVE L 9E L1T 0r> � mmN V 5 4T m S E __� 03 SE < m y1; rzIF 102NO. ..Bcrrlccde ..•. gm N >r AV . 3p m x E SE D N 1 r> y2 r < Z O IO/TH AVE JPIE 1�9)♦1��11� PL SE _'' P •� �n N W SZ = 109TH AVE 3E _ • y y �� 19TH u }•�_] - Z E ESj � � \ 1 o IOSTH AV 3 N o\ C 109TH PL SE 11111111111111111111 N I ITH AVE St IIOTH = u PL SE y S 113TH AVE SE �n 1111111 1111111 11111 Niii1mmilliliI mimmi Hiii a_ 114TH A E SSE �r �1111111111 <� n = T o � I1 T 1 1 1 1 1 IIII11 V' N N DO —1117T11 PL E O PPLIC)TI( HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION 1 EAST HILL WELL ANNEXATION AREA 2#AZ-a7_2 application site _ Number _ pp A A Proposed Aym {lCf�IIC$l Ai _ Zoning bndry city limils ■imiiNir- SCAIE = Vicinity Map 1" = 1000' CITY OF KENT C LO y _ planni3 . - I 0 "OOD %IRN OaOy any y A/1` p42 N CLARK GAVE Q„ 9 AVE mN_s N� 0 N S n (D y KEN INOTON AVE OOMNl ! Sr AY "•�' nm Y 4frySrN . 4Y` N IASON O AVE VANOE ANTER AVE o 'ly O •.F) ' ~ r� S f ••ry�� t N PROSP CT AVE rT y 0 N 0 N SI > C MAR ON Na O SI C •� x > O D.14.i{ a y IENORA AVE >r0 y-+ Alf%A DER T' > < PL m ` T a AVE 11 �Df' -1.4.. N HATEL AVE a rD 6 a CREST AVE --•� r N m Z 2 O ? ll m m i 2 3: xY 04 tf�•Mt t a y .. ONES IRNER ^ n w < A/ t/('a/(-t• � ui A =O C II[lD LN n pr C O r m y 2 O • �i ,Il(` N 'PA4, FVE LANE -I R SIT y u r `00•l` '-<j, y ALVORD AVF AC 1• L AVE y x ". .1 ry�'. -�31 0.- N _.. VIEW i. r'_ ?. N m S ELP`S N1 y PL n '•'( n SUM Al M'*. HlllTOP� AVEy Y S AVE RD C REITEN w � '.<<�'\ d0 y y "' 4 $ MAPLEW000 AV LI •\ O YjL "111111 fill 111� '• N V r_ 02 w ... S KIMBERC O t t t\'�-jC 'tl' y ZOPI '� a fI AVE L 00 M�l q5 u � �'•�fl:' - 94TH AVE - $ "AVE '10� SAVE S _ti^ 17hV�'N ♦ M,Jh<I'01 t u._y - • 1111111 3 C.y.. 7 A JJr{I xFC E C, Y ... yy a v ,00 " 2 98TN AVE $ y O 5 RAWB RAY H H 4L6. O O v 99TH AVE 4S 'l w ^ O O Sn ■a COI COT H AVE �A C .P�7 wr�aa•a a�a yI SSE N1< AA (lmU y an V> Z 3 om= . 1A1 D _ rZ- 102N0. :.B arrlcade (((n r l:m n m • - <r AVE 3E g0 N M N.]03R0 Z ~O 104TH AVE y S 0:n n Ln 10'STH ... w Z--i PL SE m 1!; 109TH AV[ SC19TH Z u 777 '\ m / " 0 106TH AV'3� ,v N ~11111111111111111111 109TH ` w ` PL SE T 11T/1 AVE 3L~'T� _ MOTH = ji�jl PL SE y (P�l N 113TH AVE 6E gnlllllll'fll lilt 11111 114TH A f IN9E m O � 11 T I N - _ IN 4 E y Ir 1 1 1 1'&mjILu11IJswjsj6vuj71 1111t1 v' N N 67 •"117TH PL v O1 APPLIGATI HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION LEGEND : EAST HILL WELL ANNEXATION AREA 2 Number_ aAz-e7-2 appliealion silo 111111111111T1 rp,A — Proposed - �IBgIICSI! ri _ Zoning bndry ' oily limits ■ ■ ■�.� SCALE = Vicinity Map I^ = IDoo' CITY Of KENT _ plannin 0 � 01D KIRK aF 3H�y = Ado=A j�,•••••�a�Z N CLARN HAVE [S.. 4 AVE mw i N� p S P ^ nm NEN INOTOH AVE OOOMH3 7 7 A' Sr m� p ,... y y =m `"1 /lr. N mASDN AVELAYE �C rU Z S -VAND ANTE R AVE O (� RI' ^ O f �C j N PROSP C r"1 O u D x > m w LENORA AVE MAR 0 yy O .) mAIE%A DER H tY ^;t�l I > N HAZEL AVE <a fD 9 FL a CREST AVE r a AVF O Q m-b 2 nn'� Z n e Y�' ONES JAZN 7 Z Oq :IELOz Z a = m i r�-o d.i,:�,((` N ...... AVE y R Mr Q ,A w `O' •'� �O y ALVORD AVE L `�tl pr? u VIEW f'f•, F ? N SUMN'r - HILLTOP AVE �bO F 7 ELLIS yl W r � m PL y -I FL m r ^ AVE C REITEN RD IA w 2 "1 - O 92H0 PS "„ A '� L(' \ O �j i, 111111 I11111111� u �jp}III 1 S MhPLEW000 AYF �'} Z> yl N S KIMBER/ DIH �I✓Lhl\�r. Ay y y ON A O AVE lipi J1�.' 9hTM AVE S E(\ C u NT - •� V E yr' _ 96TH 96TM AVE S ,w �6T11 AVE � AVE 9 1A '3AV•, yns '�1_ �� m .� • �1111111 7 1t N N T '�•�il1E��w rt !n'.(lt ZT; 11 � la v y © f..." 1`}„ft ,t, VE3� a d y . >98TH AVE SO RAWB RRY IN j['.; T 9 A Od y blb OJ O ' ra y 0 99TN W m� p 7.1 y1 1 WIDOTH v AVE L SE Na - 9r), v .sT ai ^ N Iia SE _I - omZ rip 102ND. .'.Barricade nm a ar AVE SE W IOJPD K N v Z -'0 104TH AVE E �- Z •n to m> N ;0, ' J: ,1DSTH PL SE A r r N r rn N 3 3 U r yJ Ile: N W z= tO9TN AVE SE 19TH u T C) r Z E Sf \ m > < - 108TH AVE Sl 1- y Y Om Om N Z Z O > z 0 z 1- --I C _ > xxx �yqrn 3 Vx: `- ` R1-9.6 a m 3 ; � 11T' ti SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL _ I ;SVE u N y V) H (n V N N 00 ''117TH PL z < �I 1i PEi��j HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION LEGEND : I V�er_ EAST L ASTHIL WELL ANNEXATION AREA 2 Number- application site ••• �I11111I1111111 Proposed Request. A Zonlncq bndry CRY limns 21mimiF SCALE = Vicinity Map r = 1000' HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES September 2 , 1987 The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to order by the presiding officer, Diane L. VanDerbeek, Hearing Examiner, on Wednesday, September 2 , 1987 at 7: 00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, Council Chambers. Ms. VanDerbeek requested all those intending to speak at the hearing and those wishing to receive information concerning the hearing, to sign in at the sign up sheet by the door. Staff reports, agendas, and the description of procedure of the hearing were available by the door. Ms. VanDerbeek briefly described the sequence and -.. procedure of the hearing. All those who intended to speak were sworn in. ANNEXATION EAST HILL WELL ANNEXATION AREA 2 #AZ-87-3 A continuation of a public hearing held on August 19, 1987, to consider a request submitted by the City of Kent Planning Department to apply permanent zoning designations to properties lying within the annexed area. Verbatim Minutes (1-197) Kathy McClung: Good Evening, I 'm Kathy McClung from the Kent Planning Department and before I start with Area C I thought maybe I should complete some unfinished business from questions that came up that we were supposed to research. One question that came up on Area B was whether the Parks Department had any plans to use the former East Hill Well site as a park. And, we did check into that and the Parks Department does not have any plans at this time to develop that lot as a park. Also, I know it has only been two weeks but I can't remember if I entered this multifamily study, I know you got this afternoon, as part of the _.. record and I wanted to make sure that, that was entered as part of the record as well as our map. VanDerbeek: All right. Well, the recording secretary only knows what ' s officially in the record. Has it been entered, No, right. All right, we' ll enter that multifamily study as an exhibit to this hearing. I 'm asking the recording secretary to keep a list of exhibit so that, as well as the maps, will be entered as an exhibit. McClung: O.k. , thank you. O.k. , also, several people do review our staff reports, but I noticed that there were two omissions and I wanted to make that clear. On page 21, under the Staff Recommendation, the recommendation for the Stratford Arms should have been number 5 and that, it's at the end of the report, but I 1 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. wanted to make sure that it was also added at the beginning that we are recommending an MRM, Medium Density Multifamily, allowing up to 23 units per acre for the Stratford Arms property and I will discuss that in more detail further in my presentation. It was also left out of the description of the proposal and that is approximately five acres of MRM. O.k. , with that I think I will show the view foil so that we all now what we are talking about for Area C. VanDerbeek: All right. McClung: Area C is, there is a small portion south of SE 240th, adjoining the former City limit line and it follows 116th to a line that ' s approximately, it's south, it' s north of SE 254th, it follows 114th down to SE 256th, and on the west it' s bordered by approximately 105th Avenue SE and a large portion of it is north of SE 248th. The area C is approximately 290 acres, it 's currently zoned R1-20, Single Family Residential and this is an interim zoning that the City always places on all property that 's annexed to the City. Prior to annexation under the jurisdiction of King County, it was zoned Suburban Residential except for a small portion next to SE 256th which was zoned RM 2400 which is a multifamily allowing 18 units per acre. The property in this area is primarily of rural- type single-family homes. There are a few small orchards, open fields and pasture. There are also a few parcels that are heavily wooded with a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees. There are two historical sites within the area that are the King County Historical Registrar. There are two large churches, a few home occupations and an eighty-six unit apartment that is called Stratford Arms. Adjacent uses to the property include a, two major commercial nodes at the intersection of SE 240th and 104th and SE 256th and 104th. There are also several multifamily developments basically lying east of 104th and, I think in the video tape I caught most of them. VanDerbeek: All right. McClung: And, first I will go over the staff recommendation and then I will show the video tape. We are recommending a Single Family, R1-7. 2 or 7200 square feet minimum for the area lying west of 112th Avenue SE. VanDerbeek: Excuse me, can everyone in the back hear Ms. McClung. Can you get out the microphone. McClung: O.k. , we are recommending an R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Residential, for the area lying west of 112th Avenue SE extended and north of SE 248th. We are recommending an MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential, with a maximum of six units per acre for the five acres known as the Bainton property, south of SE 248th Street and immediately adjacent to the former city limits. That's designated on this map as the light brown area. 2 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. VanDerbeek: That' s the proposed development of Walnut Tree, Park. O.k. McClung: Park. We are recommending R1-9 . 61 Single Family Residential with a minimum lot size of 9600 square feet for the area ,.., lying east of 112th Avenue SE, north of SE 252nd extended and south of SE 248th. Actually, that is an error also, it should be all of this yellow area so it also includes the area north of SE 248th lying east of 112th Avenue SE and we are recommending Single Family, R1-7 . 2 , 7200 square foot minimum lot size for the area south of SE 252nd extended except for the approximately five acre piece which is currently developed with the Stratford Arms apartment which we are -.- recommending the MRM allowing 23 units per acre. At this time I would like to show the video tape. I think before I show it, I ' ll show basically how I filmed it. I went as quickly as I could, I mainly just panned the area to get a feel for what was there and it ' s less than five minutes. I started taping at SE 240th and then I have some shots of 116th Avenue SE and I have a few along SE 244th and then on SE 248th and then I went down to 256th and got the properties along here and specifically went in to the Stratford Arms development and got some more specific shots of that development as well as some surrounding property along SE 256th, 116th and 240th. VanDerbeek: All right. The video was shown at this time. McClung: This area was annexed to the City last spring as part of a large annexation that the City of Kent brought into the City as a result of the City taking over the East Hill well system. Recently, the City approved an 89-lot zero lot line plat known as Walnut Park located south of SE 248th, north of SE 252nd at approximately 111th. The applicant has plans for a second phase of this plat to include about five acres within the annexation area known as the Bainton property. Significant streets within the area are SE 240th, SE 244th, SE 248th Street, 116th Avenue SE and SE 256th Street. One-hundred-eighth Avenue SE, SE 252nd and 112th Avenue SE should also be improved and extended to serve this area. Most of the streets as shown on the video tape with the exception of SE 256th and SE 240th Street are two-lane, country-type roads. They have narrow graveled shoulders, open ditches, in some cases, and no sidewalks. As property develop, right of way for SE 252nd, 108th, 112th and 114th will have to be obtained and improved. The Public Works Department has established a plan for acquiring this right of way and that is specifically stated in the staff report. The existing street system is not adequate to serve traffic generated from current development. Many streets are substandard 3 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7: 00 p.m. and, if the area develops, improvements will be required to bring the system up to current standards. Most of the area is currently served with City of Kent water. The City is in the processing of up-grading some of the system that was part of the East Hill Community Well system that originally served the area. Phase 1 of this project is complete and a second phase is in the design stage and should be completed some time in 1988 . Sanitary sewers also serve portions of the area but main line extensions will be required throughout the section according to the Comprehensive Sewer Plan Maps as development occurs. The Planning Department has reviewed the area in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, present zoning, land use, street and utilities and comments from other City departments. And, I found, several reasons to support our recommendation. First, I would like to discuss comments under the context of the Comprehensive Plan. The City first adopted its Comprehensive Plan in 1969 and the Comprehensive Plan is made of two basic elements: the goals, objectives and policy element and the map element. The goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan are used with the Plan map to guide the mayor, city council, city administrator, planning commission, hearing examiner and city departments to guide growth, development and spending decisions. The subject property also lies within the East Hill Subarea Plan. The East Hill Subarea Plan Map designated the area west. of '112th Avenue SE extended and north of SE 248th as multifamily, 7-12 units per acre; the area east of 112th Avenue SE and north of SE 252nd Street is shown as single family, 4-6 units per acre and the remaining section lying south of SE 252nd is designated MF 12, multifamily 12-24 units per acre. Under the Housing Element of the City-wide Comprehensive Plan, one of the goals is to assure an adequate and balanced supply of housing units, offer a diversity of sizes, densities, age, style and cost. In recent years, the City of Kent has developed at a rapid pace. In 1985, the City issued a record value of 164 million dollars in permits, second only to the City of Seattle in the State of Washington. And yet, even in these peak years of construction the number of single family permits were minimal--12 issued in 1985. A recent study on multifamily development revealed that there are almost 9, 000 apartments and condominiums units within the city limits. These unit make up 59 percent of the housing stock, single family homes make up 35 percent and the balance are mobile homes. Today, the city has 7, 000 or approximately 7 , 000 more multifamily units than it had in 1970, and increase of 358 percent. For this reason, the City now would like to increase the single family development to balance the existing multifamily development. Zoning the property in this area to single family will encourage this kind of development. Under the Housing Element of the East Hill balance, one of the policies is to assure that public facilities and services are available or will be available to support the development at the proposed densities. With the rapid growth of multifamily in recent years, it has greatly stressed the City's ability to provide public 4 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. services to the Kent community. Zoning these lands to their highest potential would be premature when public services are not able to meet the demands of development at that level. Fire and emergency medical response time in this area is one of the highest in the City. Emergency vehicles must come from the downtown area or from the station on 140th Avenue SE. Although a recent bond issue was .., passed to purchase land for a new fire station in the area. It's still several years off, a few years off from construction and equipment and personnel to equip this station have not been acquired or have not been negotiated. Negotiations are currently underway for a fire station at the northwest corner, 116th Avenue SE and SE 248th Street which lies in the (unclear) area and that will , mostly likely, be the site of the new fire station when it is built. Increasing densities to their highest intensities within this area at this time would not be responsible when emergency services are not adequate for the area. Traffic concerns have been the highest priority issue for the citizens of Kent as well as the staff and the elected officials within the last couple of years. The traffic counts in the area have reached unacceptable levels of service. Increasing densities in this area would cause additional traffic congestion through an area that is already overburden. By increasing the densities to those suggested by the East Hill Comprehensive Plan Map, the estimated p.m. peak hour trips generated would be 2, 164 versus. an estimated 1, 563 trips generated under the proposed zoning. This is an increase of 38 percent and there is kind of an elaborate chart in the staff report which the traffic division work up that explains these figures. Under the Transportation Element, again, under the East Hill Plan, there is a goal to establish and maintain the highest feasible level of service -.. for East Hill. This policy is to regularly monitor and evaluate the level of service of existing streets and intersections, to identify those transportation movements that will most effectively obtain or maintain the planned level of service for East Hill. The Engineering Department has determined that the intersections of 104th Avenue SE and SE 240th and 104th Avenue SE and SE 256th are both at level of service F for traffic service. These two intersections are major east/west arterial onto the East Hill from and too the Kent Valley and border this area on the north and south. Creating more east/west corridors to serve the East Hill area is a priority of Kent. Another problem intersection borders the subject property, is the intersection at 116th SE and SE 240th. Southeast 240th Street is four-lanes from the Kent valley floor east to approximately 108th Avenue SE. At this point, a bottle-neck occurs during the morning and evening peak hours, where the four lanes narrow to three. Since the subject area is bordered and served by this problem intersections, the recommendation for lower density than those shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map would reduce additional impacts. Another supporting argument include: there are no flooding problems in the area; however, drainage problems are 5 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. common on the easterly portion of this section. Since multifamily development typically has more impervious surface causing a runoff, single family zoning is recommended to increase ground water recharge. Water and sewer service are available in this area, but extensions may be required to accommodate future development. The County zoning of this area prior to annexation is SR 7200 for the majority of the property and RM 2400, allowing 12 units per acre, for a small portion abutting SE 256th, including the Stratford Arms property. The predominate land use in the area is rural type, single-family residential . An 86-unit apartment is located along SE 256th, near lllth Avenue SE known as the Stratford Arms. The City recognizes open, rural lots with pastures, orchards and trees as natural features to be preserved through the East Hill Subarea Plan. The subarea plan designates the area east of 112th Avenue SE extended and north of SE 252nd extended as single family, 4-6 units per acre. The City of Kent has a R1-9. 6 zoning which permits 4 .5 units per acre. This zoning is recommended for this area in order to keep it rural with reduced densities to lessen impacts City services. The exception is a 4 .8 acre parcel located south of SE 248th, adjacent to the former City limit line, known as the Bainton Property. This parcel is part of a pending zero lot line single- family development. The developer has requested an MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential, zoning for the two previous lots so that consistent development standards can be applied to the ultimate development. We have include a condition of this zoning recommendation that should that property not be developed from the way it has been proposed to the City, it also revert to the 9 . 6 single family. The City Council passed a resolution in October 1986, stating its intent that vacant multifamily zoning areas within the City be reduced by 20 percent. This resolution was passed in response to a number of citizens who were concerned about the rate of multifamily development occurring in Kent and the problems, including traffic, generated by this kind of development. Although this resolution did not specifically address how this reduction should occur, options should be left open until this matter is further studied. The Multifamily density has been prepared for the Council ' s review and is currently being studied by the Planning Committee and that is report that I 've previously referred to as the (unclear) exhibit. Before I conclude my report, I think I should make clear that in our recommendation, when we are referring to the Stratford Arms property, we are only referring to the five acre parcel that is colored in light brown on our map. Within the last two weeks, the property owner has been in the office and does own the adjoining properties and had assumed by the staff report, that we have also included his adjoining lot. I just want to make clear for the record that we are only referring to the lots that are colored in light brown on our map. So, for the reasons that I have discussed 6 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. previously, we are again recommending for the area west of 112th Avenue SE extended and north of SE 248th Street: R1-7 .21 Single Family Residential. For the area south of SE 252nd: R1- 7 .2 , Single Family Residential, except for the 4 . 80 acre known as the Stratford Arms which we are recommending MRM, Medium Density Multifamily allowing up to 23 units per acre. The Bainton property, ,.. south of SE 248th, adjacent to the former City boundary, we are recommending MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential, with a maximum of six. dwelling units per acre. And property east of 112th Avenue SE extended, north of SE 252nd Street except the Bainton property: R1-9 . 6, Single Family Residential with 9, 600 square foot minimum lot size. And, as I 've discussed previously, we have recommended a condition on the Bainton property and also a recommendation that as development occurs, property will be deeded to provide right-of-way width as discussed earlier prior to the issuance of any development permit. That concludes my staff comments unless you have any questions. VanDerbeek: No, I don't have any questions at this time. I will probably have some later. Thank you. Is there any further testimony from the City, from any other department? No. All right. I see the City Engineer way in the back but he's not jumping up. All right. I will hear the public testimony at this time. I think that I will go down the list of those persons who have signed up to comment. Ms. McClung, will you leave the view foil that shows the site up so that during the public testimony people may want to refer to that to show me exactly the area they are talking about. All right. The first person to sign up is Leona Orr, but then she crossed her name out and the husband wrote his name down first. So, I think that Leona should testify first or Jim Orr. Jim Orr: My name is James Orr. I reside at 24909 114th Avenue SE. I do have copies of petitions that some citizens signed that I would like to present to the Hearing Examiner and to the Planning Department. VanDerbeek: All right. Will you pass those petitions to Chris Holden, the recording secretary. They will be marked and made an exhibit to this hearing and then I will look at them. Orr: I would like to read the petition, it says: We the undersigned are petitioning the City of Kent to rezone all undeveloped land in Area C R1-12 . These are our concerns: the present street system is inadequate. Southeast 248th is not adequate for additional traffic. In the past six months traffic has nearly doubled on 248th alone. It is not a safe street for children who must wait on the street for school busses adding more dense development will only add the problems of this street and others on the East Hill which are already at level F for services. This is, there is not adequate fire, police protection on the East Hill, further dense development should be halted. At least, until the new 7 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. fire station is completed. Since Walnut Park Phase I is a new concept and an experiment, we feel if it is built it should be carefully monitored before allowing any more zero-lot-line homes in Kent. By approving R1' -12 zoning for all undeveloped areas in Area C, a smoother transition will be made to existing single family homes to the east of Walnut Park Phase I and more of a natural wooded environment can be preserved. I would like to read a statement, I kind of sounds like I 've been looking over the shoulders of the Planning Department after reading this, but really I wasn't. I the precess of circulating this petition, I have found a large number of people who have become very discouraged by the way the City of Kent is dealing with the problems that affect its residents. There is a lack of information to the general public about new developments being considered because only those within 200 foot are required to be notified by mail and the signs posted are nearly impossible to see while driving and difficult to read at close range. VanDerbeek: Mr. Orr do you think that King County did a better job of that. Orr: No, but I think the City of Kent could set standards for King County. I know the City of Seattle does a better job. VanDerbeek: All right, you may proceed. Orr: Anyone living in the City of Kent will be impacted numerous ways including higher taxes for extra police and fire protection, more schools and so on. Rather that the City taking upon itself to determine what is best for the residents, it is time to listen to what the people are saying and to recognize their wants and needs. Thank you. VanDerbeek: Thank you very much for your testimony. Leona Orr, do you want to testify. Leona Orr: My name is Leona Orr, my address is 24909 114th Avenue SE in Kent. I 'm part of a group of homeowners in the area concerned with what we feel is over development of the East Hill. My husband and I moved here two-and-half years ago on a home on two wooded acres because we wanted a more rural home and quieter life style. The area was very quiet and we have an abundant of wildlife that share our woods with us. The homes in the neighborhoods are all on large lots, one-third to five acres in size. The City of Kent is proposing zoning of R1-7 . 2 and R1-9 . 6 for most of Area 6 with MRM for the Stratford Arms apartments which are already built and multifamily zoning is obviously needed there. But MRG is proposed for the Bainton property which is undeveloped. We fail to see how the City can justify any type of multifamily zoning given the present circumstances on the East Hill with traffic in and around this area completely out of control . The city' s own staff report 8 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. points that out. It is hazardous for pedestrians particularly children. Response time for any type of emergency vehicles is too long, dense development will only add more calls and add to that problem. And tonight I witnessed first hand that that is a definite problem. On my way here to the meeting, I was at the intersection of Smith and Central and emergency vehicles came across the railroad ,... tracks and, of course, all of the traffic was stopped. Not 30 seconds after those vehicles had crossed the railroad tracks a train came by. Now, if they had been called 30 second earlier, which I 'm sure must happen, they would've had to wait for the train and that two or three minutes or even one minute even can mean a matter of life and death in an emergency situation. There were two fire trucks and two aid cars. I don't know what the situation was but it could be serious. According to Monday' s Valley Daily News, even with three new schools opening this fall the system is at maximum capacity and probably one or maybe two new schools are being considered. We would like to see all the undeveloped land in Area C zoned R1-12 . This area already has a very large number of apartments and condominiums. Between 256th and 248th Street and 104th and lllth Avenue approximately, there are nearly 1, 000 units of housing at the present time. Most residents of this housing use the either 248th or 256th to come and go from their buildings and neither street is adequate for additional traffic. The new fire station is supposed to be built at 248th and 116th but according to the staff report it is a few years from being manned and equipped for operation. Everything in the staff report, that I 've read for the rezoning of Area C, indicates very clearly that there should be minimal new development until systems are upgraded and improved. How the Planning staff can propose making an exception for one developer is totally beyond my comprehension given the facts in this report. The developer has already stated at a previous hearing that Walnut Park Phase 1 could stand alone so I fail to see why there is a reason to add more to that development. Clearly, a large number of home owners in the area do not want any more development at this time. I think our petition will show that we have a 129 signatures, I believe it is. By zoning Area C at all R1-12 , the rural atmosphere will be maintained and a smooth transition can be made from the various multifamily developments to the west and the more traditional single family homes to the east. I attended the meeting this afternoon regarding the rezone for the proposed Summer Woods apartments. The staff representative repeatedly stressed the importance of maintaining the rural atmosphere in that area. We are asking for the same consideration. A home buyer should have the option of living near a crowded development such as Walnut Park and uniform zoning in Area C would assure that choice. Existing homeowners in the area should not have it forced upon them and disrupt a quiet life style they have chosen. R1-12 zoning for Area C will maintain the type of life style of people living near this section of the area while still allowing for controlled growth. I do have a couple of questions that I would like to ask, if that's appropriate. 9 Hearing Examiner Minutes - Verbatim September 2, 1987 7 : 00 p.m. VanDerbeek: O.k. , you can put the questions on the record. I will direct staff to respond to the questions during the rebuttal period. All right. Orr: Originally the Walnut Park Phase II has been proposed and everything that I have seen at 3 .8 acres. Now, in this report we find they are asking for five acres to be rezoned. I don't understand why. This afternoon at the meeting I attended, a staff representative stated that Walnut Park would consist of a total of 200 homes. Eighty-nine have been approved for 14 . 1 acres that would mean 111 homes for the remaining 3 . 8 or 5 acres depending on which report is read, giving a higher density than even Summer Woods which is being opposed very strongly by the staff. Mr. Brealey in previous hearings has stated that he is doing homeowners in the area a favor by building zero-lot-line homes when in fact he could build apartments on this property. This is not exactly true because the present zoning on his 14 . 1 acres that has been approved for Phase I is currently zoned MRG with maximum density of 12 units per acre for the western 327 feet and MRG with a maximum density of six units per acre for the remaining portion. Now this came from the Findings of Fact and Recommendation that you issued April 1, 1987 . I also question why the street system was changed in Walnut Park Phase I and, I assuming if Walnut Park Phase II were to be approved, it would also be in there . In all of the staff reports, recommendations and the Traffic Engineering Department, it was recommended that they have streets, traditional streets built up to .City code with curbs and gutters. Now, at the final City Council meeting, they asked that gutters be removed and a different type of street be allowed and Mr. Wickstrom who is the head of the Public Works Department agreed that that was o.k. When I was down at the Public Works Department talking to the people in there no one knew about it and it wasn't even in any of the files and it was only when I called back and told them that I had it in the City Council meeting minutes that they realized that that was indeed the case. And, I have one comment that I would like to make about communication with the public. I realize that this meeting was continued from two weeks ago. A lot of people that I talked to in the last couple of weeks were upset that no notice was sent out. I ' m wondering if there couldn't possibly be some sort of arrangements with the newspaper as a public service to have a place in the paper where if something like this happens, a lot of people that I spoke with while I was out circulating the petition, said that they assumed the whole was done because they were out of town that week and weren't able to be there and they were not notified that the meeting had been continued. Thank you. VanDerbeek: Thank you for your comments. I just have one question with respect to one of your questions, just to clarify it. Concerning your comment about the change in the proposed street system in Walnut Park Phase I, you learned about that from reading the City Council minutes? 10 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7 : 00 p.m. Orr: I learned about from being at the City Council meeting the night it was approved, that words "and gutters" or however it was worded was stricken from the deal and Mr. Wickstrom stood up and said that he had approved that they could build the streets in sort of a funnel shape and all the water runs down in the middle of the street to the holding ponds. And, I was at the Public Works Department talking to them about it and they told me that, no, I was wrong, that the streets would have curb and gutters and would be built to City code and that is not the case. At the City Council meeting, the very last thing, that was changed. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you very much for your comments and - questions. Orr• Thank you. VanDerbeek: The next speaker to sign up is James R. Singletary. James R. Singletary: My name is James R. Singletary and I reside at 24823 114th Avenue SE. And, if I could use my colored view foil here, I might point out a couple of things that Mrs. Orr spoke to in her presentation. I live right, approximately at this point right here on the map and we border against the MRG zoning request here on this slide. The reason that we are speaking to the 1200, 12 , 000 square foot zoning request, is to allow less dense growth in this particular area. It has been stated at an earlier meeting that traffic down 240th there in front of our homes is approximately 2600 trips per day, back in March, when it was measured again in July it had increased to somewhere above 4800 trips a day. VanDerbeek: 4800 or One thousand? Singletary: 4800 on just 248th, o.k. And, I think the increase is probably due to the installation of a traffic light at 248th and 104th, o.k. Because when they put that light in, a lot of people started using that as a short cut. I don't know from what or where, but. . . O.k. , the staff report also talks about the three intersections there at the service F level or fail level and I 'm sure you are aware the one at 116th and 240th which currently is a two-lane street from approximately 108th on out to 116th and then the other two intersections are the 104th/240th James Street intersection and also 256th and 104th with Kent-Kangley intersection there with 256th being two lanes, 248th, two lanes, 244th, two lanes and the majority of 240t11 being two lanes we really have a rough road to get traffic through that particular environment. When we spoke to improvements on the streets, I realize that 104th has been ' improved with sidewalks and everything and that ' s really been a lovely addition there. It has helped the traffic some but no where near enough. I would like to think that somewhere the City has in its plans that sidewalks would also exist on 248th as well as 256th 11 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. when it is widened. And, 240th with some of rest of these cross- streets that are going to be implemented someday somewhere to, I think's its 109th, its go through the new apartment area, this right here, o.k. , they put a City-wide street in there with curbs and sidewalks on that and when you drive through there you see a lot of walking traffic on that sidewalk. It 's really quite well used. The _ request, I guess, to increase the lot size to 12 , 000 square feet we feel ought to be considered because the staff report indicates that any increase in more density in this particular area is going to cause more problem with streets, with fire response, emergency medical responses and this just seems to make a lot more sense. From what I 've heard about the discussion this afternoon on the Summer Wood development and that's just a review by somebody that was there was that they opposed, the City was opposed to development of more apartments right here in approximately in this area in the 112th block and the 113th block. Now, currently there are almost apartments from probably 106th to 112th with, I don't know, I don't remember right off how many units being put in there in the last couple of years. But, also, at a previous, I can't even remember I 've been to so many meetings lately, whether it was one of these hearings or a City Council meeting, the Planning Department mentioned that there was already 200 plus acres zoned MRM or MRG in the City area at the current time so we have a little trouble seeing that any more increase in multifamily zoning other than what is already current such as the Stratford Arms area is really in the best interest of the City of Kent today. And, I 'd just like to kind of speak to one issue real quick and that is where the City talks about the issuance of single family residence permits within the last several years for the city. Now, I built in this area in 1978 , o.k. , and, at that time, it was the King County, of course, and I think if the City drew a circle within five miles of downtown Kent, and counted the single family residences that have gone into that circle in the last five or ten years they would be amazed at the V number of single family dwellings that have been built. Because, they seem to complain about well there is too many multifamily dwellings and I don't necessary think that 's a relevant argument. I - think a lot of people like multifamily residence near metropolitan hubs and it generally works out as a better plan. I also have a couple of questions that I would like to ask and see if they can _. answer. On the proposed fire station for the corner of 248th and 116th, is there a reason why the City is asking for that zoning variance at this point in time and I was also interested in what the multifamily plan, I believe, is what they presented into evidence this evening, is that a City Council adopted plan or a Planning Department Plan, I haven't heard that mentioned before so I didn 't know what that was. And, one other question was on the development of streets within developments--how come the City doesn 't require them to meet the same standards that they use with sidewalks also. O.k. , thank you. 12 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. VanDerbeek : All right, thank you for your testimony, Mr. Singletary. The next speaker who is signed up to testify is Bob MacIsaac. Bob MacIsaac: My name is Bob MacIsaac, I live at 25001 116th Avenue SE, Kent. I had asked at the last meeting that the Planning Department give us a run down of what was going to go on the East Hill area as far as parks and the planning for it in the entire area. In the recent past, I was the secretary/treasurer of the East Hill Community Well and on behalf of the people that I represented at that time, I was one of the people that was working very hard to work with the City and get the Water Department taken over by the City so we could get fire protection in the area, all the areas of East Hill. It was a fire protection issue only that had East Hill wanting to give up their good system. So far that fire protection has not happened. Many of the people that we talked to during the -.. phases of going through and getting these people to sign annexation covenants, etc. , they're all concerned, definitely concerned about the quality of life and what is happening up on East Hill. These people want to live in a decent area, they are looking forward to good planning and good development of which they would like to be a part. They do not like to have the planning of the area dictated to them after living in the area for 25, 30, 50 years. The majority of those people, they would like to be a part of this planning and they all, a majority of them, enjoyed rural atmosphere up there and would like to see that continue to a great extent. Now, I can't speak for all those people, you know, the East Hill Community Well is now defunct, we are out of business, but, I do know that the people up there are concerned. They are long time residents up on that hill . And, they have been concerned all their lives about what goes on up on that hill and wanting to keep a quality place to live. Many of these people are approaching retirement and would like to see, again, quality development, not something go on that makes them -. moves out. In other words, if we follow the (unclear) go to multifamily arrangement up there which the Planning Department is saying no, if that was to happen, most of these people would say, hey, we don't want to live here any more. And, these are people who have lived here for, many of them up to 30 years, myself, 22 years . I think these people would like the opportunity to work with the Planning Department to oversee what does go on what roads we're planning to improve, these people also donated to the City of Kent the East Hill Community Hall, this was done approximately eight years ago, I believe, maybe a little longer than that with the hopes the City would continue to keep a facility for them to have meetings and that type of community activity. That hall, incidentally, was sold, torn down, it was an old building, there has been no facilities proposed for replacing it, the City simply sold the property and used the funds for whatever. The people of East Hill are concerned about their community and think, very definitely, that we should stay in a rural atmosphere. We would like to see -- improvements for safety for their children, for people walking 13 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. around. You are looking at quite a few people, again as I stated, getting close to retirement age, these people like to get out and walk. You' ll see them walking up the new sidewalks along Benson, you see them walking the street through these apartments and what not. These people want to get out, get exercise, they don 't want to see development such as the Brealey development where we ' re not putting in decent streets, sidewalks, we ' re making crowded areas . I think those people have a right to whatever decisions go on in their area and to help plan those decisions. I don't think that we expect the City will do all our planning. We would like to be a part of committees, etc. that would help in the development up in that area. We do not want to see a development that will drive us all out, we want see some place that we can live and. . . A decent place to live, I guess, and for our children to grow up. The East Hill Well property, again, we had hoped that when that was turned over to the City that, again, a park would be planned in that area. Evidently not. So, again, the folks, all I can rely is what these people have told us during this whole annexation period when we were out getting the covenants, going door-to-door, these people would like to stay in a relatively rural community. We are not against development and improvements, certainly not, that' s why we went ahead and tried to get better fire protection, etc. We look at the area like this Brealey development coming in, these garden units, putting in streets where we cannot get fire protection in there. To me somebody isn't thinking if they are going to allow that. The City has their own requirements as to what types of right-of-way widths and that are appropriate and they are going to allow a development to come in that does not meet even the most minimum standards to an alley and people cannot set back and watch this kind of activity go on and think that we've got intelligent people running our City government. The citizens up on East Hill are interested in quality expansion up there and no just helter-skelter and little postage stamps lots. Most of those lots up there as the Planning Department has been saying are large areas. Like the piece of property I own is a three acre piece. I will not be breaking that down, it's a single family residence. The reason that we picked that area, I just sold within the same Area C here off 109th, bought this other piece of property now. Hopefully, be moved in by Christmas or so. But, certainly we do not want to see this area all of a sudden go to a sprawling multifamily and it appears that the Planning Department also supports that. VanDerbeek: What evidence is there that the Planning Department supports. . . McIsaac: This whole thing here says that there is no way that you can do anything up there right now because of traffic, because of streets, because of fire protection, because of schools, the kids have to walk to school up there. The buses do not run through those areas. 14 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. VanDerbeek: Right, but the majority of the staff recommendation for Area C is single family, you disagree with respect to the density, but nobody is recommending very much multifamily at all for Area C. McIsaac: That' s correct. Although you have it moving right on up James Street and you have it moving right on up 248th at the present time. And, we have absolutely no plans that we've, that have been stated to us yet as to what it is the City is planning as far as development of any parks or any common areas. The area that we are talking about is certainly single family but you look around the area that the density of the multifamily around the area and you look at the number of kids running around in groups at night and so on with no place to go and you can expect is what we are going to run into is more and more problems with our youth and that' s the end of my comments. Thank you. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you, Mr. McIsaac, for your comments. Does Laurie Sundstedt want to testify. Laurie Sundstedt? Oh, o.k. Joan McCallum. Joan McCallum: I guess the paper won' t show. VanDerbeek: Paper won't show. McCallum: First of all, I 'm very nervous. O.k. , I would like to get that out right up front. VanDerbeek: Don't be nervous because these are public hearings, and I 'm very gratified to see the large public turnout because half the time I hear public hearings and no one comes so I 'm more than interested the public input, so don't be nervous and tell me anything you want. McCallum: O.k. , I 'm Joan McCallum and I 'm here on behalf of my husband, Delbert McCallum, who had to work this evening and myself. We are home property owners at 25238 111th Avenue SE, Kent. We have lived at this address for five and half years. This is a question I have, first of all, according to the staff report, the map shows our street lllth Avenue SE going north from 256th Street to this point. To this point right here, when actually, our street, I believe, goes to here. Actually, our street goes north from 256th Street to where 252nd Street is to be constructed. At this time, our street is -- deadend and has an oil and gravel surface. We would like to know if 252nd Street is constructed will lllth Avenue SE then connect or intersect with the new 252nd. We know that our City has to grow but we don't feel that accelerated growth is good for Kent. The only one' s that are going to profit from accelerated growth are the property owners who build multiple family residences. We feel that our City can grow in a much more healthy way and have a better foundation for growth if we, as neighbors, chose to have the present 15 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. undeveloped properties in Area C zoned single family, one residence, for every 12 , 000 square foot of land. From what we understand, the City is asking for single family, one residence, for every 7, 200 square feet zoning on the remaining undeveloped properties for the lllth Avenue SE and the close vicinity there. They exist, from what we know, the existing homes on lllth Avenue SE are on lots much larger than 7, 200 square feet. If, in the future, homes are built on 7 , 200 square foot lots, this could possibly lower the property values of the homes already built on our street. We feel that if a property owner provides homes for a multitude or a high density of people into a small land area and at the same time does not provide additional public services such as schools, fire and emergency, transportation, police, roads, etc. then the quality of the already established public services diminishes for both the homeowners already living in the area and the new families. Greater demand can cause lesser quality in our present services. The property owners on the East Hill have already experienced this happening with the large number of multiple family complexes that have been built in our area. one-Hundred-Eleventh Avenue SE is a street of 20 single family homes and our street is surrounded by multiple family - complexes . On the east side, Stratford Arms apartments have 85 units and is located right next to the east side of our backyard property line. On the south, directly across 256th Street are the Quail Ridge Apartments with 435 units and the Lincoln Garden Apartments with 177 units. On the west, approximately one block away, are the Sunrise Point Apartments with 329 units. On the north, about a half-a-block away are the Kent Shires complexes. What is it like to live on a single family home street which is surrounded by multiple family development. We feel it is comparable to living right in a multiple family development. Just to give a few of the examples, its noise from a lot of people, dogs, cars, motorcycles, trucks, vehicles with faulty exhaust systems, radios, vehicle horns, television, traffic at all hours, people moving in and out, etc. It 's traffic congestion on 256th Street and other East Hill area streets. It' s water drainage runoff when it rains, from paved roads and parking areas. While we were talking with our neighbors on lllth Avenue SE about the zoning on the undeveloped land left on our street and in Area C, there were a lot of important points brought out. One such point was from a couple who used to live in the Timberlane development. They started out living in Timberlane as a wonderful new idea for them. The biggest complaint was that within a short time the community started downhill . There was no diversity and it had no variety in order to grow. It just started to stagnant with so many people living so close together. ` When a community stops growing, then the residents stop growing also. It seems to us that future growth is an important reason that we chose to live where we do. We feel that the City of Kent can make the wise choice of one single family residential home for each 12 , 000 square feet of land for the zoning of the undeveloped properties on lllth Avenue SE vicinity and all of Area C of the East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 . We want to thank you for your 16 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7 : 00 p.m. interested attention to our concerns to this zoning for this is our future. And, I would like to leave this copy with you in case anything was misunderstood. VanDerbeek: O.k. , thank you. I have a question, Mrs. McCallum. Do you know how many square feet that your lot has that you live on? McCallum: I multiplied the width by the depth and it' s 15, 026. VanDerbeek: And is your lot typical of the lot sizes on your street, the 20 houses on your street. Is your larger or smaller? McCallum: Ours is a little larger but the neighbor lady' s, I believe, is a little over 10, 000 square feet. I multiplied her' s too. VanDerbeek: All right, thank you for your testimony. McCallum: Thank you. VanDerbeek: Robert M. Nelson. Robert M. Nelson: My name is Robert M. Nelson. I live at 10453 SE 244th in Kent. My wife and I purchased this property some 42 years ago and we are not speculators. We have seen the growth. We own two pieces of property. Our house sits right here, we also own a long strip back of the house. What I 'm questioning is the commercial zoning. We do not question the zoning on our acre-and- half, I do question the zoning on our acre. I would request the Hearing Examiner to study the commercial zoning on 140th, 104th, it seems to me to be an inconsistency in the Planning Commission. Originally, where the Payless property is, they've come back 600 feet and the next piece is about 425 by this. They've eliminated about 125 feet because of the (unclear) property. Then they drop down to 300 feet, there is three pieces of property in this 300 feet in here that extends back to 600 feet. So half of that property is zoned commercially and half of that is zoned R1- 7 . 2 . So what I 'm asking for consideration is that on the Benson Highway the commercial zoning goes back 600 feet. Also, starting from 240th to 256th, now the Benson Highway is already zoned by the Planning Commission as a strip,, a commercial strip. The State just rebuilt the highway. We have sewers, water, five lanes, sidewalks, so won't affect the traffic pattern. Thank you. VanDerbeek: Thank you for your comments. Next is Brad Bell for Marry Morrill. All right. Brad Bell: I was the best she could do tonight. I would like to give you a copy of my comments and an area map, if I could, Diane. -- VanDerbeek: All right. Would you mark that. 17 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. Bell : My name is Brad Bell and I 'm a real estate agent representing Mary Morrill for those of you who don't have the luxury of seeing where her property lies. She basically has 15 acres, three five acre tracts that come back off 248th and adjoin the 0 zoned property on 104th. Mary has lived there for the last 40 year, she has been a Kent resident for 75 plus years and recently moved out to Meridian Valley Country Club. I don' t disagree with anything that has been said tonight. I believe the property owners out there should be entitled to receive the zoning that they want but a rural zoning as it relates to this particular piece of property is no longer in the cards because of the commercial taints and multifamily taint of the property out there. The proposed zoning is in conflict with the East Hill Community Plan which was adopted in 1969 and later amended. After many hours of research and community input, the property was designated potential MF 7-12 under the East Hill Plan. I was involve in those proceedings back when the East Hill Community Plan was adopted. The reason that particular piece of property was initially zoned multifamily was because of the adjoining commercial property and for the many, many reasons that people have mentioned tonight; noise, traffic, etc. , that property should not be zoned single family. It is not a suitable site for single family development. The property owner supported annexation based on a potential multifamily zoning on her property. She now feels deceived over - the proposed changes. Up until six weeks ago, we continually went down to the Planning Department to ask what was the progress of the zoning on this property and not once did we get any indication that the property would be zoned anything but multifamily once annexed into the City. Our first notice of that is that when we received the materials from the Hearing Examiner in the mail. The rest 639 feet of the subject property adjoins proposed professional and office zoned property. A single family development adjoining an office development does not provide the necessary buffer to protect the quality of living, does not provide a safe or logical mix of land use. I think that the Planning Department would agree, it' s an unusual situation when you have single family dwelling zoned property adjoining office or commercial zoned property and I think reconsideration should be given to this particular piece of property. The staff report states, that typical planning practice to place higher density residential next to commercial and office in order to best utilize public services. The proposed zoning does not represent a high density residential use. I know very few homeowners who would like to live next to medical and dental offices, veterinary clinics, banks, savings and loans associations and other permitted uses within the O designation. Again, this does not present a logical mix of land use. The subject property is surrounded by multifamily development, west of 94th Avenue S. , south of SE 248th at 98th Avenue S. , and a large development directly across 248th from the subject property. This environment is not 18 Hearing Examiner Minutes -- Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. conducive to single family dwellings. From the staff report, one of the overall goals is to increase the residential population in Kent, assuring a decent home and suitable living environment for families " to live in Kent. For many of the reasons, that have been brought up tonight, noise, traffic, congestion and everything else. You will not, this property will not be developed into a suitable development for single family homeowners. No developer in their right mind is going to go in and put a nice home next to a veterinarian clinic. And, we are very, very concerned about what' s going to happen with this property assuming that it is zoned single family dwelling. On the other hand, if it were to be zoned multifamily, there are sorts of creative things that could be done with this property that is more conducive to the surrounding area. Now, it's my particular - opinion that the problem with Kent isn 't that there is to many apartment units, the demand is there for apartment units, the problem is there is to many ugly apartment units and if you haven't taken the opportunity to go up and take a look at the Stratford Arms development on 256th, I think you will find that development is as quality and as nice as any single family home development in this area. And, I think, you will also find that the quality tenants you have in those units are very, very good and long term and not transit tenants. The quality dwelling unit would probably never be built on this site, that the staff and the City desires. A quality multifamily project, more compatible with the area, would be much more suitable at this location and better serve the City' s stated purpose. I do not question the well-intention motives of the staff in responding to the community cries of the "traffic stinks" and "oh, no, not another army barracks" . The owner understands that any development proposed may require additional road improvements which are desperately needed. However, a multifamily development would result in a much more quality development and quality living unit in this commercially office tainted area. One big oversight that we seem to be forgetting tonight is the lack of fire and the lack of police and the lack of everything else we talk about is the result of the fact that existing homeowners cannot afford any more and that' s why the City continues to allow for, example, the 30- million-dollar shopping center development south of this property down on 104th, the Vysis shopping center because that increases our tax bases which, in turn, increases the services that the City can provide to us as taxpayers. And, if you look at the City budget I think you will be surprised by the amount of revenue that has been generated by these new office buildings, these new commercial shopping centers and the 7, 000 increase in multifamily units in the last six or seven years. That' s where a lot of the money is coming from to support the services that we have and by having saying we don't have enough services so we are going to stop development, you ' re cutting off your right arm because you won't have new people moving into this area that will help subsidize those disparately need improvements and the property owner understands that if this property were to be developed many improvements would have to made in that area but in a multifamily type environment a property owner 19 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. can come in and afford to make the necessary improvements to 248th and other problems that so many of us are complaining about. If you decide to go to single family dwelling zoning as it relates to that property you are going to have medium to cheap price single family dwellings and I guarantee you that the developer will not do anything to 248th. That's the end of my prepared comments. I do have some other comments to make regarding some of the things that some of the other people talked about tonight. I really believe, having gone through the process of being involved with the Comprehensive Plan the first time, I really believe that we are operating from emotionalism on this issue. I really believe that a couple of the City council members have not been happen with some of the multifamily units that have been developed in this area and finally said, "I 'm sick of it, there aren 't going to be anymore" . Well, that 's fine, I have no objection to that process. However, you can't cut in the middle of a Comprehensive Plan and start spot zoning property and that's basically what you' re doing with the particular piece of property. That office zoned property on 104th was zoned office in conjunction with the fact that the property adjoining it would be multifamily. That provides an adequate buffer for some of the rural housing that you are enjoying out deeper. But, you are never going to have a rural atmosphere at that particular intersection. Traffic concerns, they are absolutely terrible. I 've lived here for thirty-five years and it makes me sick. However, the only way we are going to get new roads is to pay for them and the only way we are going to be able to pay for them, and if we can't afford them now, the only way you will be able to pay for them is to increase your tax base. And, you increase your tax base by putting up quality units in this particular area. VanDerbeek: How was your client' s property zoned prior to the annexation. Bell: MF 7-12 . In County, it was zoned 7200 square foot lots. However, I would like to put out there is very rarely any coordination between the County and City zoning authority so that was not a good reflection of what's with the East Hill Comprehensive Plan. The property owner requests a zoning of medium density multifamily on her 15 acre piece of property and I would like to conclude tonight with a comment by Ray Ward who is a Council candidate and is being quoted a lot these days in the paper, he also serves on the Kent Planning Commission and I 've known Ray for a number of years. His comments are somewhat in line with ours. He says, referring to what he calls the "ridiculous thing of reducing multifamily by 20 percent" Ward said, "housing construction ought to be determined by the building and industry and the consuming public" and we are in agreement with that philosophy. Thank you. VanDerbeek: All right, thank you for your testimony. Does Edith Lambert wish to testify. All right. 20 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. Edith Lambert: My name is Edith Lambert, I live at 6702 34th Avenue NW, Seattle. My husband, John Lambert and I own the five acres located at 11008 SE 256th. We' re here to protest the single family zoning proposed for that property by the Planning Department. Approximately in the middle of March of this year, I contacted Mr. -- Hansen of the Planning Department, (tape 2 started at this point) I told him that a realtor that we had contacted told us the Planning Department was planning to propose zoning our five acres to multifamily allowing 12 units per acre. At that time, Mr. Hansen told me the Comprehensive Plan called for multifamily zoning and was allowing up to 24 units per acre. He told me that I should worry about it. He also told me there would be public meetings for input from the property owners. We were never informed of any meeting other than these two that you've had. Our property is bordered on the west by multifamily dwellings. There are three single family _.. homes also on the west but they are also zoned for multifamily. On the north of our property we are bordered by multifamily. On the south of our property and across 256th there is a lot of multifamily. On the east side of us there are approximately ten dwellings right on our property line. Across the street from those homes, I think, there are about ten more homes and then there is a dental office and there' s the Stratford Arms. It would seem that we were being discriminated against because of a survey taken door-to- door by the Planning Department at which time the people in the area favored the rural atmosphere they have. We realize that no one ever wants to development but then it does happen. We don't feel it is fair to allow all this multifamily development around and then say no to us especially when the Comprehensive Plan called for us to have multifamily. I believe at the last meeting a statement was made that in the years 1985 and 1986 there were less than 20 building permits for single family residences in the City of Kent. It would seem there's really not a lot of interest in single family _.. homes in this area. Four hundred and ten acres has been annexed to the City of Kent and there are 894 residences within that 410 acres as of April of this year. This amounts to slightly over two residents per acre which is really low density. What should be considered as the best possible use of the property and if you looked at the five acres we have, we feel that you would probably agree that it' s really not suited to single family dwelling. We are requesting that you consider giving us either business zoning or multifamily zoning. If you care to go look at the property, we would be very happy to meet you at any time that would be convenient _•, to you. Thank you. VanDerbeek: I have a question. Prior to the annexation when your property was in King County, what was the zoning? Lambert: I think it was 18. . . We were zoned single family but we had contacted the County and they had told us, we were going to 21 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. apply for rezoning but they told us they would give us up to 18 units per acre and then we didn't do it. We lost our son and kind of lost interest in it at that time. Thank you. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you. Bert Jones. Does Bert Jones wish to testify. Bert Jones: I ' ll wait until later. VanDerbeek: All right, that ' s fine. Mark Kuolt. All right. Mark Kuolt: Hi, I 'm Mark Kuolt. I live at 11003 SE 244th and I would like to just make a point about the traffic on that road and the fact it is 35 miles per hour and so is the Benson, 104th, and 240th and also 116th and those roads are a lot busier than SE 244th and I think it should be reduced to 25 miles per hour especially if it stays as a residential area. And, traffic has increased as probably not as much as 248th, it' s a short cut, but we have notice the increase on 244th and it would be nice to see a police officer out there once in a while monitoring the traffic situation because many people are speeding in excess of 35 miles per hour. VanDerbeek: Do you ever call the Police Department and ask them to send a traffic officer out there. Kuolt: No, I haven't. VanDerbeek: Maybe you should do that. Kuolt: That' s true. VanDerbeek: All right. Any other comments . Kuolt• That's it. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you very much for your testimony. Al Silva. Al Silva: I 'm Al Silva. I live at 25322 113th Avenue SE. A couple of years ago we bought property in this area and it was, it' s an acre-and-a half between two streets, 113th Avenue SE and 114th Avenue SE. When we moved in and the reason we moved there was because it was such a rural area. That left turn off of 256th onto 113th Avenue is like going from one world to another. It' s just very quiet and peaceful. Stratford Arms was in there and they are still developing and that' s all right. And, we kept hearing the buzz of chain saws and falling of trees and so on. And, then the lady right across the street from us, Margaret Ward, a long-time resident of East Hill , was in the process of getting chemotherapy and she had to move away from this area because of her expenses and she was on social security so she sold to a developer who, I think, 22 Hearing Examiner Minutes -- Verbatim September 2, 1987 7: 00 p.m. is the owner of Stratford Arms and in one fell swoop, in one evening or two, denuded the area between us and Stratford Arms and put in, bulldozed a road in there and is now using the area right directly, looking out our front window which used to be trees and forest, is now an open parking, an RV parking lot. VanDerbeek: That was the RV parking lot in the video, correct, with the gravel. Were you here when the video tape was shown? Silva: Yes, but I didn't see that. But, it 's just a nice wonderful view of Stratford Arms now and this was just a shock, I don't mind progress. I know that we need that and we need the services but if development is taking this form, this shape, of just denuding the area of all the trees and putting, and exposing us to all this high rise, at least in our areas, Stratford Arms is a high rise, I 'm against that kind of movement. Now, I don't know what the plan is for this area immediately across the street from us and we are right in an area that if, we have to live in that area, we may as well have the option of turning our property into multi-dwelling, multi- residence, right now the recommendation and I 'm in favor of the City's plan of making that area R1-9 . 6 or preferably R1-12 . But, if we are going to selectively take, pick out little pieces which are going to affect the reason for us living in this area, then we should have the option of being able to chose that multi-dwelling zoning. I want to stand on -record that I don't favor the multi zoning but if it' s going to affect my property and, in fact, I 'm going to be living in a multi-residential area, I may as well have the benefit of being able to sell to my property to an upcoming developer in the future. Since I also plan to retire in the next three or four years, it was mentioned about the streets and sidewalks. And, this is one of the things that apparently everything is geared to, the automobile and the pedestrian is just playing Russian roulette every time he goes out into the street, tries to walk any where. My wife and I have been trying to get on an exercise program and we just are walking next to ditches and happen to walk up on people's lawns, there are no sidewalks to walk on, no place to really get any reasonable exercise on foot. Now, when we do find a sidewalk, like along 256th we are asphyxiated with traffic exhaust and I 'm not sure that its even safe to walk along that sidewalk. These are comments and I 've just been listening to the people talking tonight and I just wanted to get on record that these are the things that our my concern too since I live in the area. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Pamela Alamos. Pamela Alamos: I 'm Pam Alamos and I reside at 25207 lllth SE. My husband and I are new homeowners. We 've just bought our home two months ago. We've spend several months researching and trying to decide the type of place we would like to live since we hope to 23 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7: 00 p.m. raise our family soon and one of the reasons we choose this area was because of the rural-type setting. It was, we live on the very end of the street which is, at present, a deadend street. One of the reasons that we liked it was that there was the deadend street so it limits traffic for children and for animals. We're hoping that it can stay that way. We like it because it is quiet and the neighbors are very quiet also. We feel if the area across from us, which is undeveloped at present, there's two lots there right now, if the present or the proposed zoning goes in, we feel it would really deter from the area that we live in now and the quality of life that we want to keep there. VanDerbeek: Across from you in what direction? Alamos: Across, east from us. Which would be on the side of the street that Ms. McCallum lives on. VanDerbeek: Yes, all right. Alamos: Right now there's nothing there. We are strongly recommending that we can keep the zoning of R1-12 or at least R1- 9 . 6 and I just wanted to go on record that we are hoping that it can stay with at least the 9 . 6. VanDerbeek: All right. Do' you know how many square feet your lot is. Alamos: I would say, we haven't measured it, but approximately 12 , 000 square feet. We have about a third of an acre. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Michael Alamos. Michael Alamos: Hi, my name is Michael Alamos and I reside at 25207 lllth Avenue SE. And, after hearing everybody speak tonight on certain issues that have come up, I can see the need of growing in the area coming and it is needed for the services such as police, fire protection and medical aid but if you don't reside in that area it's kind of hard to see the growth come. And, I would just like to keep it rural even though it is part of the City should possibly be developed later on and I would like to keep the single family dwelling. And, that's it. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your comments. Alamos: Thank you. VanDerbeek: Lilla Raabe. Lilla Raabe: Good evening. My name is Lilla Raabe and I live at 24302 lllth SE and I would just like to say that I totally support 24 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. everything that Mr. and Mrs. Orr said and I would seriously like to ask that you definitely consider zoning single family and very large lots. And that' s all. They said everything much better than I could. Thank you. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. W. J. Carey. W. J. Carey: My name is Phil Carey and I live at 11236 SE 244th and my wife and I own five acres. I don't know if you have a pointer. It' s located on 244th, south of the proposed Summer Woods and southeast of Oak, Royal Firs, Royal Oak. . . VanDerbeek: Royal Oak? Carey: Yeah, Royal Oak, new apartments, Royal Oaks. That's an apartment they just completed, 184 units and the proposed _.. Summer Woods is, I believe, for 164 units. Now, I sent you a letter dated August 15, 1987 and I wanted to confirm that you received it. VanDerbeek: I did receive a number of written comments and I believe that your' s is among the written comments that I received. Let me just review. Yes, I have that letter. Carey: May I read it. VanDerbeek: I already have it, you can read it for the record; however, all written comments are a part of the record so it' s not really necessary that you reread it unless you want to or if you want to call my attention to certain parts of it you may certainly do that. Carey: Well, there are just two points that I make in here. Number one that the Comprehensive Plan designates the areas between 105th Avenue SE and 114th Avenue SE approximately and between 100th Avenue S and 103rd approximately as multifamily, 12 units, zoning. However, the reference be, the staff report recommends a zoning of R1-9 . 6, Single Family Residential with a minimum 9 , 600 square feet. Since the staff report recommendation conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan, it is recommended that the Comprehensive Plan designation of multifamily 12 units per acre be approved. Point number two is that, this East Hill Plan, which I have a copy here, under multifamily residential . This multifamily, 7-12 dwelling units per acre, this is on page 87, this designation is intended to provide areas for the low density, attached dwelling units such as duplexes, townhouses, low-rise apartments and condominiums. Low density multifamily developments of this type properly designed can serve as traditional or transition areas between commercial areas or high density multifamily developments and single family neighborhoods. Now, since the property we own is going to adjoin or right near a multifamily, then I think it would be consistent with the Planning Commission ' s or Planning Department' s policies to 25 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7:00 p.m. provide a transition zone or buffer. Now, in addition to that, I sympathize with my neighbors here to restrict to single family residence but I guess that we have to face reality. When I looked at this here pictorial it reminded me, I lived in Bellevue in 1953 to 1957 and that looked just like Bellevue. I lived on 108th Avenue SE and SE 108th and that reminded me of Bellevue. But, the point is you can't stop progress. VanDerbeek: But, 108th SE and SE 108th in Bellevue is still all single family. I drive that to work every day, right. . . - Carey: O.k. , this is SE 108th and 108th SE and that puts you right downtown. VanDerbeek: Well. . . Carey: O.k. , I live on 244th that' s SE 244th that runs north and south and the street running east and west is 108th so they bisected there and that 's were the main the development is. Well, anyway, you have to ask yourself why so many multifamily developments or units being developed and I think the answer has already been given. It' s based on the market place. It' s the law of supply and demand. I think we would all like to retain a single family residence but it 's a question of affordability. I think the main price for a single family home in the United States 'today is somewhere around $120, 000. There's not too many people who can afford that price of a house. In addition, the Planning Department has a policy which they state very clearly, to provide adequate housing. Now, the big demand is for multifamily housing, this is what people can afford so I would just like to summarize then and say this based on the Comprehensive Plan and based on the Planning Department's own policies that my property be zoned multifamily. That's 12 units, multifamily, .12 units. Do you have any questions or did I make. . . VanDerbeek: No, I think your testimony is relatively clear. Thank you, Mr. Carey. W. J. O'Rourke. All right. Maylo Hill. All right. Mike Rogerson. Mike Rogerson: I 'm Mike Rogerson and I live at 10637 SE 244th and yes, I grew up in Bellevue, 20 years worth and I 've been out here for about 20 years now and I guess the reason that about the piece of property I live at there, about ten years ago, it's one acre, because of the rural setting and I certainly would like to see it stay that way so I 'm voicing my opinion in favor of the single family residence for that area. And, that's all the input I 've got. Thank you. VanDerbeek: All right . Thank you for your testimony. Eugene Oades, Jr. 26 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. Eugene Oades, Jr. : Excuse me, my testimony probably be spotty and somewhat emotional. I live at 25029 116th Avenue SE. I have a 24 , 000 square foot lot. My property borders the MacIssac's on 116th which seems to be getting busier all the time. But, to the issues. I would like to know where the multifamily is going to stop because this spot zoning that a lot of people are trying to do at this time -.. is forcing single family dwellings out further because who wants to live next door another apartment complex. And, when the lady mentioned that there are 890 residences in a 410 acre site. I didn't see where she included the thousands of people that are residing at all the apartments which are adding to the heavier traffic problems and so forth. And, I would like to say that my brother works at a veterinary clinic and I 'd rather live next door to a veterinary clinic which has office hours and stops at 5-6 in the evening than go 24-hours a day and kids screaming and cars racing up and down the streets. I almost bought a house in Timberlane years ago when I was 19 and I 've seen what that areas like now and it' s a slum to put it bluntly. Oh, all the people too who are living next door to these multifamily zoned areas are now trying to get their property zoned multifamily also. Well, I commend them for that, I would like to make an extra buck too. But, I would rather, myself, have a little bit of a rural atmosphere around me than all this development which has taken place. I looked for a year-and-half and finally find the area which I had, it was close-in but yet not too close to where I was stifled by all the development. And, also, I would like to ask a question to the Committee here, when they are looking at rezoning the areas, is there an environmental statement in regards to wildlife. I know in my area, I have a large abundance of quail and I 've seen some red foxes run around, some coyotes and a lot of blue jays and so forth. With all of the, this sounds like I am a Greenpeace activist, I 'm not. VanDerbeek: It wouldn't matter to me if you were. Oades: Well, I grew up on a 1, 300 acre dairy ranch on the east of the mountains so I enjoy that kind of atmosphere and I 'm taking this off from work right now so I can be here to voice my opinion because I feel it is very important to let you know that it is very beautiful where MacIsaacs and a lot of us live and I feel it' s being ~ really threatened right at this time. I 'm in, actually, I 'm in favor of a larger zoning than R1-12 , I would like to see the 20, 000 square foot lot but I really go with that flow. I guess, to sum it up, that you hold the future of East Hill in your hands and many families and their children that are coming up which as I pointed out, I 'm in favor of the R1-12 zoning and hope to keep this rural environment that we have. Thank you. VanDerbeek: Thank you for your testimony. Randy Brealey. 27 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7: 00 p.m. Randy Brealev: My name is Randy Brealey and I live at 10910 NE 66th Place in Kirkland. I would like a couple of quick points. One is to correct a boundary line on the map that is shown. We are the developers on the proposed Walnut Park project. The Bainton parcel runs from 248th at the northend to 252nd at the southend not part way through so it runs that full depth. I have a couple of comments. There has been some discussion this evening about the Walnut Park project. It has been the subject of several public hearings, zoning and subdivision process previously for Phase I. The Walnut Park project is at this point, three-quarters approved. Phase I is approximately 14 acres that lies to the west of the Bainton parcel . Ignore the shadings, that part of the Phase I . Phase I consists of this parcel which is made up of two parcels the Howard property site and the Wilcox parcel. Our property site is zoned MRG, 12-units per acre, approved, which is a 115 units on the 9 . 3 acres of that property. The Wilcox parcel was annexed to the City of Kent in, I believe, December 1985, was zoned last year at MRG with a six unit per acre limit and then the subdivision, Phase I subdivision for Walnut Park was approved by Council in May of this year. VanDerbeek: Were there any modifications to the street standards? Brealev: The street standards are per the City standards as outlined in the Zero Lot Line Ordinance for the City of Kent. Yes, the street standards of the through street has 24-feet of paving, vertical curb and gutter on both sides and a four-foot sidewalk on one side. The lead streets that service the individual homes have 20-feet of paving, concrete roll curb on both sides and a four-foot sidewalk on one side. The difference in working relates to the fact that the through street has a standard crown where the road is raised in the middle and drains to the curbs. On the lead streets is the reverse, the road is depressed in the center and it drains from the curbs to the middle so the catch basins for those streets are in the center rather than on the edge by the curb. The streets are per City standards. They will be privately maintained which accounts partially for their narrower width. They also meet other requirements for emergency vehicle assess and they have been reviewed by the Public Works and Fire Departments. VanDerbeek: Provided that on-street parking is strictly limited. Brealev• Yes. VanDerbeek: But will it be enforced? Brealev: True. Couple of things that I would like to point out. This is kind of a summary of the zoning on the site and how the property is laid out. VanDerbeek: Which site? 28 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. Brealey: This is the Walnut Park. The Bainton parcel on the far right is a piece that is now within this annexation zoning process. VanDerbeek: Right. And that' s the only parcel I 'm interested in hearing testimony on. Although, I did want to ask you about the roads, of course. Brealey: The . zoning that is requested and recommended by the City is the same as the Wilcox piece that abuts it on the right. In terms of density, there has been some discussion and I would like to clarify what this project is . The total project is 115 units, that ' s the total of Phase I and II . Phase I, as approved, is 82 lots. A questions was raised earlier as to what was going to happen there. What we have, what we are proposing on this project, if zoned as requested or as recommended by the City. If the MRG, 6-units per acre, is applied on the Bainton parcel, what we would have is a project that, and the west half of the red portion of 9 . 3 acres is zoned MRG, 12 units per acre. The eastern portion comprising of the Wilcox and the Bainton parcels is approximately 8 . 6 acres. VanDerbeek: How large is the Bainton parcel. Brealey: The Bainton property is 4 . 88 acres. That includes the area to the north with Mr. Bainton' s house and another lot besides that. We do not include that property or the Wilcox house in our area calculations for our project. If those were included our densities would actually be a little bit lower. So the Bainton parcel and the zoning request really covers that whole area. What we refer to all the time as Walnut Park, we take the house and the other lot out and then we are dealing with the net area, south of those. The east half of the green portion of that site, as I said, 8 . 6 acres, there are 50 acres which are included in that area for a density of 5. 8 lots or units per acre. The west portion or the red portion is 65 lots and its 7 units per acre. Overall the project when completed would be 115 lots or 6. 4 per acre. I was listening to some comments and I did some calculations on what our average area per lot is. And, the green portion we have one lot per 7 , 510 square feet, and in the red portion one lot per 6, 223 square feet. Overall, in the project we have one lot per 6, 800 square feet. What we are requesting or what we have requested through this whole process on Walnut Park and our Bainton property zoning is part of that request is to allow us to take the density of the unit count .- that is permitted outright under the zoning of the Howard property site or the red portion of the property and develop those units on almost twice as much land. We want basically to develop single family on both the single family and the multifamily zone ground. The red portion of the property under the Comprehensive Plan is multifamily, 6-12 units per acre. The green portion of the property is single family, 4-6 units per acre and we fall within those boundaries on the entire parcels and on those parts individually. 29 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. In, traffic has been mentioned as an issue on a number of occasions and one of the things that we are doing is to produce less housing units on this property than is designated either under outright zoning or under the Comprehensive Plan itself and a reduction in the number of units that develops also reduces the traffic impacts from that property. Questions raised about common areas and parks. Generally, single family projects, single family subdivisions, I believe, do not have any open space requirements within them. Under the Zero Lot Line Ordinance that this project is being developed under there is an open space requirement and Walnut Park project includes 3 .75 acres of open space. VanDerbeek: Which is? Brealev: Just a shade over 20 percent. What we are providing is alternate single family housing for those who do not want to live in multifamily attached housing but do not want or cannot maintain large lots. It is single family detached fee simple ownership with an ease of maintenance and life style for those that want it. It also creates an economical, a more economically viable housing product. The figure of $125, 000 is an average new home price in the Country as mentioned earlier, the housing range that we are proposing is in the $70 and $801s. VanDerbeek: Wasn't it in the $80 ' s and $90 ' s last time? Brealev: No. VanDerbeek: Oh, I recalled testimony $80 ' s and $901s. $70 's and $801s. Brealev: $70 ' s and $801s. VanDerbeek: All right. Brealev: I find it interesting also that staff is recommending that _. if this project as proposed is not developed that, in fact, the underlying recommendation on zoning would revert to the R1-9 . 6 and that's not a problem for us. We have no qualms with that. I would be pleased to answer any questions. I don't know if there are any other questions from the public that I didn't cover. VanDerbeek: The only questions from the public had to do with the road and had to do with the size of the site. I think that you answered those. Any further testimony? Brealev: No. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Paul Morford. 30 Hearing Examiner Minutes .- Verbatim September 2, 1987 7 : 00 p.m. Paul Morford: Kathy, can I get a picture of Stratford Arms complex. One that you had, did you have them on the view foil or on the video. McClung: The video. Morford: My name is Paul Morford. My address is 21264 132nd Avenue SE. I moved to the East Hill . I guess I am a new timer. I 've only been in the area 21 years and I live in a rural atmosphere and used to be a rural road. I have a hard time getting out of my driveway now but I guess that' s progress and part of what happens over a period of time unless you, with growth and population, kids and whatnot unless someone adopts a plan for sterilization or something like that to keep the population down. When you get in to closing the door, who's the last one in and closing the door for people to live. There has been quite a few comments about the Stratford Arms complex and I am one of the owners of Stratford Arms. I 've been in the community for a long time and tried to be a good citizen. I 've worked for Boeing for many years, I was on the Planning Commission served my time there as a volunteer service for four years. I 'm an engineer by profession and built lot of a single family homes, really nice single family homes in the past and in the last few years we've built some multifamily. We spent three years building the Stratford Arms, 86-units. We didn't come in and put it up in five months, 300 or 400 or 500 units. We built 86 units over three years. We spent a lot of time on design, on planning and I guess I want to thank the Planning Department for recommending that our complex be zoned for what it was built as and not tore down. So, I 'm grateful to the Planning Department for that part of that. VanDerbeek: Well, they couldn't legally recommend that it be torn down. It might be a legal nonconforming use. .,., Morford: O.k. , I was trying to get a little humor to this thing. But, I feel that I 'm fairly knowledgeable and I am interested in the community. The traffic problem is terrible, no question about it and I think the government agencies are seriously derelict in their duties for the many years of inaction, knowing what' s happening and putting the money in the bureaucracies rather than in to some of the improvements that we sorely need. Before I get into details of my comments on Stratford Arms there was a comment made about parks and about what' s happening on the East Hill. I personally have worked with the King County Parks Department and some of the King County Councilmen have asked me to actually interface because I had been involved with the community with the Chamber of Commerce and some of the committees donating a lot of hours to the community in that area to act as an intermediary on a park project. And, I been and I have talked with some of the City Councilmen and also with some of the top officials within the City trying to get a joint operation going to acquire the Clark Lake property, I think it' s nearly 40 or 80 acres sitting up there with a beautiful lake upon it just a few 31 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 :00 p.m. blocks away from this. And this is just kind of passing for any of the people here, it's ideal, it's in the middle, it's in the path of growth and there is currently I have been told by the officials, negotiations have taken place for the County to participate along with the City, even though it's outside the City, for a park and this (unclear) , a lot of people are not aware of that and I don't think it' s advertised because it's probably a quiet negotiation but people who are interested in parks may want to follow up on that and get your testimony in. Now, back to, I guess, specifics. I only here really because of an accident, I get tired of coming to these meetings, but in the mail, I got a copy of this and Stratford Arms is this parcel here, in brown, it's all built out. The map and the narrative that was sent to me, is this one right here. And it shows MRM from 113th west over to here, I don't know what that is, it is very clearly defined as 113th. 113th is about a block, approximately one block to the east of Stratford Arms but, as a matter of fact, this brown, here's Stratford Arms and here's 113th. Well, the literature, well it' s the next road to the east, is 113th, so it' s more than twice the distance shown here, over to the line that was sent to me in the mail as a property owner and it shows it as MRM. And, also it refers to Stratford Arms, it has been built on that rectangular section as MRM additionally going over to 113th. And so, therefore, our area was, the recommendation were exactly what we had built. In the meantime someone talked. about Mrs. Margaret Ward, she had cancer and came to us and asked us if we would purchase her property, she couldn't keep it up any more, it was adjacent to, and it happened to be right centered on the Stratford Arms property and we had laid out for future expansion, because being knowledgeable and knowing how the planning process works with my experience and professional background, the Comprehensive Plan. . .Kathy, are the Comprehensive Plan and East Hill Plan here? Seems to me there is one underneath here. The East Hill area, now this is taken many, many hearings on the East Hill Plan. Do we have the Comprehensive Plan, no you have another one, the overall general Comprehensive Plan and the East Hill Plan in the Planning Department office. I went to the Planning Department office and I was told they would be here. But, anyway, the East Hill Plan has had lots of hearings and whatnot and was developed with an overall planning process with a lot of hearings and a long period time. I (unclear) found out at the Planning office today, I was looking at the drawings there. The East Hill Plan was adopted, the date on that was 1984 , fairly recently. The General Comprehensive Plan was developed in 1972, revised in 1978 and 1984 . And, what I 'm going to try to, sometimes I get emotional when I come to these meetings, try to deal just with facts because that' s basically the issue here. Both of those plans have been in existence for quite a while and yet they are current. They have been currently updated and they show this area over to 113th and passed as multifamily property. When Mrs. Ward came and asked us to buy the piece next door to her, bought it based on looking at what the Comprehensive Plan was, the East Hill Plan. Also, familiar with (unclear) 32 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. Plan was, the East Hill Plan. Also, familiar with (unclear) background, sewers, water, City of Kent currently has a surplus water situation. Fire mains were put in that area. LID was put in to Mrs. Ward's property that we purchased a year ago for expansion of Stratford Arms and currently using for the, we did clear it and we did put some recreational vehicles there and we do have a playground for children. VanDerbeek: Do you have any buffering from adjacent single family residence, landscaping. Morford: Yes, we bought her home and the home is currently still there and faces on 113th. So, what we 've cleared is between the residence and that and the trees we took down. Now, I love trees, we took down all the old alder trees, lot of them had fallen down, we kept the evergreen trees, some of them are dying now. But, ••• anyway, the Comprehensive Plan shows multifamily. The East Hill Plan shows multifamily. The LID was put in and Mrs. Ward, even though a senior citizen, not very much money, like some other people on the street, a new sewer line was put, another LID, based on all these plans. 256th is proposed to be widen because of these widen because of these plans. A new fire station on the corner of 248th and 116th is being put in based on these plans. 248th is eventually planned to be widen. A new fire station was put in 33 blocks from here, straight to the east on the corner of 140th and 256th, much closer than a lot of other multifamily. Response time cannot be that much from that corner, down to 113th, 30 some blocks. Anyway, the plan that was sent out in the mail shows MRM, the narrative talks about Stratford Arms being MRM, which was, we purchased this other piece for future expansion following the land use planning that had been taken care of over years and all of a sudden, (unclear) , the ballgame all of a sudden changed. About the time we purchased it, I talked to the County, because it was in the County, about a rezone and they said it was in the process of being annexed and recommend that we wait for the annexation to go through before any rezone because that is the logical way to do it. And, that' s kind of standard procedure when something is in the mill, sometimes they like to drag their feet or wait for an overall plan and annexation takes place. I also talked to some of the City planning officials before I purchased because, we didn't, we weren't interested in purchasing single family property in the middle of, as a matter of fact, all of that property has been there for years and there hasn't been a new house built in there. MacIsaacs are building a new house down the street and I think there's another one on 248th, but very, this rural land that everyone 's talking about has had plenty of opportunities for single families (unclear) and some of these other people who had lived here for 30 or 40 years, it just not in the cards. In fact, I want to say so again, the planning has taken place over the years, the Comprehensive Plan, is for that area to be multifamily. I think the City is seriously flawed in this plan and their recommendations at this point in time. 33 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7: 00 p.m. to loose my train of thought here, the, all the utilities are there, the water is there, the fire hydrants are there, the sewer is there, they make an issue of the fire thing and I think there may be a little bit error there. And the, roads are in the process of being updated and this is the one I keep drifting off on, is the City Council all of a sudden they realized there is a lot of apartments being built. I don't know why it took them so long to come to that conclusion because it has been taking place for quite a while. In December of this year, a resolution was passed, resolution 1123, this referred to in the planning report and this is kind of a policy statement and in here it refers to, the City Council hereby declares its intent to establish the goal of achieving an average density reduction of 20 percent on all undeveloped multifamily zoned land throughout the City. This density reduction would be achieved through revisions. And, this I think is very, very important, from a factual standpoint, through Kent' s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. And, you have to deal with the Comprehensive Plan and the community plans or else all your other planning goes out the window. But, also another section in here, it refers to proposed zoning, Comprehensive Plan changes which would help to create additional opportunities for single family residential development. The issue here is, I guess, if the ballgame is going to change after all these years of planning, a new school was built about four blocks from here, just, it's going to be opened this week because of this growth. The school 's have planned, they've called me and they've planned for all this multifamily. Everything is planned for this until December of this year and even this resolution, it's not law but all of a sudden, because, I think, the staff is reacting to a political situation here and not dealing with facts like they use to when I dealt with them, the Comprehensive Plans and the community plans carried a lot of weight and here they are throwing all that planning out and recommending something entirely different. And, this even says, what you have to do is go change the plans through due process and talking spot and reacting, in the last eight months because of this, is the only reason, in my opinion, knowing some of the staff and knowing the Council people and knowing some of the executives in the City and the County, that is why we've got this sort of a hodgepodge here now, rather than going with this thing that was developed over the years and, I think, there is some, I detected it from a couple of other people that testified here. I had talked with the Planning Department and I had talked with King County and everybody said that when this annexation took place, the normal process with the annexation you adopt the zoning per the Comprehensive and community plans and I think that has to be given a lot of weight. Thank you. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. You can direct a question to the chair when you testify and I can ask Planning staff or any witness to answer the question. All right, 34 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7 : 00 p.m. the next speaker is Sheila Ridings. All right, I will call the next speaker. Bob Stewart. Bob Stewart: I 'm Bob Stewart. I 'm here as a representative of the Kent United Methodist Church which is located at 11010 SE 248th. Its a five-acre parcel approximately here in the Comprehensive Planning zoning situation. We have two concerns that are probably reflected by a lot of members in this room. We moved to the East Hill 17 years .ago from a location, which at that time, we felt the traffic problems were awful 17 years ago at Central and Meeker and we moved out to the East Hill to get away from that. We are concerned that the density as stated in the Plan, the 7 . 2 is not great enough, we are in favor of R1-12 . Two reasons for that: Number one, traffic. We appreciate, like everybody else, a smaller amount of cars travelling the highways. It doesn't particularly interfere with our business as a church because we are there on Sundays, mostly. But, we do like to be accessible and available and it 's hard if people are having to fight traffic to get to the building. The second thing is that we spent a great deal of money, seven or eight years ago, installing a parking lot and paving it and our drainage system was interrupted severely when the Kent Shires project was allowed to dump their storm water into the same creek we were, that side of 248th. The south side of 248th was in the City at the time and we were not and the City allowed that to happen. We are concerned that any further development on the hill will upset the drainage problems even more so we are in favor of larger density. Thank you. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your comments. Tom Sharp. Tom Sharp: My name is Tom Sharp. I reside at 24254 143rd SE in Kent. I 'm also one of the owners of Stratford Arms apartments, for good or bad, here. One, I used to be on the Planning Commission and back before the Hearing Examiner. In fact, the Planning Commission when I was there, we were the ones who recommended the Hearing Examiner and we sat through years of changes to the Comprehensive Plan for The Lakes project because we could not have the zoning for The Lakes for multifamilies, single-family use with a mixed use without a change to the Comprehensive Plan. At that time, it was an agricultural zone in there, something like that and I always labored under the impression and for also my education, I 'm an urban planner by education, that you had to change the comprehensive plan before you could change zones. After all, why would the State, I think it's the Environmental Policy Act, I think that says that, why would it be required to have a comprehensive plan if the staff or whoever, even as a developer, we could go in and say the comprehensive plan is no good therefore we would like to have the zoning changed. I would kind of like get the emotionalism out of this whole issue and it really gets down from what I can see is the Comprehensive Plan, the East Hill Plan which was just amended three years ago, states that the property, Stratford Arms and the property adjacent to 35 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. Stratford Arms to the east to 113th is to be multiple family and then, all of a sudden here, a couple of weeks ago, it was, this staff comes out with a recommendation that it be single family. Well, the recommendation is fine except we have to change the Comprehensive Plan first. That's my understanding. I may be a little bit wrong or something but that's o.k. too. But, I cannot understand why we haven't gone through, they are recommending that we have a single family residential other than in those areas as stated in the Comprehensive Plan and the East Hill Plan that we have not gone through the change in the Plan before we get into zoning here. And, also, I would like to state that we are not a kill the hill, pave the grass, developer and I think our developments in Kent which we have four state that fact. We 've, Stratford Arms, as a matter of fact, we've changed the plan. We originally bought the property as a series of four-plex apartments. We completely changed the plan to save the trees, to save the environment as we had seen it and to make it a more workable project and I take very much of an exception to anyone who states that we are a kill the hill, pave the grass, that kind of an attitude went out in the 1940 's. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Sheila Ridings. Sheila Ridings: My name is Sheila Ridings and I live at 25003 114th Avenue SE. I 've heard' a lot about the Comprehensive Plan tonight. I do not believe it is really effective and may be three years is really long for it, they should look at it again. And, maybe they should have looked at it before all this rezoning was, all of a sudden, thrown on a bunch of people that were not aware of things that have gone on in the past and didn't know that City government, what they have to do, what the steps were, all I know is that I 'm going to have a bunch of little houses that are going to be right up my back door and I don't what to live there. I 'm not a fact, I 'm a person. I bought the house that my husband and I live, we spent a lot of money for that land because we didn't want to live next to an apartment building or a bunch of, they say they are going to be in the 701s, 801s, 1, 1, 00 square foot houses for $70, 000. I don't know of anybody who really has that kind of money for that kind of property. Phase 1, when we were here, they said that we could not bring in Phase 2 because it wasn't what we were talking about so I think that we should talk about Phase 1 it has already been approved, it has already gone in and I do live next to Phase 2 , I do not want it to go in and if I 'm going to be like all the other people who come up here, I can say that well, I 've got multifamily right next to me, I want my five acres multifamily too. What am I going to do with my five acres. I 've already made that choice. The people on our street have made that choice and we don't think that a developer coming in when there' s nothing on that property, I think what the City Planning Department has and what the developer has, is that we are going to be that buffer zone between the Kent Shires, then these small houses, and then all of a sudden we are going to be 36 Hearing Examiner Minutes ••- Verbatim September 2, 1987 7 : 00 p.m. the buffer zone between, you know, they will put some nice houses, then we will have the acreage. And, I don't want to be a buffer zone, I think that that transitional phase should be the five acres between what Mr. Brealey is proposing and what our acreage is. We decided where we want to live, let someone else decide whether they want to live next to small houses or not. I don't really want that. Also, it was brought up in the staff report and one of the meetings, that excluding the house, that is on that property, if you take away that house, I believe they are only going to develop 3 . 8 acres of that land. VanDerbeek: I though Mr. Brealey said 4 . 9 acres or 4 . 8 acres . Ridings: I think that, I don't know, I think there is a discrepancy in that. ,,. VanDerbeek: 4 . 8 acres that was Mr. Brealey' s testimony. Ridings: That' s what I thought. I believe that in the last, when it came up last time, I don't think it was that much acreage, it was less. I would have to look at that. And, we are emotional, I mean, you know, everybody says that we should keep our emotions out of it. I don't think so, it's got to start some place and you know, I can understand the people that have been up here and they want multifamily are not- living on this property, they either, they either want to develop it or it' s just land that they bought and all of a sudden now, what they want to do, they want to sell it and they want it multifamily. Well, the people next to that, it' s going to go on and on and on. And, we need transitional areas, we need buffer zones between, you know, the apartment houses, but what am I going to do with my five acres if I have multifamily right next to me. I 'm going to come up and say, I don't want to be there, I want the same thing that the land next to me is having and that' s going to be multifamily and I don't think the people around me are going to want that but I don' t think it would be fair as, to myself as a landowner. And, I don't know I 've looked at the plan and it looks like a monopoly board to me, that' s 115 homes on less than 20 acres of land. I don't think that ' s what the people, I mean, it' s obvious that's what the people don't want here, and I think that the City of Kent should look at it again. Because we are already taxpayers, we are already here and a lot of older people that are in our community will need better streets. They say that they are coming. When are they coming, these developers that are already in King County within a five mile radius. All these people that are already building houses, you know, we' re going to upgrade the streets, the only upgrading that I 've seen it to reasphalt. There aren't any gutters being, or sidewalks really being but in, not on all the streets, there are a select few and most of them are brand new developments. When are they going to put in these in, in ten years when they are outgrown and then we 're going to have to dig them up and redo it again. I think they ought to plan for these and then 37 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7: 00 p.m. let the developers develop the land or build the houses, not after the fact because they are going to be out of town, they aren't going to be around, they don't have to walk the streets or, you know, wait for the traffic to clear up or wait for the sidewalks to be put in and I think that, you know, you should listen to the people and maybe the City of Kent should take a little bit more time in rezoning this and make it what they thought. The one lady, I can appreciate what she ' s saying, you know, they want to put it single family and she's right next to commercial . I mean, I can understand that so I think maybe it should be a little bit more organized and the issues looked at. What the Comprehensive Plan was and then look at what' s happened the last three years. I think it 's grown quite a bit and I think that people have also changed their minds that have bought the land and that, the reasons why we came out here is for that. Thank you. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. I don't have any other speakers signed up. I believe at this time, I 'm going to take a recess and following the recess I will hear any additional public testimony that there is and then, if time permits, I will permit staff to offer rebuttal testimony and answer the questions raised by the witnesses. Can I ask whether staff has been taking sufficient notes on what the questions are or should I review the questions for the record? You're prepared. McClung: I think I have the planning questions, probably not the public works. VanDerbeek: Well, I 'm sure. Oh, Mr. Gill is back there. Did you write down the public works questions? No, yes. All right, I don't think I will take the time to go through the questions, I have taken thorough notes in the event that some of the questions are not answered then I will direct that they be answered. At this time we are going to take a recess for approximately ten minutes. I would remind the audience about the rule on ex parte communication. As a hearing officer, I am prohibited by the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, and the Rule on Ex Parte Communication from discussing any matters which come before me for hearing except for in a formal form by listening to testimony on the record, everyone can hear. Accordingly, during the recess period I would ask that no one approach me and attempt to discuss any of these issues which come before me because then I would have to disqualify myself after having sat here for several hours this evening and several hours on the 19th of August and I would not like that to happen and so I would ask that be kept in mind, I cannot discuss these matters with anyone off the record, nor can I place myself in a position where I 'm overhearing comments about these matters off the record. So, at this time we will take a recess for approximately ten minutes. All right, we are back on the record following a brief recess on the East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 public hearings, file ##AZ-87-2 . 38 Hearing Examiner Minutes - • Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 public hearings, file #AZ-87-2 . The date is September 2 , 1987 . I am Diane VanDerbeek the Hearing Examiner. Prior to the recess, we completed the public testimony on any interested member of the public who had signed up on the speakers list to speak. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify who did not sign up. All right, Ma 'am, you can go first and then the gentleman in the back with the glasses and then, we' ll just figure out some order. All right. Marilyn MacIsaac: My name is Marilyn MacIsaac. My address is 25001 116th Avenue SE. And, I just wanted to make two points about the zoning request of the Walnut Park development. The Walnut Park people tried to present themselves as a single family housing unit. But, in reality they are really apartments as far as I can see. My address I gave you is 116th Avenue where we are building a house but we really live at the Stratford Arms apartments, isn't that a good one and they are lovely. And, we live in a 1, 150 square foot apartment and the single family houses that Walnut Creek is proposing, they keep calling them houses, are 1, 100 square feet with no yard or any much to speak of, and I think they are just trying to rezone this single family for apartments as far as I can at look at and while living in this apartment, which we haven 't lived in apartments for a long time, I realize how much it takes to keep up a facility as nice as it is at the Stratford Arms. It' s a lot of work and they have to do it to make it marketable, they are having people come in and out often and these houses that will be Walnut Park, they will be sold as houses and they will have substandard streets, they are not going to be like you could have on your block if you were building a house and I keep thinking how many years down the road is it going to be before the community club or whoever is supposed to keep these up decides they won't chip in to pay for them, and then what' s going to happen. Now, it was the County road, they would take care of it starting today or the day they put it in and it would be the right size road. Another thing that happens, I have been investigating this, I have a friend that lives at Timberlane and she said that one of the problems with these type of houses is that they are inexpensive, that' s wonderful, and what happens in a lot of cases is that people buy them for rentals, well then, the owner comes back every two or three years when the renter changes, he doesn't have to care what happens in between like you would if you had an apartment house. Those are just some of the concerns I have. The other think was that gentleman who spoke who had to leave to go to work, Kirk, and he, you didn't realize it, but he ' s a single person and he investigated for a year-and-a-half to find a house that he bought on 24 , 000 foot lot with a little space around him and, some of the people who think they are planning for us leave us to believe that single people don't want houses or they can't afford them which is neither of things are true. If you can afford the payments that Kirk is making on his house, it' s about a $100 more a month than the apartment rents so it' s not that much different so I think that some of the, need to look at all the 39 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7 : 00 p.m. legibly that single family can only afford apartments because people have come up and said that we owe it to the people starting out because they can't afford anything more than these less expensive houses. But, really what they are doing I think they are buying an apartment. Thank you. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. The next speaker, the gentleman in the back. Mike Bergstrum: My name is Mike Bergstrum. I 'm with Construction and Development Services, Inc. , 311 1/2 Occidental Avenue S . , Seattle, 98104 . I 'm here representing a property owner in the annexation area, a Mariner Holding, which owns property at 25219 113th Avenue SE which is identified as tax lot 29 . I 'm here, again, representing Mariner Holding' s interest in the property. Basically, their interest is in objecting to the City' s proposal for single family initial zoning on the property and in support of a multifamily designation. My client is one of apparently a few people who, before purchasing this property, looked into the Comprehensive Plan status for the area. At the time he purchased the property, the Soos Creek Comprehensive Plan was the governing County Plan, showed a potential RM 2400 density on the property which is about 18 units to the acre, present zoning in the County was suburban residential which is a single family zoning. The current East Hill subarea plan for the City of Kent showed 12-24 units per acre. If I understand the City' s zoning ordinance and the historical process for establishing zoning upon annexation, the zoning is to conform with the current Comprehensive Plan of the City and upon the initiation of an annexation, the Planning Director is to determine whether or not there is a current Comprehensive Plan for the annexed area. If there is not a current Comprehensive Plan, than rather coming to the Hearing Examiner we would be in front of the Planning Commission trying to develop a current comprehensive plan and then on to Council . If it is determined that the Plan is current, then go through the process which we are here for tonight which is to the Hearing Examiner and then to Council. The zoning ordinance also states that the Hearing Examiner really has no option but to establish zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. I 'm sure there can be debate as to which recommended zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as the staff has acknowledged, the Plan contains more than one element, it contains a map element plus it contains a set of goals, policies and objectives. It is obvious what the map element of the Comprehensive Plan suggests for this property. Somewhere in the range of 12 to 24 units per acre. The goals, objectives and policies of the plan speak to a number of concerns which should be addressed with growth of the area. The staff has reviewed those in their staff report and basically they discuss roads, intersections, walkways, housing, balance in diversity, public services, drainage and preservation of the rural character and I would like to address each of those concerns in a moment. It sounds like the testimony tonight is, 40 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. becomes somewhat two dimensional. It's a single family versus multifamily issue. The staff report in it's discussion of potential multifamily development in this area, again, they are limited in scope. It speaks to highest potential, density under multifamily scheme of things. So, it would be irresponsible to zone to the highest density given the state of public services, etc. I don't think the staff report has looked at other alternatives for setting zoning perimeters. The Comprehensive Plan, again, for the East Hill says, 12-24 units per acre. There are two Kent zoning designation which fall within that range. There is the 23 unit per acre and the 16 unit per acre. Analysis of traffic impacts of zoning to the highest density appears to be based on an assumption of 23 or 24 units per acre or the highest end of the range as expressed by the Comprehensive Plan. That's not necessarily the case that has to occur. Some of my concerns have been addressed by earlier speakers so I will try not to get repetitious over what's been presented. It ' s obvious there is some very valid concerns about growth in Kent and in the East Hill area. The concerns that have been raised by the public as well as by the staff are real , they are very real traffic problems in the area, there are lack of walkways and the other concerns that have been raised. I think where I would dispute some of the analysis is how those concerns should be addressed. Thinking that zoning the property as single family will answer our problems is not the case. A lot of the development in that area has been single family and yet the problems persist. As pointed out by one of the earlier speakers, is higher intensity development which tends to subsidize the cost of public services , roadway improvements, etc. for lower density development. If the City has done a cost benefit analysis of various zonings. . . VanDerbeek: Which would be entirely irrelevant since State law prohibits such consideration of economic, consequences of zoning in land use decisions. Berastrum: But, if they were too, it becomes clear that public services are more supportable by higher intensity development. VanDerbeek: Well, if that were the case, why don't we just pour cement all over the whole world. Bergstrum: I don't think that's what I 'm proposing at all. What I 'm saying there is a relationship to the type of development and the types of services which can result from that. I also think there are things that need to be looked at such as, which enters in to whole development whether single-family or multifamily or other such as use of SEPA authority, use of local improvement districts, road improvement districts, traffic mitigation benefit areas to address some of these concerns which often times, the higher density development is more able to contribute to either physical improvements or monetarial to an overall benefit program. I think three of the, in particular three of the concerns raised by staff in 41 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7: 00 p.m. the staff report are related. The road conditions, intersections and walkways. Obviously, some of the roads need upgrading, they are shoulderless, open ditch, just asphalt. Zoning the area for single family is not going to fix that. It appears that staff, and correct me if I 'm wrong, that the real crux of the matter occurs at the intersections. That' s where you are experiencing the level of service E or F conditions. That obviously needs addressing somehow, that can be addressed through a road improvement district or a traffic benefit mitigation area, traffic mitigation benefit area, as can walkway improvements and road improvements. The Comprehensive Plan speaks to the desire for a housing balance, the staff has presented percentages of multifamily versus single family versus mobile home development which has occurred in the City showing, I believe, it was 59 percent of the housing presently is multifamily. Repeating briefly a comment by an earlier speaker, that' s obviously where the demand has been, what the consuming public is demanding. By zoning large areas single family and the demand is there for multifamily, the City is trying to create an artificial market which doesn't exist. Obviously, there is some need, some desire for single family but obviously there is a stronger need for multifamily at this time. There is a concern about lack of public services in the area. Again, this is a very valid one. However, through Building Code enforcement and SEPA authority, multifamily development can be required to install more life safety accommodations than single family is, such as sprinklering, alarm systems which are monitored on an off-site 24-hour location, etc. VanDerbeek: Sprinklers? Bergstrum: Sprinklers in the building can be required. VanDerbeek: Through SEPA authority? Bergstrum: You have under SEPA authority, you the ability to look at public services and if they are not adequate, to require mitigating measures and one possible mitigating measure, if there is a lack of response time for fire departments, you can require sprinklering. If that can shown to be an effective mitigating measure through the SEPA process. Another concern was drainage in the area, and the staff ' s conclusion was that multifamily development often has a lot more impervious surface than single- family development and single-family, therefore, encourages, can encourage better ground water recharge. That 's not necessarily the case. With an impervious surface allowance or a building lot coverage allowance of 35 percent plus roadways which are normally associated with subdivisions, you can get pretty close to multifamily development coverage. Multifamily developments and the developments I have been associated with, normally cover around 45 to 50 percent of the site with all the roadways, garages and/or 42 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 :00 P.M. carports and structures. Multifamily developments are easier to cluster away from sensitive areas of the property. If there is a sensitive area on the site, again, you have all the authority under SEPA to tell people to stay away from that site, do not impact it with development. The final concerns was the preservation of rural character. The staff report acknowledges that the natural amenities will be lost to any development over some period of time. The conclusion of the staff report is that they will be lost at a slower rate with multifamily, excuse me, single family than with multifamily development. That' s not necessarily true. If you get large single- family subdivisions, they can be developed as poorly as a poor multifamily development . Multifamily, again, multifamily development again is often subject to more stringent reviews and, again, to the SEPA processes and can be grouped away from -, significant strands of trees or significant specimen trees. A lot of it comes down to an enforcement problem and/or an enforcement issue and how far the City is willing to push their authority under SEPA and other codes available to them to protect and address those concerns. In summary, again, our request is that you follow the mapping of the Comprehensive Plan for this property, adopt zoning consistent with that mapping and find ways that you have available to you to address the concerns which have been raised in the staff report. This can be addressed with either single-family or multifamily development. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Bergstrum. I have a question. You indicated that the County' s Soos Creek Comprehensive Plan recommended your client's site as RM 2500, is that correct. Bergstrum: 2400. VanDerbeek: How was the area actually zoned as opposed to what that Plan recommended. Bergstrum: The actual zoning was suburban residential. VanDerbeek: And, how long had it been zoned suburban residential . Bergstrum: I imagine for it' s entire history. VanDerbeek: Do you know why the County did not bring the zoning into conformance with the Soos Creek Plan. Bergstrum: The County doesn't always do that with the Comprehensive Plans. They wait for privately initiated rezones. Also, they had the concerns with sewer availability for the site which was recently addressed through a local improvement district. This was one of 14 43 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7 :00 p.m. lots which participated in an LID to bring sewer, through the City of Kent, to the properties. VanDerbeek: How long did, when was the Soos Creek Comprehensive Plan approved, recommending RM 2400 for your client' s site. Berastrum: The Comprehensive Plan was adopted in either the very late 60 's or the early 701s. I don 't know if the RM 2400 designation appeared at that time or in some update. As far as I know the County has not updated the Soos Creek Comprehensive Plan - until recently they are starting to get into that process. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Berastrum: Thank you. VanDerbeek: Any further public testimony. I will hear from the gentleman who has not previously testified first, please. Delbert McCallum: My name is Delbert McCallum. I came in late. I was sworn in at the meeting had two weeks ago, I don't know if you want to swear me in again. VanDerbeek: No, that's all right. You're still under oath. McCallum: O.k. The address that I live at is 25238 lllth Avenue SE. I don't think the issue here, that we are going after is the fact that we are raising cane with the apartments that are already there because they are already there and we're going to have to live with those but we, the issue that I think we are after is the idea of the zoning of the new property or the property that can be developed and our feeling, or I think the majority of the people here, the feeling is that they would like to keep it the way it is or at least have it as 9 . 6 development or 1, 200 square feet or 12 , 000 square feet. I think the growth of the property changes over a period of time. We talked about the Comprehensive Plan and where that's going. The thing that happens with the Comprehensive Plan it is usually designed several years in advance and many of the people who probably designed that are no longer with the Planning Board or have changed, so I think that things have to change with the people themselves. If they didn't, we would all be driving with 1960 fords and chevrolette ' s because times do change and we going to have 'to change with them. The other thought I wanted to bring in to life was the gentleman that was just up here and talked about the development of the area. If we went multidwelling how it would develop. I don't think that's quite true because maybe it has been with the one's he has been associated with, but in the past experiences we know that when an area is multi-unit developed it, unless everything else is developed at the same time, you don't have those kind of advantages and the biggest example of this might be, is when a tall building is put up, the City can stop that building 44 Hearing Examiner Minutes -- Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 P.M. unless that building contractor has enough parking spaces for all the cars that would be going to that particular building. I think the City could also have it if they want to do something like that, that if they were going to put up an apartment building, that they would be the one's that would develop all the curbs and gutters and pay those expense as part of the building itself. The only thing that I would like to make a comment on this, there ought to be a time when we say enough is enough and there should be a time when we could say that we have enough apartments around us right now and this area here could be developed with 12 , 000 square feet per residential unit. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Further public testimony. Myron ViGoren: I arrived late and didn't swear in but I swore in earlier this afternoon so I guess that still stands. VanDerbeek: All right. Will you state your name, please. ViGoren: My name is Myron ViGoren. I represent the property at 11208 SE 244th Street. We current are contiguous with Royal Firs on the northwest corner of our property and we 're interested in doing something with the property. The property has been in the same ownership for 50 years and at this point in time we feel -that we want to quit paying the taxes we are paying. We are paying in excess of 1500 bucks a year and, which amounts to more than $200 an acre. But, I was just back here doing a little bit of calculating and came up with the fact that Royal Firs per acre is paying about $11, 000 an acre. We are paying 200 and they are paying about 11, 000. What' s Kent going to do with all those extra bucks. They should have some money to solve some of the street problems. I was here this afternoon when they were trying to zone this, I don't remember the name of it now, which would be directly north of our property. And, they are zoning it for a little bit less density so let's say they are paying $8, 000 a year plus. . . VanDerbeek: Mr. ViGoren. I 'm going to make the decision, please address your testimony to me. ViGoren: O.k. Fine. They're are probably going to pay $8 , 000 per year per acre in taxes. If I understand my reading your statement that they intend to put a light in at 240th and 112th. They also intend to supply some of the funds to improve 240th and this is the way to solve the traffic problem. It' s not to go and stick your head in the sand. I, we could not at this time develop into 9 , 200 square feet. I talked to the bank and I talked to several other developers and I talked to several realtors and they all say, no, you can't do it, you can't do it economically. If we want to give the property away, we can do it but that' s the only way that we are going to be able to do anything with that property and so, it' s 45 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. unreal to zone it to 9 , 200 square feet because what you're say it, that nothing is going to happen till that zoning changes because nothing can happen economically. We' ll just have to keep putting taxes out, our $200 buck a year, when the thing would probably bring $12 , 000 a year, $10, 000 a year per acre; $200 bucks a year versus $10, 000, makes quite a difference. I think for the economics for the City of Kent, they're going to hurt themselves enormously. I 'm quite involved in the City of Aberdeen and they've had a no growth policy in Aberdeen and if you know anything about Aberdeen, hey, they're starving to death. Because ten years ago they had this no growth policy and they did everything they could to thwart growth and I want to tell you there are some poor people in Aberdeen who lost thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars on their property because of the no growth policy of the City. And, I don 't think Kent ' s that way. Thank you. VanDerbeek: Thank you for your testimony. Further public testimony. Sir, in the blue. Bill Dimsdale: My name is Bill Dimsdale. I live at 137100 266th in Kent and I 'm also involved with Stratford Arms apartments. Just a couple of comments that I wanted to make. I guess they are really directed to the Planning Department. The whole presentation that they made kept referring to what had happened in Kent since 1970 as far as single family building permits and multifamily building permits. And, the thing that I keep thinking of, it's been about 15 or 16 years since I have been associated with Kent and I think Kent is a heck of a lot better place than it was 15 years ago. When I first came here, it was kind of a little place out in the country with a lot of problems. There were a lot of problems in the school systems, there were problems with police protection and one of the most significant things in the area was Springwood Apartments out here and I feel that Kent is a heck of a lot better place now and I raised my kids here and I 'm pleased with the school system, I 'm pleased with the services, my kids don't have to go to south center to shop, they don't have to go to Auburn to go to a movie, they don't have to go to Renton to shop, the Kent area in general has improved a lot and all of this has happened while we have been building apartments instead of single family houses. So, I don't think its all negative. At Stratford Arms we have numerous school teachers who live in our apartments, we have head librarians for the school system, we have attorneys, we have Boeing engineers, and many other professional people including quite a few military officers who are in the area temporarily and we turn away people every day that want to rent apartments. We feel very fortunate that we are in that situation but I think that the main point I want to make here is that from a planning standpoint, the thing that we have to get back to is this Comprehensive Plan, we can't take and squeeze people out of Kent and make them go out to Black Diamond and live. They're still going come right back through Kent to get to work and they are going to clutter up our roads and these people are going to live in 46 Hearing Examiner Minutes -- Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. this area. You're not going to chase the away, they want to live here. I 've had people come in from Denver, from Houston and South Carolina and they want to live in Kent because we have a good Parks Department, we have good police protection and we have, even with our traffic problems that everybody keeps harping on, I came from Bellevue and the traffic problems when I lived in Bellevue many years ago, were much worse than they are in Kent now and I think staff has to handle those problems. They have to deal with traffic, they have to deal with the storm drainage runoff, that ' s one of the other things that everybody keeps talking about but in the apartment complexes with the retention system, they release into, the actual drainage requirements of the valley are probably better controlled than they were on the original property or at least equal to it. That ' s what the Engineering Department is supposed to be doing and we have a retention system with massive pipes and pond areas at Stratford Arms and we release the water through a little orifice from that whole complex. So the services can handle the multifamily development and so if we put all this stuff off to the side about people covering the ground with concrete and all of those things and deal with the fact that we 've got a requirement in this City to provide multifamily housing somewhere. Now, where are we going to put them. Are we going to put them close in to Kent or are we going to squeeze them out to the perimeter or outside in to King County. People want to live here and I don't think that just because we are here and- the next person who comes along, that the next person who comes along has to be left out. I think we kind of have those requirements as a member of the human race to let the other people have a share of what we have. One of the other things I don't think there is anybody here who would, one of things that just happened here, just talking about moving all of Plant 2 down to Auburn, I don't think there is anybody in Auburn, any resident in Auburn down there who' s saying, hey, I don't want Boeing to put 2 , 000 employees down here and there's nobody here in Kent that ever said that either, that they didn't want these industrial developments down here in the valley. They want those jobs here because they want to work in Kent and they want to live here and if we are going to let people create jobs here. I think we have a requirement to stick with our comprehensive plan and develop our property in a way that makes it agreeable to everybody. One of the things that we keep talking about are these buffer areas and a lot of people don't realize that that's the way the Comprehensive Plan is done. You keep your concentrated growth closer in and as you get farther out you have the buffer areas to keep the multifamily separated from the single-family areas and that brings up my final point on the Stratford Arms property. We've spent an awful lot of time and a lot of energy figuring out what we are going to do with the project when we buy a piece of property. And the piece of property in question is the Ward property that abuts Stratford Arms and which we consider to be a portion of the Stratford Arms project. Originally, Stratford Arms was four lots, we bought the Ward property which makes it five lots. Since that time we have eliminated the lot lines on the 47 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7: 00 p.m. larger parcel and eventually we would eliminated the lot lines connecting the Ward property if it's zoned multiple family so it becomes part of our project that we invested a good portion of our finances in and a big part of our life. So, all I 'm asking for is that we give the Comprehensive Plan the consideration it deserves and make that property part of the multifamily zoning. Thank you. VanDerbeek: Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Dimsdale. Further public testimony. All right. I 'm normally not inclined to let people testify more than once. (Person spoke) . All right. Well, I 'm going to let the gentleman who has not previously testified, testify first. Douglas Walker: My name is Douglas Walker. I reside at 10727 SE 244th. Clearly what we have here is an adversary situation between land owners versus homeowners. I think clearly the majority of the citizens here tonight have indicated their wishes, their concerns. And, their concerns relative to the environment that they live in, their way of life. Concern about what could happen to it. And, I am concerned about that and my concern is multifamily housing. I don't think. . . I think that within the past few years, the City of Kent, King County have provided adequate number of multifamily housing for individuals. I think Kent now has to look toward providing single-family houses to this area that they have recently annexed. It' s a beautiful area, people have lived there for quite some time. They're concerned about what is going to happen to that area. They grew up in that area. They've made homes there and they've raised their families there. There' s a lot of emotions involved in this area. They don't want to see it turned into an asphalt jungle. All we have to do is look eastward, look at Detroit, look at L.A. to the south. This is what they're concerned about. This is what I 'm concerned about. I think that the Planning Department has down an adequate job and has expressed the concerns as they view it of the City and as it now exists. It will be my recommendation and hope that they adopt the single-family housing in this area. Thank you. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Is there any further public testimony from anyone who has not previously testified. All right. If you had one additional comment, if would please make it very brief and not repetitive. Orr: My name is James Orr and I 'm truly sorry about getting up but there is one fact that I think should be brought to your attention. In Findings and Recommendation from the Hearing Examiner on March 18, 1987 . . . . VanDerbeek: On which case? 48 Hearing Examiner Minutes ~ Verbatim September 2, 1987 7: 00 p.m. Orr: On page 2 , I 'm sorry, Walnut Park Phase 1 . VanDerbeek: All right. Orr: I 'm not trying to address this to Phase 1 but I have to go through part of Phase 1 to get there. Phase 1 of which primarily subdivision approval is requested hereon will consist of 82 lots on approximately 14 . 1 acres. Further to the east, Phase 2 will include 33 lots on approximately 3 . 8 acres. The entire development includes 115 lots on 17 . 9 acres. Now, I know they are rezoning 4 . 8 acres is what is asked for. But, indeed they are only developing on 3 . 8 acres and I 've not had any formal education but every calculator that I 've done this on, 3 . 8 acres, 33 lots go into 8 . 5 units per acre and it 's not 6. units per acre. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Any further public testimony. All right. I would ask staff at this time with respect to your rebuttal testimony. If you assume that it' s going to be fairly limited in nature, I will hear the rebuttal testimony and conclude the hearing this evening. As you know from previous hearings, I am inclined to limit rebuttal testimony very strictly in time and to avoid repetition. However, I don't want to not allow staff sufficient time to respond to this hearing which has been three-and-a-half hours long. So, if the staff feels it cannot sufficiently give their rebuttal comments, five minutes. Mr. _•„ Hansen. Jim Hansen: Jim Hansen, Kent Planning Department. I think we could do it between five and ten minutes. VanDerbeek: All right. I will indicate from the evidence before me that I 'm not going to close the record because I 'm going to ask for the preparation of another exhibit from the Planning Department. And, the exhibit I 'm going to ask for the preparation of is all of the East Hill Comprehensive Plan Maps that I ever see or are ever provided to me half of them see to require some sort of amendment or factually incorrect and the Comprehensive Plan Map which is in the back of the East Hill Plan is difficult for me to interpret sometimes so I guess what I would like for an additional hearing exhibit to be prepared by the Planning Department is a copy of the East Hill Comprehensive Plan Map with the subject Area C with an overlay which shows the staff recommendation that goes over. Do you understand what I 'm asking for? Hansen: Yes, would you like to have it at a scale similar to the map on display for clarity or larger than that. VanDerbeek: About like that. 49 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 P.M. Hansen: If you want we could prepare one or a couple of them. The one down on the floor, Kathy, is much larger scale and might be easier to depict property lines. - VanDerbeek: That might be helpful . Hansen: O.k. VanDerbeek: But, I don't want, I want it to be something that I can roll up and take with me. Because, I don 't want to haul around that thing. Hansen: O.k. VanDerbeek: All right. After the staff' s rebuttal testimony. I will establish some time deadlines for the preparation of that so that we can be it clear to the record when the 14 day period will commence. All right, at this time I will call upon staff for rebuttal. McClung: Kathy McClung from the Kent Planning Department. I guess part of these, part of what I wanted to say in five minutes are for public information and then others are for answering questions. I wanted to respond to Mrs. Orr' s statement about public, what we do to inform the public of developments in the area. It' s true that we post the area as a result of the SEPA process, we also post it as a result of anything that requires a public hearing. We also publish all those notices in the Kent News Journal . We also do not notify everybody of a typical development, we only notify people within 200 foot radius if there is going to be a public hearing. So, that two ways that people would know about potential development would be through posting on the property and publishing in the newspaper. I also wanted to bring up the fact that there are 202 acres approximately of currently multifamily zoned property that is undeveloped or underdeveloped on East Hill . So there still are potentials for multifamily development. Under Mr. Singletary' s comments, he had a question about a zoning variance for the fire station. We currently, under our zoning code, allow fire station or other public buildings in a wide variety of zones including single family zones but they do require a conditional use permit. That property has not been acquired by the City. Once it is acquired by the Fire Department, they will be having a public hearing for the conditional use permit. I wanted to explain further that a red folder, a red copy of the report that I was entering for the record. There seem to be a question about what exactly that was, that is a report that has been submitted to the Planning Committee, which is the subcommittee of the City County for review in response to their multifamily reduction ordinance that we have referred to many times during these hearings. It has not been passed at this point. It' s only for their review. There was a question about parks that are planned in the area. Oh, good. I guess Mr. Hansen got a copy of 50 Hearing Examiner Minutes ••• Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7: 00 p.m. the Comprehensive Park Plan so he can address that question. In response to the comments of Mr. Bell. He was talked about 15 acres that are adjacent. . . VanDerbeek: Just a minute you skipped a question. Mrs. McCallum asked about the connection of llith and 252nd in the future. McClung: O.k. I will leave that to Mr. Gill, because I 'm not sure. VanDerbeek: A11 right. McClung: Mr. Bell was talking about twenty acres adjacent to an office zone and referred to that as commercial zone and would be undesirable for residential use next to it. Office zoning is not the same as a typical commercial zone in that it is designed through the development standards to be complementary with residential . It's maybe not the most ideal but we do require additional landscaping, we do not allow any lighted signs and typically the hours of the business allowed in the office zoning would not be late in the evening or, in most cases, open on the weekends. He also made a comment that a single family development would not be making any improvements along S . 248th Street and I just wanted to clear that up. Any plat that came through the City would have to go through SEPA review and it ' s the City that determines what improvements will get required along any street, looking at the impacts of that particular development and adjacent public facilities. Mrs. Lambert was, stated that she thought the Planning Department had down a door-to-door survey and that she had only been notified of these two meetings. These are the only two meetings where zoning has been discussed in this area. There will be further meetings at City Council. But, these will be the only two meetings. The Planning Department has not done any door-to-door survey, we rely on the Comprehensive Plan information and the things I ., discussed throughout this report for our recommendation. There may have been some confusion, the Planning Department was out in the area taking a census shortly after the annexation. That's the only door to door contact we 've had. Mr. Silva brought up a concern about the clearing of trees. I just wanted to bring up for public information that the City of Kent does have a tree ordinance in place and that, if someone sees an area being clear-cut, they call the City and we will make sure, we require people to submit a tree plan before they can do any clear cutting of trees over six-inches in caliper and the reason I bring that up because that did happen, not within the area but very close to the area a couple of years ago and we found out about it after it was all done. There was a question about whether wildlife is considered through environmental checklist. We did submit an environmental checklist as part of this rezone, as part of this zoning hearing and wildlife is one of the elements within that environmental checklist, one of the (unclear) elements. As far as the Stratford Arms question, I apologize for the error in the map. The person who worked on the map had a very 51 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2, 1987 7: 00 p.m. small scale map to work with and missed the lot, that' s all I can say. I 'm very glad that Mr. Morford came into the office so that we did clear up a misunderstanding. It never occurred to me that those two lots adjacent to Stratford Arms, that he considered that as part of the Stratford Arms property. I never considered it as such. They are separate tax lots. And, when I asked one of the property owners, he told me they were not included in the plans that were submitted to King County as part of Stratford Arms. Finally, I just wanted to, well, o.k. One more thing about sprinklers. We have a sprinkler ordinance in the City of Kent which says that any building over 12 , 000 square feet has to have sprinklers in it. They have a lot of 11, 999 square foot buildings usually the developers will do anything in order not to put in a sprinkler because they are very costly. We have, however, required sprinklers on one case, isolated case, that I can think of through the SEPA process because fire access was limited. And, then. . . VanDerbeek: That would be an interesting legal issue for appeal if someone appealed that issue before me on a SEPA, the result would be interesting. McClung: Finally, I just wanted to reiterate something that I stated at the last hearing on this annexation area and that is that this, these zoning hearing will not preclude anybody from applying for a rezone at a later time. Advantageous of doing, looking at this total annexation area is that we can look at the area as a whole in making zoning decisions. The disadvantage is that we haven 't spent twenty pages on staff report on each individual lot and there may be a time in the future when some of the issues we discussed tonight have been resolved and we can look at a rezone consideration favorably. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your rebuttal comments. Hansen: Jim Hansen, Kent Planning Department. We are probably over our time limit but there were two brief ones and I believe Mr. Gill may have a couple of items to respond to on Public Works questions. There was one person who raised a questions regarding proposed parks. At the break I checked our East Hill Plan that was adopted September 7, 1982 . At that time, two parks in a very generalized fashion were shown to be generally within this annexation area. Each of them are shown at ten acres and again, these are quite generalized. Generally in the area of north 252nd and west of 113th. The second area is south of 242nd and west of 108th. If people want further information they may check with our Parks Departments because they are no in the processing of updating the plan that we drew our information from and one second issue that came up, there had been questions on that multifamily study and coincidentally the City Council , next Tuesday night at 7 : 00 under a regular workshop meeting is scheduled to discuss some recommendations regarding implementation of Resolution 1123 . So, 52 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. for those members of the public that will be 7 : 00 next Tuesday night. Now, I believe, Gary Gill will have a couple of responses. Gary Gill: Gary Gill, City Engineer. I 've got a few generalized comments to make first and to cover some of the overall questions because a lot of the questions were not very specific, they were general comments on the traffic congestion and problems. As far as the Comprehensive Plan development process that the Public Works Department takes into account , the developed plans for transportation, for storm drainage, for water and sanitary sewer. All those plans were, the most recent was storm drainage, and they have been developed since 1980, the early 198o 's up until 1983 or 1984 . The development criteria that was used in the development of those plans, we took into account the most current Comprehensive Plan that was in effect at the time, so we used the East Hill Plan and the Soos Creek Community Plan as, for our growth projections for when we were determining the potential traffic impacts, potential storm drainage impacts, etc. So anything that is either consistent with those plans or has a less intense growth, development plan growth, planned growth development for the area will not conflict with our comprehensive plans. If, as far as the development standards, this was discussed several times, we, the public streets whether it is a single family residential subdivision or a multifamily subdivision our standards are the same. We look at the actual classification of the street whether it is residential collector, local access street, arterial , etc. An example of that would be 109th Avenue SE as it has been extended from 256th to 248th and that street was built entirely by the developers of the Sunrise Point and the Shires development and that has been constructed to City of Kent standards with curb and gutter, sidewalks and street lighting and storm drainage and all the other normal appurtenances that are part of the street improvements. Now, on the Walnut Park site, the major difference there is that those are private streets. Those are not public streets so the City will not be maintaining those although the developer is putting in a curb and gutter, sectionless sidewalks on one side but they are narrower streets than what would be a required under a public improvement. There was a general questions regarding the connection of lilth Avenue with SE 252nd Street. I believe that the right of way actually extends all the way from 256th to the potential 252nd right now. It is a partial right of way for a portion of that distance. There is only 30 feet on one side. The eventual improvement of S . 252nd would be linked with all existing public streets. It might tie into that, for example, 109th, 111th, 113th if it were extended or 114 . However, we would have to take into account, at the time, specific factors such as the condition of the existing roadway and whether it was developed to take into account, whether it was constructed to take, to adequately handle the increased traffic that would be generated from linking that street into 252nd. So we can look at it at the time when 252nd is improved and if we were to decide that lllth would be connected to 252nd to allow that connector between 53 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7 : 00 p.m. 256th and 252nd, we would require the developer to also overlay or improve lllth at the time. It is a substandard street, like an oil mat street, we may restrict access. We would have to look at the condition of the roadway, potential safety problems and then take into account other factors at the time. There ' s been some general , there was a speed limit question regarding 244th Street and, I guess, I can direct the suggestion that if the residents in the area wish to see the speed limit reduce, they should contact the Engineering Department and talk to the traffic engineer and mention what their concerns tare we could arrange to have a speed study taken and possibly recommend a speed limit reduction if it looks like it was warranted. That would take into account the actual character of the roadway, the conditions for safe driving in that particular area, the actual traffic volumes and other factors. As far as the general questions regarding why haven't all these streets been improved and on, and on, and on. I guess I should make some general comments regarding the process that we go through for identifying specific roads, improvement projects that are needed. Each year the Public Works Department develops a six-year transportation plan. That Transportation Plan takes into account a number of factors . For example, traffic volume, accident statistics, road conditions, we look at the arterial road systems throughout the entire City. At that point in time, we prioritize projects based on these factors and make a recommendation for a plan that goes to the Council for approval. once - that plan has been approved, then we go through a process of trying to acquire Federal or State funding to help pay for these needed improvements. There seems to be a general impression that with all these tax dollars we are getting every year, that they can't understand why these roads are not all being improved. An example would be for the year 1988, the estimated road tax money that will be collected for the City of Kent amounts to less than 500, 000 dollars. This, I would, for example may pay for about half of the asphalt overlay requirement that we have in any one given year. An example we have a project proposed to improve S. 240th Street between 108th and 116th to a full five lane section, the estimated cost of construction for that project is over a million and a half dollars. So you can see that the road tax money from three years of taxes for the entire City would pay for one improvement project over a three year period, so it doesn't go very far and that's why we look at a lot of other alternatives in trying to finance these improvement projects. one of those alternatives, or several of those are Federal and State funds which are pretty difficult to obtain. The other processes include the SEPA mitigation agreements which we require. We evaluate each development project to determine what the impacts are and then require the developer to mitigate those impacts either through specific improvements at that time or commitments to participate in a larger improvement project that would benefit a larger area at maybe a future point in time so we are getting a commitment or we are getting specific hard improvements put in at the time. For example, Shires development, that built the 109th 54 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim September 2 , 1987 7: 00 p.m. road improvements within their actual site, was also pledged to commitment to participate in the S. 248th Street widening improvement project when that project goes into effect, so we have specific agreements that are signed by the developers too that actually pledge a commitment to participate in the cost of constructing those improvements. I think that covers the major questions with regard to roadways. And I think the drainage problems are being identified through our Comprehensive Drainage Plan. I believe that multifamily development obviously does generate a little runoff than single family. The characteristics of the runoff are a little different but as I mentioned in the early comments as long as the overall development ' s scheme in the area is consistent with the East Hill Plan and the Soos Creek Community Plan, then that' s what we use as a planning background for developing the storm drainage utility master plan. Are there any other questions that the Hearing Examiner has noted that I have covered. VanDerbeek: No, I don't think so. Gill : There was one general comment regarding the City' s purchase of the old East Hill Community Hall up on the Benson Highway and I believe it was an old structure and the City recently or in the not to many years ago sold that property to a- private party. But since that time we have to take into account the City has also built the Kent Commons facility, they have built a new senior center, developed the Earth Works Parks facility so there have been a lot of other improvements that were City-wide benefits not necessarily the East Hill only but large community-type projects have been funded -, through the Parks Department. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Gill. All right at this time I 'm going to indicate that I will leave the record open on this hearing until Wednesday, September 9 , 1987. I would ask that Planning staff submit the exhibit that I requested to me prior to that date and the 14 day period for my decision will •- then commence on September 9, 1987 . I will also indicate that if any citizen wants to submit any further written comments or if staff wants to submit any further written comments, that they may be submitted to me, care of the Kent Planning Department at any time prior to September 9. Are there any further questions regarding the submittal of additional material or any questions at all, I should say. All right, there appearing to be no additional questions at this time, this hearing will be in recess. END OF VERBATIM MINUTES . Hearing ended at 11:00 p.m. 55 HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES August 19, 1987 The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to order by the presiding officer, Diane L. VanDerbeek, Hearing Examiner, on Wednesday, August 19, 1987 at 7: 00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, Council Chambers. Ms. VanDerbeek requested all those intending to speak at the hearing and those wishing to receive information concerning the hearing, to sign in at the sign up sheet by the door. Staff reports, agendas, and the description of procedure of the hearing were available by the door. Ms. VanDerbeek briefly described the sequence and procedure of the hearing. All those who intended to speak were sworn in. SUMMER WOODS REZONE #RZ-87-2 The first item on the agenda was a public hearing to consider the request submitted by Steven P. Elkins Architects, 610 Market Street, Suite 201, Kirkland, WA 98033 , to rezone approximately 9. 28 acres from R1-7 . 2, Single Family Residential, to MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential . The site includes two parcels located at 11223 and 11325 SE 240th Street. A letter was received from the applicant requesting this matter be continued to September 2 , 1987 . Jack Nelson, attorney representing the applicant, 601 W. Gowe, Kent, WA 98032, requested the continuance of the hearing to give the applicant time to prepare a presentation before the Hearing Examiner. ( 1 - 214 ) Jim Hansen , Kent Planning Department , 220 Fourth Avenue S . , Kent, WA 98032 , stated that the applicant was, from the earliest date of contact with the City, the applicant was aware of the City' s position of denial. There has been sufficient time for the applicant to prepare a response. There was no public testimony. The hearing was continued to 3 : 00 p.m. on September 2 , 1987. 1 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 EAST HILL WELL ANNEXATION AREA 2 ANNEXATION #AZ-87-2 The second item to be heard was a public hearing to consider a request submitted by the City of Kent, Planning Department, 220 Fourth Avenue S. , Kent, WA 98032 , to apply for permanent zoning designations to properties lying within the East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 . Verbatim Minutes (1-304) Kathy McClung: O.k. on the overhead projector, I will go over the three different areas and the areas are also delineated on the map that is behind me. Diane VanDerbeek: All right. Ms. McClung could you identify yourself for the record. McClung: Sure. Kathy McClung from the Kent Planning Department. O.k. , Area A is all the property lying west of a line that is approximately 300 feet west of 104th, and I wish I had a better way of describing it, but if people really are close to that line, they can come up and look at the map that has the individual lots on it and that will tell them more specifically which area they are in, if they are at a dividing point. Area 2 is a point lying adjacent to 104th at it is approximately 300 feet both east and west of 104th with the exception of one extra lot north of 244th that extends a little bit further east. And then, Area C is all of the property lying east of Area B. so it would be all of this. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for that explanation. Obviously, this is a public hearing and anyone who is interested in staying for the entire hearing is certainly welcomed to. My goal in attempting to divide the hearing into three sections is merely to avoid citizens having to sit and listen to hours of hearing on areas which they may not be interested and I so I would ask preliminary which persons are interested in testifying or own property in the vicinity described by the Planning Staff as Area A. All right, could I have an indication by hands of which persons are interested in testifying with respect to Area B. Either one, testifying or if you own property or you are somehow interested in Area B. All right, how about Area C. All right, it appears by far that the largest number of citizens are interested in Area C. There weren't too many people interested in testifying with respect to Area B. Does staff have any good feeling about 2 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 how far we are going to be able to get. I don't, I 'm not inclined to think that we are going to be able to get all the way through this hearing and I 'm inclined to order initially that the whole . hearing with respect to Area C would be two weeks from now. (1-425) Jim Hansen, Kent Planning Department, I think that would be advisable given the number. I would like to stress that staff would like to give an initial presentation which is kind of an overview of the entire report before getting into Area A so those that they may wish to leave are requested that they stick around for the first portion. I think it will be beneficial . VanDerbeek: All right. At this point there were several citizens who expressed concerns about the continuation of the hearing. However, the Hearing Examiner determined that a continuation would be necessary and ruled that Area C of the East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 would be heard on September 2 , 1987 at 7: 00 p.m. (1-627) Kathy McClung: Kathy McClung from the Kent Planning Department. As the Hearing Examiner has stated, this evening I will be giving a brief overview of the total annexation area. We are here tonight to discuss the initial zoning that will be attached to this annexation area. I will go through brief, opening comments and then I will go directly into the specific discussion of Area A. First, I will show an overview or view foil of the general area and give a. brief description of the location. The annexation area is generally south of 240th, west of 116th, north of 256th and east of 94th Avenue S. The total annexation area contains approximately 410 acres and in our last census estimate there were 894 people residing in the area. Its primarily a single-family area. There is one multifamily development north of 256th at approximately 112th. Bordering 104th Avenue SE there are a few businesses within the area and some home occupations. To reiterate the different areas; Area A is the area lying west of a line 300 feet west of 104th; Area B is generally the area lying 300 feet east and west of 104th; and Area C is all the area east of Area B. All of this property is now zoned R1-20, 000 which is an interim zoning which the City of Kent attaches to all annexations as they come into the City of Kent. An environmental checklist was prepared for these proposed zonings and, again, this was issued on July 8, of 1987. A summary of the staff recommendation is, I ' ll try to shout. The area west of 100th Avenue SE is recommended R1-9 . 6, that's a single family designation with 9 , 600 square feet minimum lot size. The area east of 100th Avenue SE still within Area A, we're recommending that R1-7 . 2 , Single Family with a minimum lot size of 7 , 200 square feet. In area B, the area north of SE 244th, we are recommending ` CC, Community Commercial and the remainder of Area B lying south 3 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 of SE 244th, we are recommending 0, Professional and Office. In Area C, the area west of 112th Avenue SE extended and north of SE 252nd, we are recommending R1-7.2 . Oh, I 'm sorry, west of 112th, we are recommending R1-7.21 that's single family with minimum of 7, 200 square foot lot size. The property south of 252nd, we're recommending R1-9. 6, Single Family with a 9, 600 square foot lot size except for the Stratford Arms property which is an existing multifamily development which we are recommending MRM, Medium Density Multifamily. The area east of 112th Avenue SE we are recommending R1-9. 6, with a minimum of 9, 600 square foot lot sizes except for the five acre Bainton property which we are recommending an MRG, Garden Density Multifamily with a maximum of six units per acre. All of the property owners within this area as well as the property lying within 200 feet of the annexation area were notified of this annexation hearing. That concludes my overview of the annexation area. VanDerbeek: All right, thank you. You may start with your description with respect to Area A. AREA A: McClung: Again, for Area A, we are recommending an R1-9. 6, Single Family Residential for that area lying west of 100th Avenue SE extended and R1-7 . 2", Single Family Residential, for the area lying east of 100th Avenue SE extended. This area contains approximately 135 acres of land and, again, is zoned, currently zoned R1-20, 000, Single Family Residential, as an interim zoning. Area A is bordered by SE 248th on the south, 94th Avenue S. on the west, except for a small portion to the north which extends further to the west. It lies south of SE 240th Street and lies west of a line approximately 300 feet west of 104th Avenue SE. Area A was annexed as part of the East Hill Well Annexation 2 in -- the spring of 1987. The annexation occurred as a result of the City taking over the Old East Hill Well Company. The area is predominantly developed with rural, single family homes. A majority of the parcels are over one-half acre or more. Land use in the area is predominantly rural, single family. Most of the lots exceed the 9, 600 square foot recommended lot size except for a few lots within the Link Addition which average about 9,400 square feet and one lot that is west of this plat which is 6, 000 square feet in size. I think that, at this time, I will show the video tape we have of the area. VanDerbeek: All right. Yeah, please. Hansen: During the viewing, if you are interested in this video, you may wish to temporarily shift to your left. We apologize for the inconvenience. At this point, the video of the area was shown. (940-1200) . 4 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 McClung: Significant streets within the area are 94th Avenue SE, 248th Avenue SE, SE 248th Street and SE 244th Street. One- Hundredth Avenue SE will also be improved to serve the area as it develops. All the existing streets are two lanes, they have narrow gravel shoulders in some areas and most are bordered by open ditches. There are no sidewalks within the area. As properties develop, right of way for 94th Avenue SE and 100th Avenue SE will have to be obtained by the City of Kent to widen the street and make improvements. The Engineering Department has come up with a plan for acquiring right of way and it is spelled out in the staff report under Streets System Section. Increasing densities within the area will burden the street system because these are substandard streets already. They are immediately, within the area, the closest the major intersections are already at a level of service F. Most of the area is presently served by City of Kent water, the City is in the processing of upgrading some of the old lines that were part of the East Hill Community Well System that originally served this area. These improvements should be completed sometime next year. _.. The sewer system will have to be upgraded along 94th, 98th, 100th, 244th and 248th according to the Comprehensive Sewer Plan as they develop. At this time, I would like to go through our reason for recommending the zoning that we have and I will start with the context of the Comprehensive Plan. The City of Kent first adopted a Comprehensive Plan in 1969 . The •- Comprehensive Plan was made up of two basic sections: the goals, objectives and policies or the text of the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan Map. Together, these represent an expression of Community intent and aspirations concerning the future of Kent and it is to be used as a guide for the Mayor, City Council, City Administrator, Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner and City departments in making land use decisions. The subject property is also within the East Hill Plan subarea. Under the East Hill Plan subarea map, the area west of 100th Avenue SE is designated Single Family, 4-6 units per acre and the area east of 100th Avenue SE is designated as Multifamily, 7-12 units per acre. (2-00) (Unclear) one of the objectives is to provide adequate trafficways for both local and through traffic separating the system when possible. The existing street system is not adequate to serve traffic generated from current development, many streets are substandard and as the area developments, improvements will be required to bring the system up to current standards. Under the Housing Element, one of the goals is to insure an adequate and balanced supply of housing units, offering a diversity of size, ,,.•, density, age, style and cost. In 1985, the City of Kent issued a record value of $164, 000, 000 in permits, second only to the City of Seattle in the State of Washington, and yet, even in these peak years of construction, the number of single family residential permits were minimal, only 12 issued in 1985 for the whole City of 5 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 Kent. A recent study of multifamily development revealed that the City of Kent has 8,950 apartment and condominium units. These units make up 59 percent of the housing stock. Single family homes make up only 35 percent and the balance are mobile homes. Today the City has about 7 , 000 more multifamily dwellings than it had in 1970 an increase of 358 percent. (Unclear) articulated recently. For this reason, the City would now like to increase the single family development to balance the existing multifamily development. This was articulated recently in the adopted of Resolution #1123 by the City Council which calls for a 20 percent reduction in the amount of multifamily zoned land. Under the East Hill Plan, Housing Element, one of the policies is to ensure that public facilities and services are available or will be available to support development of proposed densities. In an effort to implement the Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies and others found through the document, it is necessary to consider a reduction in potential densities represented in the Land Use Plan Map. In other words, the City cannot provide all of the needed public services in a timely manner should densities go as high as the Comp Plan designates. The fire response time in this area is one of the highest in the City. Emergency vehicles must either come from the downtown area or 140th Avenue SE. Although a recent a bond issues was passed to add additional fire stations and one is actually (floated?) for an area, within Area C of the annexation area. This construction of this fire station is still a few years off and the equipment and personnel to man this station has been secured at this time. Increasing densities to their highest potential in this area would not be responsible when emergency services are not adequate for the area. Traffic concerns has been the number one issue for citizens and staff the past few years. The amount of growth that has occurred in the East Hill area has increased the traffic to unacceptable levels of service. Increasing densities in this area would cause additional traffic congestion to the area that is already overburdened. By increasing densities to their highest potential as shown under the Comprehensive Plan Map, the estimated p.m. peak hour trips generated would be 864 versus is an estimated 675 trips generated under the proposed single family scenarios. The Planning Department has also reviewed the proposal in relation to the present zoning, lard use, street systems, flood control problems and comments from other departments and finds that: The primary streets serving this area are: 94th, 98th, and SE 248th Street. These streets as well as others in the area are not improved to minimum City standards and are not adequate to serve the traffic generated in the area. As development occurs, street improvements will be required to accommodate any increase in density. Water and sewer service are available but extensions _... may be required to accommodate future development. As I stated before, Fire and emergency medical response to this area is one of the highest in the City. Increasing densities dramatically in this area would add an additional strain to the existing services. 6 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 The property is now zoned R1-20, 000, Single Family Residential. This is an interim zoning given to all land annexed within the City of Kent. The predominant land use in the area is rural type, single family residential . Most lots are one-half acre in size or greater. The Kent East Hill subarea plan designates the property west of 100th Avenue SE as single family, 4-6 units per acre. The property east of 100th Avenue SE is multifamily, 7-12 units per •• acre. The City classification of R1-9 . 6, provides for a maximum of 4 . 5 lots per acre which is consist with the East Hill Plan Map. In keeping with the residential character and large rural lots typical of this section, this zoning is an appropriate designation for these lots. The property east of 100th Avenue SE abuts property, the City is recommending for Office and Commercial zoning. A typical planning practice is to place higher density residential next to commercial and office areas in order to best utilize public services. R1-7 . 2 is the highest single family development in Kent. By recommending single family zoning for all of Area A, the City will encourage single family development to balance the housing types that have occurred in the last few years. The Comprehensive Plan goals and policies call for a variety of housing types. Due to permit activity in recent years, where nearly 70 multifamily permits were issued to every one single family permit, existing multifamily units exceed the single family in the City by approximately 25 percent. Increasing multifamily zoning strains the ability of the City to provide the needed utility, transportation, recreation and emergency services these densities require. It would discourage a balanced social, economic population that can be achieved through a diversity of housing types. The City Council passed a resolution in October, actually in was December 1986, not October, stating its intent that vacant multifamily zoning within the City be reduced by 20 percent. This resolution was passed in response to a large number of citizens who had concerns about the amount of multifamily development occurring in Kent and the problems including traffic generated by this kind of development. Although this resolution did not specifically address how this reduction should be accomplished, it is reasonable to assume that land should not be zoned multifamily until the City Council has had time to study this issue in more detail. A multifamily density report has been prepared for the Council ' s review and is currently before the Council ' s planning committee. That concludes my staff report. If you have any questions? VanDerbeek: All right. Did you have the Comprehensive Plan map up there on the easel before. Would you put that back up there for me, please. All right. I have a couple of questions, they don't relate specifically to the map, but I just like to have it up there so I can look at it during the hearing. Is it your testimony that all of Area A, prior to the annexation was zoned Suburban Residential, SR 7200? McClung: Yes. That ' s correct. 7 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 VanDerbeek: All right. And so, the only nonconforming lot in the area that is being recommended for R1-9 . 6 zoning is that 6, 000 square foot lot. McClung: I 'm sorry, what was the question again? VanDerbeek: Well, if the currently County zoning was 7200 square foot lots, a portion of Area A is being recommended for 9600 square foot lots, I believe in your testimony you indicate that, that the vast majority of lots in that area are conforming except for the one small 6, 000 square foot lot. McClung: That' s correct. VanDerbeek: I don't have any other questions at this point. Thank you for your testimony. Will there be any further staff presentation from any other City department. No. All right. Was there a sign-up sheet that was circulated for the public testimony. Thank you. All right, I think what I will do with respect to the public testimony is, I will call upon the persons who signed up to testify in the order they signed up and then I will hear any other testimony from members of the public who desire to testify. Again, at this time, with respect to Area A. Well first, it looks like Edward Angevine. Edward Angevine: No, no comments right now. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you. Gerald Price? Voice: She just gave an overview of Area A, right. I thought she was going to give an overview of all three areas. VanDerbeek: She did that at the very beginning, but it was so brief maybe you missed it. Voice: So, if we are interested in C, we have to come back in two weeks, right. VanDerbeek: That's correct. Voice: Thank you. VanDerbeek: Although you are perfectly welcome if you want to stay for the rest of the hearing on the other area. All right, are you Gerald Price? Price: Gerald L. Price. VanDerbeek: All right, Mr. Price, could you state your address for the record? 8 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 Price: Yes, the City has taken over the East Hill Well District and put in new water lines, why is the water pressure down to nil practically. VanDerbeek: O.k. , do you want to ask a question instead of testifying? Price: I 'm asking a question. VanDerbeek: All right. Do you have any other comments you want to make? Price: I think the pressure should be brought up. But, how? VanDerbeek: All right. I ' ll ask the appropriate City staff to respond to those concerns and any concerns raised by the other speakers after the public is done testifying. So, we' ll put that down as a concern that the water pressure has dropped, all right. Bob Robertson, here, all right, did you decided to give any public testimony in respect to Area A. All right, please step forward and offer your testimony. Robertson: My name is Bob Robertson, I 'm a Master Senior Appraiser and a real estate consultant. I would like to bring to the attention of the. . . VanDerbeek: Excuse me, would you state your address for the record. Robertson: Excuse me, I 'm at 5015 S 380th in Auburn. VanDerbeek: And, do you own any property in Area A. Robertson: No, I do not. VanDerbeek: I will let you testify if its brief. I 'm trying to defer first to property owners and then other interested citizens. But, if you have some brief testimony I will let you offer it at this point. Robertson: Thank you. I do have some brief testimony I would like to bring to the attention of the Hearing Examiner the United States Supreme Court ruling in May of this year in the case of Luther Glen vs. the County of Los Angeles and in that case the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that any down zoning of property whether for the good of the City or other government agency did constitute a taking of property and the cities or agencies would have to reimburse the owners for the taking of that property if they did down zone from the date that the down zoning was accomplished and this appears what seems to be happening in Area A going from the County zone of 7200 to the City zoning of 9 . 6. 9 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 VanDerbeek: All right. Are you speaking on behalf of any property owner in that area. Robertson: Yes, I am. I 'm speaking for Mr. Thuringer. VanDerbeek: All right. So, Mr. Thuringer objects to the down zone, Mr. Robertson. Robertson: Yes, Ma 'am that's correct. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Peter Curran. Peter Curran: Thank you Madam Chairman. I 'm Peter Curran, I 'm an attorney, my office address is 213 South Fourth and I 'm here on behalf of three separate property owners: Number one is Mr. Bill Goodman who owns Tract 15 of R O Smith Orchard Addition; next to him is Mr. Bill Ruth who owns Tract 16 of R 0 Smith and across the street from Mr. Ruth is Mr. Jack Gwen who owns Tract 17 of R O Smith Addition. I was asked to assist these gentlemen only this afternoon so fortunately for all of us perhaps I can keep my remarks very brief. But, I want to make a record at this time as to what these owners feel about the recommendations that have been made by the Planning Department with respect to their property. These properties are each five acre tracts, actually just under five acres, because of the loss of frontage for roads. Tracts 15 and 16 are located on the north side of what would be the extension of 244 and essentially compose the northeast corner of 244th and 100th Avenue. Tract 17 . . . VanDerbeek: Just a moment, I want to find that on the map here, so I can picture what we are talking about. Curran: O.k. , if you can located East Hill School, 100th Avenue runs right along side, and if you move to the south along East Hill School you will see where 244th would extend down and intersect. VanDerbeek: Right, o.k. , I understand the area we are discussing. Curran: Tract 17, would then, in effect, be the southeast corner of that same intersection, lying directly across from Tract 16. These parcels are going to be impact with the Fred Meyer development so substantially that it is not reasonable for the Planning Department or for this City to suggest that there is a potential for R1 development on these properties. In effect, what is happening is a denial of potential use of these properties because, in fact, anyone could travel to any shopping center and particularly, any Fred Meyer development and readily see that is the last place they would elect to locate in an R1 single family development. So, I think, essentially the point that we would 10 Hearing Examiner Minutes ' August 19, 1987 -•-•- make to you, Madam Chairman, is that this area that is lying adjacent to the Fred Meyer shopping center development is not appropriate for R1 under any circumstances. Now, let' s just look at what is going on with R1 in the City of Kent in the last three years. In fact, it goes on back further than that but particularly since, in 1984 there were 23 building permits for R1 residences in the City of Kent, in 1985, according to the Planning Department ' s own writings that we reviewed before we came tonight and most of us have, there were 12 building permits, in 1986 there were 10 building permits. I don't have any information for 1987 , because the year hasn't completed. This has to clearly point out to all of us that the wishful hope that we could reverse the desires of people for housing is not one that anyone lend any credence or rely upon. We can't turn back the tide of housing cost or secondly, a substantial element of lower income people who are locating in our south end communities. They deserve housing and they are occupying the apartment dwellings that are being developed in this community. The comments and the resistance that has been expressed by people in this community, .._, some people in this community and by the City Council in adopting the resolution that was recited to us and printed in the Planning Commission brochure, was not realistic. This is housing that should be respected and the criticism that is developing about the use of this housing, the kind of housing that many of us used when we didn't have sufficient funds to locate ourselves in Rl property and goodness knows, at this time, the cost of Rl property is far more substantial than it ever was when many of us used apartment dwelling in our younger days or many of us may be back in those apartment dwellings if we can't afford the kind of cost that Rl, single family residences, are set upon us. So, I guess that I would suggest to you Madam Chairman, that this expression of concern about multifamily development in the City of Kent is not well directed. Essentially, the upset that has been expressed has been about the aesthetics. To some people, these locations, these developments do not appear attractive. Unfortunately, we can't located people in broad, huge lots any more because of the cost, and so, I guess what I 'm saying to you is that to suddenly decide the multifamily is not appropriate kind of housing for the City of Kent, for the Council to say that we are going to down zone by reducing 20 percent of the multifamily area. I guess we down zone it to R1 and have no building permits, so the owner' s of those properties are left in an impossible position, they can't find people who want to develop Rl in our town and they can 't develop multifamily. The roads that would serve this property, that my clients own, are going to be developed as part of the Fred Meyer expansion. Those roads essentially would be. . .that road would be essentially 100th Avenue and I would urge that there is not any prospect towards expansion of James Street. James Street has been substantially expanded over the years and would be the service 11 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 road that would serve this property. There' s nothing going to happen to assist that road in guiding people to that property, to expand it in any way. I guess the other comment I would make is that we, as a society, must recognize that density is what we should be looking for, we have created the traffic (unclear) problem of the East Hill region, out to Black Diamond by reason of encouraging substantial housing development out beyond Lake Wilderness , that is , all the way from downtown Kent to Lake Wilderness to Black Diamond. This kind of sprawl which permits people to locate and developers to develop without taking the responsibility to create roads as part of that development investment is what has created the mess that we have for people who elect to go out there and, I guess, one might add, the election to go out there one knows when you elect to locate out there that you going to have a traffic problem, the traffic problem is not going to be solved soon. But, the way to cure that kind of sprawl is to intensely develop downtown locations and to _. intensely develop around the downtown and to encourage multiple development and multifamily units around the towns, wherever the roads are, wherever, possibly if it happens, a railroad connector is going to be developed between Seattle and Tacoma, where the busing is already, where we don't have to build these substantial roads to serve. So, I would urge that you follow the East Hill Plan which was, in fact, carefully prepared and just reviewed within the last two years as part of the discussion wherein substantial commercial zoning was added to the East Hill area. During those discussions, many comments were made about the multifamily segment up there and nothing was ever said about changing this forecast, that multifamily is appropriate for this property owned by the people I represent and we are asking that in fact you zone this property as part of this rezone that you are going to recommend into an MRM classification. It is not the intention of my clients to build to the density allowed by MRM because, in fact, each of us know that it is not even practical to develop to that intense of a density but, in fact, we are asking that you use the wisdom that you have to recognize that development close to the core of this community is the very thing that should be encouraged and impress that zone upon this property. Thank you very much. VanDerbeek: Thank you, Mr. Curran. The next speaker that is signed up is Leonard Oaken. No comment, Mr. Oaken? All right. Phil Gomes, Phil Gomes here. Gomes: My name is Phil Gomes, address is 522 S. Fifth and I 'm representing my folks who own property up on 100th Avenue SE. In regards to the statements that the gentleman before me made, I agree with him and also would ask that MRM zoning be extended to 98th Avenue S. because of the Fred Meyer shopping center, the area along 100th Avenue SE probably won't be suitable for R1 zoning and I think it would be much more appropriate to have that area, 12 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 rather than cut it or stop it on the east side of 100th Avenue SE, extend it to include the west side of 100th Avenue SE. VanDerbeek: All right, thank you for your comments. Gomes• Thank you. VanDerbeek: Wes Francis, is Wes Francis here? Francis: I 'm Wes Francis and I live off of 98th, on 245th Place and it. . . VanDerbeek: I 'm sorry, Mr. Francis, could you state your address for the record? Francis: Yes, 9819 S. 245th, according to the comments of the last two gentlemen, it sounds like it could be a possibility that I could be surrounded by apartments homes. And, of course, that doesn't make me or my family feel very well. We bought into this area because it is an area of wide open spaces, we have a half- acre lot, it is a lot to take care but we still enjoy it. Another concern that we have with the area around the Fred Meyer store being zoned multifamily is that I question why a Fred Meyer store was placed so close to a school and also, if we have multifamily, it looks to me like there would be an awful lot of traffic and my concern is how much is the life of a kid worth. " VanDerbeek: Bill Goodwin. Goodwin: I ' ll pass, thank you. VanDerbeek: All right. Vernon Birklid. Birklid: I 'm Vernon Birklid, and I live at 10206 SE 244th Street. My wife and I own the west half of the lot 14 of the R O Smith Orchard Tracts and I 'm also concerning with the R 7200 zoning for this reason. My north line abuts the south line of the Fred Meyer development. Talking to developers in the past and just also recently, I find that being able to move my property on an R 7200 would be almost impossibility. I do not especially like the higher zone MRM or a CC zoning, I like the residential life, I 've had but I feel that I 'm squished in basically between these types of zoning, commercial and professional zoning. Being the fact, that at a later date, if I were zoned R 7200 and I would inquire or try to pursue a higher zoning, I would find the cost would be prohibitive to me and I doubt if I could ever challenge that. So I would not like to see a 7200 zoning for our property, I would let the zoning be upgraded to CC or MRM. Thank you. VanDerbeek: All right, is there further public testimony with respect to Area A at this time? 13 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 Ridings: My name is Sheila Ridings and my address is 25003 114th Avenue SE. The area you are talking about, apparently they want acreage in five acre lots right around East Hill Elementary School, is that correct, is that the same area, within a couple of blocks that they are. . . VanDerbeek: Yes, it' s in the general vicinity. Ridings: O.k. , what I would like to know from the Planning Department is exactly how many acres are they talking about and if multifamily housing goes in, their intentions are good but once they sell the land to a developer, intentions are out the window we could have 600 units or 800 or another 1, 000 or whatever. I would like to know how many maximum could they put in. Are we looking at another Sunrise Point or are we looking. . .how many exactly are we looking at, are we looking at 10 or we are looking at 15 or 1, 500 maximum. VanDerbeek: Which area specifically are you worrying about. Ridings: In Area A, the areas that these people are asking to be rezoned from the single family dwelling to multi. . .the ones that were just up here requesting those and have the five acre plots. VanDerbeek: All right, the staff can respond and will describe the maximum units permitted per acre under MAM zoning. Ridings: O.k. Because I think that will have a lot to do with the impact of traffic, the staff has already felt that we can't handle that much more and that' s going to be a lot of taxes going in for the roads to be redone, the sewers to be redone and we've already got enough apartments around there and I think that should really be taken into consideration because I know they will put the maximum they can on that property. They are going to put the minimum. VanDerbeek: Thank you for your testimony. Further public testimony. Schriber: Patricia Schriber, 24402 94th Avenue S. We are in the process of building a house in this area, we have two-thirds of an acre. The reason we bought in this area is because it is rural, we like it, we want to keep it that way. The apartments keep moving down and they are going to be moving up and then all of us that own a little bit of property are going to be out, surrounded by apartments and I 'm just voicing my opinion that we would like to keep it rural. Also, if you widen 94th Avenue, you need to do something about Kent-Kangley. Because when you go south on 94th Avenue, a lot of people are turning left on Kent-Kangley and they're actually trying to commit suicide out there, there's no lane to go into and there's no way to just scoot across unless you go about 11 o'clock in the morning. So, if you are going to widen 14 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 94th Avenue or do anything more to get more traffic, I wish you would think of Kent-Kangley and also, keep an eye on the speed limit on 94th, its 25, but most people go 40. Thank you. VanDerbeek: Thank you for your comments. Further public testimony? Olson: Hi, I 'm Leonard Olson. I live at 31529 8th Avenue S. , Federal Way, I 'm a land owner of Smith Orchard Tract, four and one-half acres, the address is 10018 S. 248th, and I bought the property with the intent to build multifamily dwellings on it and I talked to the Planning Commission and they said that there wouldn't be any problem getting it rezoned. And, why should I loose money and loose interest in my property because the City of Kent wants to annex it. And, that' s all I was going to say. VanDerbeek: All right. Who did you talk to Mr. Olson, someone at - the City or someone at the County. Olson: The County. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Further public testimony. Myron DeGoren: I 'm Myron DeGoren. I represent property that 's at 11208 SE 244th, but I want to speak early in this whole hearing process because reading through, I read every word that was in that report and they say the problem is traffic and yet that report does not address traffic in any way, shape or form. Let's address the problem not make pipe dreams or hide our head in the sand. That' s what this thing is doing, hiding our head in the sand. These apartments are going to come, let's get ready for them, let' s get at it. Every day we waste is another day that we've got more fatalities, we got more traffic jams, everybody is getting home another half-hour later. Let's address the problem, let's get down to addressing the traffic problem instead of beating around the bush and trying to zone the problem away. It isn't going to happen. VanDerbeek: Further public testimony on Area A. Phil Gomes: Phil Gomes, 522 South Fifth, I have one question. I 'm a bit confused, perhaps it has been gone over already, and that is how were these zonings come up with; how did the County come up with the zonings that covers Area A at this time. I don't recall reading in the staff report as to how the County came up with those zonings. VanDerbeek: You mean the. . . Phil Gomes: The existing zoning. . . 15 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 VanDerbeek: The previous zoning, prior to the annexation into the City of Kent. Gomes• Right. VanDerbeek: All right. I can direct staff to attempt to answer that question. Any further public testimony on Area A. All right. Any rebuttal comments from staff, I 'd just like to briefly go over some of the questions raised by citizens that should be answered during the rebuttal period. There was a concern expressed with respect to water pressure, that perhaps Planning staff could answer or if there is someone from some other City department who can answer that, Engineering or something. Although this is an evening hearing. And, then we had some questions about the appropriateness of some of the recommendations considering the Fred Meyer development. We also had a question about the maximum number of units per acre permitted with an MRM zoning and then we had a question about how it was that King County initially zoned the property prior to the time .it was annexed into the City. I would invite staff to give any rebuttal comments that they would like to but also ask that those questions from the citizens be addressed. McClung: Kathy McClung from •the Kent Planning Department. Gary Gill from the Engineering Department is here and I will let him address the water pressure question. I wanted to state that although the staff is recommending single family for this area now, we are not recommending a change to the Comprehensive Plan, I don't know if that will be something the City Council will address when they review the multifamily reduction issue or not, but should the situation change and the area, and City services improve in that area there is nothing to preclude the property owner from asking for a rezone at a later date. There is currently a 100 acres of vacant multifamily zoned land up on the East Hill now, there is 102 acres of underdeveloped multifamily zoned land which leaves 202 acres of multifamily zoned land currently on East Hill that can be developed in multifamily zoning and I wouldn't want anybody to walk away thinking that the City thinks that multifamily is not something that the City wants to have. We're just saying that we have our share and we want to have a diversity of housing types. As far as the Fred Meyer issue goes, first, maybe I should show exactly where it is going in. Are you aware of where that's, where that proposal is? VanDerbeek: Well, I 'm generally aware of it. I believe that whole issue was heard by the Hearing Examiner previous to myself, might .be why she resigned. But, I would be interested in knowing, exactly, you can point it out on the map, I believe I know where it is located. 16 Hearing Examiner Minutes -- August 19, 1987 McClung: o.k. I should point out that Fred Meyer was an issue abut two years ago and they do not have a building permit at this time. They are, they have submitted recently for an environmental review and Greg McCormick who is reviewing that environmental checklist is here and maybe can shed more light on some of the mitigating conditions are going to be for that project should it ever be built. The Fred Meyer property is right here, where it says East Hill Elementary School. The elementary school is actually across the street on 100th Avenue SE and, I 'm not sure of the acreage--Greg would probably know, but it' s quite a large parcel. Let ' s see. Densities--I decided that I would figure out three different densities based on five acres because that is something most people can visualize, a five acre parcel . Under the Comprehensive Plan, it calls for 7 to 12 units per acre if it were 12 units per acre and there were five acres that would be 60 units on five acres. If it were an MRM zone which allows up to 23 units per acre, that would be 115 units for a five acre parcel and ,. if were zoned MRG zoning which is a little closer to the Comprehensive Plan designation that would allow up to 16 units per acre which would be 80 units on a five acre parcel. That's assuming that they got the maximum amount of units on the property and still able to meet all the other development standards. The last question on the County zoning, I can't answer that. Maybe Jim can address that. VanDerbeek: All right, thank you. Did you have any other rebuttal comments. McClung: No, I don't. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you. Hansen: Jim Hansen, Kent Planning Department. The question relating to the County zoning effort. This occurred, I believe, in the late 70 's and around 1980 the existing Soos Creek Plan was adopted and then the zoning was established by the County to implement that Plan. Incidentally, the Soos Creek Plan is currently being updated. The process just began and probably go on for two years. The County uses a very similar process to the City in determining appropriate zoning and through a series of meetings with the citizens, evaluating the land, the capabilities of the utilities in the area, water, sewer, transportation system, a whole collection of those things, they determine the most appropriate zoning and go through the procedures that we have. It is important to note that the land that is annexed to the City, we, among other criteria that we review, we examine the existing zoning but the City is not necessarily bound to that nor are they bound directly to the Soos Creek Plan. We take all those into consideration but the final recommendations which we develop and which are being reviewed tonight are drawn from many, many factors and not the Soos Creek Plan or the County zoning in existence alone. 17 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 VanDerbeek: Thank you. Mr. Gill, would you mind answering the question about the water pressure, please. Gill: Gary Gill, City Engineer, I ' ll try to be brief on this since it isn't really a major issue concerning zoning of this area. Several years ago the East Hill Community Well which serviced this area or a good portion of this area with water for many, many years was experiencing some fairly serious problems with respect to meeting fire flow requirements, adequate water supply, their water system was generally in pretty poor condition and was in need of some major improvements to upgrade it to meet the State Department of Social and Health Services standards. At that point in time, there were in negotiations between the Community Well Company and the City to take that system over and upgrade it. At this point in time, we are in the process of redoing that. We are rebuilding the mains, we should have the system completed by next year and the East Hill Community Well System was originally under one pressure zone and the City of Kent's water system is in three different pressure zones. So some of the parcels that lie along 98th Avenue and some of the mid- areas on the East Hill are in our middle water pressure zone so when we rebuild the water mains along those streets and connected it into our system the water pressure dropped because they were no longer being serviced by an elevated reservoir at the same pressure or the same elevation as the previous system. We are in the process of checking some of the properties where the owners have been concerned about this pressure loss and we are still going to have to look into it in a little more detail but the figures that I have so far indicate that most of the homes have a minimum static pressure of 50 pounds per square inch and normally this is adequate and it could be a combination of problems, sometimes its the domestic plumbing in the house, sometimes there is a pretty good fluctuation in the water surface level in the reservoir serving the areas. So, that' s the reason why the pressure is lowered in some cases. As far as resolving the problem, we are going to have to work with the property owners and the only other possibility would be to connect that area into our upper 590 pressure zone and then some of the properties would have to put there meters or equip their meters with pressure reducing devices because the pressure would be too high and they would probably experience leaks in their plumbing and possibly damage some of the appliances if the pressure was too high. So, we have to try to do a little balancing act and try to get it in the normal range so that it meets adequate flows for domestic use. One thing that has, this isn't working too well here, the one thing that has improved drastically in the area is the fire protection and in a lot of cases, in the past, those areas were served with two inch and four inch diameter water mains which were totally inadequate to meet any fire demands so at this time most of the areas are supplied with eight and ten inch diameter mains which are more than adequate to meet those fire demands. 18 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19 , 1987 VanDerbeek: All right. Who, the citizens who have concerns about the water pressure, who at the City should they talk to or how should they express those concerns to City personnel? Gill: I believe some of the owners have been talking with Ken Miller who is the construction engineer that was supervising the project that was recently under construction. However, I believe that it's pretty much out of his hands now and they probably should address their comments in writing to the Public Works Director and myself so that we can take up the issue on a larger basis. If we know there are several property owners that are experiencing problems, it will help us out information wise than if we are just getting one or two isolated complaints from areas that are maybe blocks apart. Because sometimes, if that' s the case, it could be a plumbing problem. A lot of these older residential homes have galvanized steel water lines and once those things, you know, 30 or 40 years old, they start to corrode a lot and the effective volume that can be passed through those types of pipes is reduced drastically when they start to corrode and decompose. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you very much for your comments, Mr. Gill. Gill: I had just a couple of comments with regard to the zoning issues that are pertinent to what is being discussed tonight. I should emphasize that the Public Works Department is responsible for four major plans that effect the services for this particular area as well as the entire City and that' s the Comprehensive Plans for Transportation, Water, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drainage. Particularly the transportation concerns that have been expressed. When the Comprehensive Plan was adopted several years ago, the City used the current East Hill Comprehensive Plan and the -• County's Soos Creek Plan to guide them in making forecast for future traffic flows in the area and for trying to determine the arterial road system that would be necessary in the future to meet the demands that would be placed on that system at saturation development and, under all cases, when proposals have come before the Hearing Examiner for rezones or any other actions, where they have been requesting a higher use than what was recommended under the Plan, the Public Works Department has raised those concerns that additional traffic is going to be generated that was not part of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, we did not take these additional trips into account when looking at the arterial system that is necessary to service the area. So, when we start taking some of the single family residential and up zone it for multifamily, the future arterial system which we are looking at, three major east/west arterials, isn't going to be nearly adequate to handle the additional traffic flow that is going to be created from the continuous upgrading or higher density development in the East Hill area and this correspondingly goes right into the water, 19 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 sanitary sewer and storm drainage facilities. The more intense the development, for example multifamily, the greater the site coverage, more storm water runoff takes place, you've got increased flooding, you've got higher flows, you've got to provide for additional storage to meet the flooding, you've got increased water quality problems, water demand increases with the higher density development and all along we are trying to provide for more and more sources to meet these increasing demands but we have some serious water supply problems in the past and we have been planning for this growth and we've been able to meet the demands as they have been growing here over the last several years but when we start to deviate from these plans we are going to have to take another look at it and redo our Comprehensive Plans more often than we already do. If there are any questions, I will be happy to answer them. VanDerbeek: All right. No, I don't think I have any questions concerning your testimony. Thank you very much. Any further public comment. Marilyn McIssac: My name is Marilyn McIssac and my address is 25001 116th Avenue SE, Area C, I would like to put this in the public record. I know Mr. Gill is doing a wonderful job in converting all of the old East Hill Well Company' s water system to the City of Kent. But, at no time did the East Hill Water Company ever had any problem with the Department of Social and Health Services standards for water quality. The only reason why we are out of business today was because we couldn't meet the current fire flow standards and we didn't have the money available to . revamp our whole system to provide for that. So, we, I 've read that before in the newspaper and that is a complete untruth. We've never had any problem with our water. In fact, it was the best water around here. . . VanDerbeek: All right. Any further public comment on Area A. Sir? Vern Birklid: My name is Vern Birklid and I live at 10206 SE 244th. I am the President of the East Hill Community Well Company as it was taken over by the City of Kent. I 'm talking about pressure systems that the gentlemen was talking about recently. Mr. Price commented that they were having problems in the 98th, 246th Place and down in that area. When the City of Kent took over the East Hill water system, one of the criteria for our -- agreement was that the areas that had low water pressure was to have a priority and be taken care of just as soon as possible. Some of those areas have had new lines put down like as of 98th Street and the water pressure is still very poor in that area. At no time did the old East Hill Water Company have any water pressure lower than 50 pounds at their longest lines. We served the community very well and the implication is that the 20 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 City worked toward annexation because they had to take over the East Hill water system to improve it. VanDerbeek: All right is there any further public comment with respect to Area A. McCormick: Madam Hearing Examiner, Greg McCormick with the Kent Planning Department and I would like to briefly address the concerns regarding the possible Fred Meyer development. The City has received an environmental checklist for the Fred Meyer _. development which is the first step in the permit process. Upon reviewing the checklist, it has been taken into account the property to the south being zoned R1-7 . 2 and mitigation measures in the form of increased landscaping and a buffering wall to try to lessen that impact on the development on the single family residential areas to the south will be recommended once that report goes before the City's SEPA review committee. Also, - additional landscaping and a buffering wall will be provided along the westerly boundary of the site which is adjacent to the East Hill Elementary School to lessen the impact of the development on _. the school as well. VanDerbeek: What are you talking about, like an acoustical wall? McCormick: Yes, probably it would be a masonry brick wall and to the south there would be a ten foot landscaping strip and to the west along the school boundary which is on 100th Avenue it would be a 40 foot landscaping buffer strip. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Any further public testimony. Sir? Bob McIssac: Bob McIssac, 25001 116th Avenue SE. I would like to address a question to the Planning Department to explain the zonings in the areas adjacent to and around this entire area so the people here can understand those zones are as looking to what kind of zoning we are trying to put in there now. VanDerbeek: Adjacent to and surrounding Area A? McIssac: Area A, B and C, the whole. You know, we are trying to talk about a Comprehensive Plan and what the zoning is. I would like to know what the zoning is immediately around the area At the present time. There's nothing addressing that in our handout. VanDerbeek: All right. I will direct staff to answer that question. Hansen: Jim Hansen, Kent Planning Department and I think that I will ask Greg. There' s a map illustrating zoning behind the sheet right there and perhaps Greg could, very small scale, but he could 21 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 review generally just what the zoning is there and attempt to speak into the mike. You can lift the mike off the podium. McCormick: O.k. The area that we are looking at tonight is generally this area here. O.k. Areas to the west here are zoned multifamily, MRD, which is a duplex zone. To the southwest would be an MRM designation with developed apartments in there now. I believe that is just off of the Canyon Drive. To the south of Strawberry Lane or 96th is another MRM designation. I believe that is also part of the High School area. Moving east, to the south of 244th or 248th, excuse me, the area is zoned Office, to the south of that, near the intersection of 256th and 104th, it' s zoned Community Commercial ; moving east, we have a small pocket of R1-7 .2, south of that is an MRM designation and then we have a designation of MRG, Garden Density Multifamily. Down on 256th, across the street from the annexation area is a MRM zone. At the corner of 116th and 256th, there is an MRD as well as an MRG zone. Across the, on the east side of 116th, southeast corner of 116th and 256th is an R1-9. 6 area. Moving up to the north, to the north of the annexed area is an R1-7 . 2 designation. To the north of 242nd is an MRM, Medium Density, zoned area. To the north or around the 240th and 104th Streets intersections is the CC, Community Commercial, zone. To the north of that is a small pocket of O, Office. There is a newly annexed area north of that which is zoned R1-9 . 6 and then some small areas of MRM and a small pocket of MRG adjacent to the 240th near where the Fred Meyer property near the East Hill Elementary School . I don't know right off hand what the County designations are; the east side, I believe they are single family residential, 71200. Hansen: Jim Hansen, Kent Planning Department, there' s a mixture. We don't have that information here, only speculative, it varies in single family densities as you go easterly and it only changes to higher density, multifamily when you get to the intersection of 132nd and 240th. There's an apartment complex in the northwest corner of that general area. But, the area between 116th and 132nd, generally, low density, residential. VanDerbeek: All right. There was a citizen who passed up two written questions, that I 'm going to address to staff at this time, before starting on Area B. One questions is: How much will the taxes go up on a property that' s rezoned commercial or retail. And then, the other question is, what is 24245 104th Avenue SE going to be zoned as. This is north of 244th and west of 104th. _.. Do you want to answer these questions, someone. Hansen: I will take the first one and defer to Greg, perhaps, on the second. The question, if I understand, was, the question specifically on how much taxes would go up if the property was rezoned to multifamily or commercial of a given type. VanDerbeek: Commercial or retail . 22 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 Hansen: Indeed, it would eventually go up at the time it was reassessed by the County Assessor. How much, of course, would depend on the property size and location and the appraisal that was done on the property. I don't know how else I could answer that. McCormick: Could you read the description of that property again, please. VanDerbeek: Yes, north of 244th and west of 104th, 24245 104th SE. McCormick: Well, if it is lying north of 244th and adjacent to 204th on the west, it would be zoned CC, Community Commercial, or proposed to be rezoned to CC. VanDerbeek: Thank you. Are there any further comments with respect to Area A. Chopin: My name is Frank Chopin, and I live on 116th Street, 24425 116th Avenue SE and I also looked over the Zoning Code and the area that surrounds me and I am satisfied with what the Planning Commission had done. I hope that they don't change it. And, also, I would like to put into the record that the City of Kent has the largest vacancy in the entire state which is 30 percent and I brought this up at the last Council meeting that they had there and it should be in the minutes. And, I think, that we have to down zone this from multiple to less density than we have right now. Thank you. VanDerbeek: Thank you. Other public comment. Gomes: Phil Gomes, 522 S. Fifth, I would like to see personally that I feel the City is trying to put a band-aid on a nose bleed in regard to Fred Meyer' s buffering zones. The property owners in the immediate area of Fred Meyers are going to be devastated by Fred Meyer going in there because property value will drop drastically, I feel, that if the properties are zoned single family dwellings. The only hope those people have of eventually selling their properties and realizing their full potentials is that the property on both east and west 100th Avenue SE is rezoned multifamily so that the appropriate housing can be put in there for that type of an area. VanDerbeek: All right, thank you for your additional comments. I 'm not going to allow a bunch of speakers to get into a debate about around the Fred Meyer area because I have actually been quite liberal about allowing Mr. Gomes to speak three times and, while this is a public hearing, and I will allow public comment, I don't need repetitive public comment. So, is there any additional public comment on Area A at this time. 23 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 All right it appearing to be no additional public comment on Area A at this time. Prior to the time, we start with the staff report and public testimony on Area B, we will take a brief recess for about ten minutes. Area B Greg McCormick: Madam Hearing Examiner my name is Greg McCormick and I will be presenting the staff report on Area B. Now, this portion of the annexation is composed of approximately 12 .28 acres of land and this proposal recommends that approximately 7 .46 acres be zoned O, Professional and Office and 4 . 82 acres be zoned CC, Community Commercial . The location of Area B on the overhead is - bordered to the south by SE 248th Street, extends approximately 250 feet north of 244th Street to the old City limits, extends approximately 300 feet west of 104th Avenue SE and approximately 300 feet east of 104th Avenue SE except for the area north of 244th where the line is approximately 420 feet east of 104th Avenue. The property is currently zoned R1-20, Single Family Residential, as an interim zoning. Prior to the annexation, the area was zoned R 7200 under the jurisdiction of King County. The City's Comprehensive Plan provides policy statements that offer guidelines for future land use decisions. The City of Kent has also adopted a subarea comprehensive plan which addresses concerns of a more specific geographic area. This area as well as Area A and C are under the East Hill Plan. Now the East Hill subarea plan map designates the property north of SE 244th as Community Retail and the property south of 244th as 0, Office. First, I would like to discuss an element out of the City-wide Comprehensive Plan that deals with some of the issues tonight on this area and then going to the East Hill Plan for a discussion of some of those elements that are relative. Now, the Economic Element in the Comprehensive-wide Plan has an overall goal of promoting controlled economic growth with physical development, resource conservation and preservation. And a subgoal under that is to assure retail and commercial developments are in suitable locations. The policy being to encourage planned retail business development. Now the area is being recommended for commercial and office zone lies on either side of 104th Avenue SE. The area north of the 244th Street line is recommended for Community Commercial. In 1984 the Planning Department completed the East Hill Zoning Study at the request of the City Council. The study examined land use and zoning in the vicinity of the intersection at 104th Avenue SE and 240th or James Street. This area included portions of what was, at that time, King County and part of the area under consideration this evening. The results of the study indicated that the East Hill community or commercial area at the intersection of 104th Avenue SE and 240th was approximately 80 percent developed. The report then recommended that certain areas of the City be rezoned to commercial designations and areas within the County be designated community retail on the City' s 24 Hearing Examiner Minutes ' August 19, 1987 Comprehensive Plan Map. This, the area recommended for commercial is a logical extension of the shopping center area to the north and would not create a strip commercial development. The area proposed to be zoned O, Professional and Office, will offer an interruption in the commercial uses at the intersection of 104th and James Street and the commercial uses at the intersection of 104th and 256th which is south of the subject site. In the East Hill Plan under the Transportation Element the overall goal being to establish a balanced, safe and efficient transportation system linking the East Hill with internal and external housing, _,. employment, service and recreational opportunities. The transportation system should be designed as both multi-modal and a multi-purpose system that can be economically implemented through joint efforts of local jurisdictions, state and transportation providers. Goal 3 under that element is to establish and maintain the highest feasible level of service for East Hill. Traffic has been a major issue in this area and the areas that are recommended in this proposal for office and commercial are fronting on 104th Avenue which has been recently improved to a four-lane facility with a continuous left-turn lane. Also, as part of that project a traffic signal was installed at the intersection of 104th Avenue and 248th. These recent street improvements have created a situation on 104th that has resulted in properties abutting 104th Avenue have had their front yards reduced and in some case quite substantially to the point where, excuse me, some of the structures are within 15 feet of .the public right of way and the video that I will show in just a few minutes I try to depict that very clearly the close proximity of the dwellings to the street there. A lot of these houses are still in good condition and demolition might not be economically feasible and although these structures may not be highly desirable as residential units with the reduced front yard setback and the increased traffic on 104th, it is anticipated that they will convert into small office type of uses in the near future. Now many of these lots extend, are fairly deep of 104th and have plenty of lot in the rear for any off-street parking requirements or improvements that need to be required as the use changes. O.k. , at this time I think I will go into the video of the area and point out some of the issues that have been raised so far. At this time a video of the area was shown. As I mentioned land uses in Area B consist of a mixture of single family residential and light commercial, home occupation types of uses. A majority of the land immediately adjacent to 204th Avenue is developed to a large extent with residential uses. Minimum lot size requirements in the recommended zoning district is 10, 000 square feet and it appears that most of the lots in the area meet the minimum lot size requirement. This area is bisected by ~ 104th Avenue SE which is a State route and is classified as a minor arterial. As I mentioned, and as you could see in the video, it is a four-lane facility with a continuous left-turn lane. Southeast 248th intersects 104th on the south end of the 25 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 site and 248th intersects the northerly portion and services as a the boundary for the recommended Community Commercial area. The Planning Department has reviewed this proposal in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, present zoning, land use, street system, flood control problems and another comments that the departments within the city and agencies consulted have made and draws the following conclusions: 1) that the Comprehensive Plan Map designates the property as CR, Community Retail and O, Office. And the proposed of CC, Community Commercial, and O, Professional and Office, is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Map designations. The property is currently under an interim zoning designation of R1-20, Single Family Residential. This designation is given t all newly annexed areas into the City until such time as an initial zoning designation is determined for the property. Land uses in the area include a mixture of residential, light commercial, and offices. Many of the residences in the area are used for small businesses in the form of home occupations. Office zoning is designed to be a buffer between residential uses and higher intensity commercial uses and in this particular instance being used to interrupt and preclude the development of a strip commercial area along 104th Avenue. The streets in the area of 104th as I 've mentioned have been improved. The other streets in the area, SE 248th Street and SE 244th, are generally narrow, two-lane with gravel shoulders and open ditches which are on either side. The street system in this area with the exception of 104th Avenue SE is inadequate for any other use other than low density single family residential. As a result of the widening of 104th the front yards, as was shown in the video, in a lot of the homes, particularly on the east side of 104th, have been reduced to, some as little as, fifteen feet and making this area, I would assume, less desirable for residential use and more appropriate for office or light commercial uses. And, there are apparently no flood control problems in this area. And, that concludes my staff report. May I answer any questions? VanDerbeek: No, I don ' t have any questions about the recommendation at this time. Thank you. McCormick: Thank you. VanDerbeek: I will allow the public the opportunity to ask questions during the public testimony period. Is Glenn Crow here? Glenn Crow: I 'm Glenn Crow, I live at 13616 SE 251st Street in Kent. I also own property within the area designated as Area B. First, I would like to comment as to the process the City has been going through for a number of years with this original Comprehensive Plan. The original Comprehensive Plan involved long hours of study and groups and a lot of input. A lot larger magnitude than a hearing like we have here tonight. The amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that the Planning Department speaks about was handled much like this hearing. I 've attended everyone 26 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 that I 've known about. It's simply been a quick little hearing where people discuss pros and cons and then they changed the Comprehensive Plan based on the desires of the Planning Department and I 'm concerned about that process. Mainly because I know what went into that original Comprehensive Plan and every time we go through this we get involved in some sort of a down zone whether it be an (changed tapes and lost) . In the original Comprehensive Plan that involves this study this Area B, the part that they are now, they want to zone office ' was originally designated as a limited commercial which was a quasi-community commercial and not just professional office. I look at that as a down zone. I also have problem with the Planning Department' s goal statement that they want to assure retail and commercial developments are in suitable locations. If that is truly the goal, then the obvious location for commercial property is this area that they are designating as O, Office. It's got a four-lane state highway with the inside turn lanes. It's a very appropriate plan for commercial. I have all arguments about buffering over the years and its always trouble me when the talked about buffering to retail areas. Are they buffering one retail area from another retail area. To me, if they are going to buffer something we would buffer between a retail area and a residential area but maybe we would start to work our zoning down from commercial until we ultimately got to the residential . To me, that' s buffering. In, I 've got a quarrel with their worry over strip commercial development when in their recommendations here, they are recommending that these houses in Area B designated as O, Office. _. You converted to, these houses be converted to offices. I would much rather have strip commercial zoning. If you convert these houses to quasi-offices then you are going to have areas looking much like Wats. I have some problems. VanDerbeek: Wats, as in Los Angeles? Crow: Wats, slum district, that's exactly right. If the video would pan in on the bulk of the houses on the east side of that street. I own some of them. They are bulldozer houses. I 'm also troubled with some of the things that are going on within the City and the Planning Department that go beyond what we see here tonight through the hearings I have attended. And I know, and they state so in their report, that we have a shortage of retail property. That's true and we're going to have a bigger shortage as soon as Fred Meyer gets in. And it troubles me, that the plans that I have heard for expanding retail area to the south of the 256th intersection retail area and that believe me is a nightmare from a retail operating standpoint. I 'm a CPA and I 'm involved in many businesses. That is such a congested area, very difficult for people to make a success out of a retail business in that area. A lot of people avoid it just because of the congestion and the problems of getting in and out of that area. And I feel that if the O. Office, area in this designated map were commercial, I 27 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 think that we would be offering better property for our retail establishments and, I think, it would be much better planned than what I see. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your testimony. Cliff Hulk? Hulk: No comments or questions at this time. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you. Bill Goodin/Goodwin? He left. Chuck Rumpf? Any further testimony on Area B or questions? All right, please step forward, sir, and state your name and address. Bob McIssacs: It 's Bob McIssacs, again, 25001 116th Avenue SE. My questions again is of Planning Department--liking to know what the Parks Department has in mind for any future parks in that East Hill area. Part of the basis for this question is the fact that East Hill Well itself adjoins the water department, the City's water department property and at the time the East Hill Well was in negotiations with the City there was discussion that, that parcel or those two parcels might be made into some sort of a park. Is , has, anything gone on from that or is that a dead issue or what does that stand as far as parks on the East Hill area. And, I mean not just that area, but if that area is not going to be a park, where are we going to put parks for people, kids to get out and play and so on because that area definitely in needs of some kind of recreation facilities. VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your question.. I will direct staff to answer that. There any other public comments on the Area B at this time. All right, at this time, I would ask staff for any rebuttal comments and also respond to Mr. McIssacs question with respect to parks. Hansen: Jim Hansen, Kent Planning Department. I 'm sorry I can't respond specifically to your question on Parks. We don't have a copy of the Parks Plan with us and I think that we should have that general information on hand but we don't, sorry. We certainly can find that information and will be glad to contact him and answer him, perhaps tomorrow. McIssacs: It would be fine to answer it, (unclear) . Hansen: The other comment, if I could make, would it be appropriate at this time on a rebuttal? VanDerbeek: Yes, you can make rebuttal comments at this time. Hansen: Mr. Crow addressed the previous planning efforts and we both participated in those some time ago. They were lengthy and very comprehensive. One of the most important issues that came 28 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 out of that process and resulted in the designation shown on our Comprehensive Plan and thus, the proposed zoning for office, was a concern by the staff, Planning Commission and Council, over the strip commercial potential between the intersections of 240th and 104th and 256th and 104th and probably one of the most important premises for the recommendation for office was the means to accommodate the business 's desires and needs of the community in that area but not at the same time encourage an intensive strip development that will allow continuation of the types of services offered, currently fast food restaurants, etc. at either of the _ two intersections. So as as compromise during that process, office zoning seemed to be the most appropriate recommendation and that' s carried forward herein. That' s all . VanDerbeek; Is there any further public comment on Area B at this time. All right there appearing to be no further public comment on Area B, I would indicate that we will be prepared at the next -. hearing on the second of September to proceed with the staff report and public testimony, comments and questions on Area C. Its impossible for me to predict, at this time, whether or not we will be able to conclude the hearing on September 2 given the amount of public interest on Area C, I don't know whether that is the case or not. Will there be any other item on the agenda that evening? No. Perhaps we will be able to conclude it then because we will have about three and a half to four hours of hearing time available. Right, I would indicate that I have received some written comments in letter form. I believe what I will do at this _.. time is defer marking these as exhibits and I will at some time prior to the time that I close the record mark and identify all the exhibits. I will not do that at this point, I will just retain these exhibits. All right, is there any questions at this time concerning the further hearing procedure. Voice: On Section A and B will you move on that or make a decision on that before Section C? VanDerbeek: No, because they are brought as one zoning action under one file number, procedurally I am required to make my findings and conclusions in one report and so I will do that following the hearing on September 2 on Area C. Any further questions. Voice: Would further questions or comments be able to be made on Section A or B. VanDerbeek: Yes. Obviously the main opportunity for comment was this evening but if this is a public hearing and I 'm more than willing to hear the public's comments. So, if there are areas that people feel it necessary to add further discussion then I will be happy to hear those comments. Do you have a questions, sir? 29 Hearing Examiner Minutes August 19, 1987 Voice: I just would inquire as to the time frame involved once the September 2 hearing has taken place. VanDerbeek: As I explained at the beginning of the hearing, the ordinance requires that I render written findings of fact and conclusions of law in a recommendation to the City Council within 14 calendar days from the date the hearing concludes. Under extraordinary circumstances, I am given the opportunity to enter an order which extends the time for making findings and conclusions. Some times where the issues are complicated and there is a lot of testimony where I require a written transcript of the hearing or else verbatim minutes, the recording secretary who has to prepare those documents simply cannot meet that deadline and so its possible that I may have to extend that deadline. However, after my findings and recommendations are issued then there will be several hearings before the City Council to further consider the issue. Voice: How can you make an honest, in Section A. with the Fred Meyer thing that has come up and the (unclear) , they haven't asked for a building permit, this thing has apparently been going on for a lot of years, how can you rule on that area if this Fred Meyer. . .Now I can understand if it goes in, then you would want to do one thing but if it doesn't. . . see what I mean. VanDerbeek: Well, it would be considered improper for me to comment on the possible rationale behind any ruling I might make prior to the time that the hearing is concluded and all the evidence is in. So, I guess, my answer to that is I can't answer it at this point. ' Are there any other. questions. All right there appearing to be no other questions, we' ll adjourn this hearing for tonight anyway. 30 KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF AUGUST 19, 1987 FILE NO: EAST HILL WELL ANNEXATION AREA 2 #AZ-87-2 APPLICANT: CITY OF KENT REQUEST: Staff recommendation to apply permanent zoning designations to properties lying within the East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 annexation. I. INTRODUCTION The proposed zoning actions contained in this report seek to rezone recently annexed property known as the East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 . The annexation area consists of approximately 370 parcels and 410 acres. A census conducted in April 1987 by the Planning Department, counted 894 persons within the annexation area. The annexation area is generally located north of SE 256th Street, south of SE 240th Street, west of 116th Avenue SE and east of 94th Avenue S . Bisecting' the subject area is 104th Avenue SE which is classified as a state route minor arterial . Other significant streets serving the properties are 116th Avenue SE and SE 248th Street which are both classified as local collector arterials. Although much of the area is suburban in character, there are many parcels that have remained rural with large tracts of land being retained. For the purposes of this report, the area has been broken into three areas: Area A: Lies west of a line approximately 300 feet west of 104th Avenue SE. Area B: Lies adjacent to 104th Avenue SE, both east and west for approximately 300 feet. Area C: Is the easterly portion of the East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 (see attached maps) . This report will discuss each area specifically regarding unique land features and concerns while at the same time recognizing that it is important to consider the annexation area as a whole. Currently all of the East Hill Well Area Annexation 2 has an interim zoning designation of R1-20, Single Family Residential, minimum lot size of 201000 square foot. 1 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 II. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An environmental checklist was prepared on the subject zoning proposals which describe any impacts of the proposed zoning. A Declaration of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued on the proposed zoning action on July 8, 1987 . III. SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION Area A: 1. West of 100th Avenue SE (extended) : R1-9 . 6 (single family residential with a minimum 9, 600 square foot lot size) . 2 . East of 100th Avenue SE (extended) : R1-7. 2 (single family residential with a minimum 7,200 square foot lot size) . Area B: 1. North of SE 244th Street: CC, Community Commercial. 2 . South of SE 244th Street: O, Professional and Office. Area C: 1. West of 112th Avenue SE extended and north of SE 252nd: R1-7.2 (single family residential with a " minimum 7,200 square foot lot size) . 2 . Property south of SE 252nd Street: R1-9 . 6 (single family residential with a minimum 9, 600 square foot lot size except for Stratford Arms) . 3 . Stratford Arms ( an existing multifamily development) : MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential. 4 . East of 112th Avenue SE (extended) : R1-9. 6 (single family residential with a minimum 9, 600 square foot lot size) except a parcel south of SE 248th Street, adjacent to prior City limit line. 5. Bainton property, south of SE 248th Street, adjacent to former City limit line: MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential, with maximum six units per acre. 2 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 IV. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES The following departments and agencies were advised of this rezone application: City Administrator City Attorney Chief of Police Fire Chief Director of Public Works City Clerk Parks and Recreation Director Building Official In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies ., within 200 feet of the area were notified of the application and of the August 19 , 1987 public hearing. 3 CITY OF KENT o ko 4 _,_ ptanni . t p4"OOD KIRK aD: 3N y a A ...0y= P = n, ? /�G m0 N CLARK AVE (1• 4 AVE mIe N't ((j1 KEN INOTON ((��.��� AVF 00S, 3 O 7 S sT.y P m n^ rb P a O Wl OO 3 '*f,V 11 r' N JASON O AVE 3 =VAND ANT ER m AVE O (>� 'fY/HO •�54 N PROSP CT AVE rt r P P > t MAR 'a1T a mALEXA DER P Ta n,r/t y LEMOAA AVE KD r. f" N HAIEL AVE a (tj S a CAE4T AVE r a AVE O \a m 1, O '" HO m = O = .1. m 2 0. ONEB RNER M Z ; m z r y K Ni 'MP/C.t 1. x y A C?O `IfLD E s E c 2 = m W+ Z 1� lj \C` N a Oo m n J r^ `0-0 'T W ALVORD a1P •�' ..... =VE AVE u n r n ?� AVE > o �o� " ?• 3 ELLIS P W VIEW ,^.. N rl SUMM > PL 'r PL IE HILLTOP AVE r O REITEN RD m =� O P AVE u y S MAPLEWOOD AV6• -I 11'll'�\�� a �j< 111111111tlllll� 0 92HDV L 3. S KIMBER(y OM t, y -I W f : iOm AVE rOi'•':. 1� `,- c1:__ y /pt:JCL` 1 - 947E AVE S ■ ) - u O,tt1 .fi r.(':�4� /1N _O 967E Z6TH AVE '3AV„a3. �..C:`�..,,?J u_> 'AVE S ll�jn ZS_ )TH P W N I^ O T yy n 'CJ a ( 1-,%- v E S .:- I 98TH AVE 3 o RAWB ARV N' •,; 9 A y ,.. 11L6 OJO O 7 N n 997E AVE S -' W 'I O *A nS --- ' W IOOTN S r�r ra-r r ra AVE III (AM ST E PM Orj V 03N on gmI , nm a r-=jr 102 NO. -BarriCada IS ^ r a AVE SE a 8s a N 103RD m .. r> . WN - P .. 2 yz rrr riifi rrr- " c O IORH AVE E �Q y Z s _ I Goo; ,1 > t�rrrr - �/ n �"J' IOSTH PL S 70 m n n Jar - vW J . ` m P �._111 �1 _ u. P tir + 1031N AV[ SE ti a NITH ES •\ m - o IOSTH AVE S� y C Z Z III111IIIIIII`II IIIII zw 1097E PL SE I ITH AVE S �- 1107E \� PL SE a - �- M 1137E AVE SE �n IIIIIII'111111. 11111 r r r ♦V •^ = r 1147E A ELSE � �� V' •^•_® �, - T Illtl III11 0 s m - ' •• O 11 T N ;PE - 1 1 1 I 1 1 N ^'1 1 1 1 111111 V N N r �117TH PL r Ot APPLICATION Name EAST HILL WELL N2 ANNEXATION LEGEND Number. AZ-87-2 Date August 19, 1987 application site 111nn1111111 Proposed ROQUeSI Annexation Zoning Zoninfq bndry City limits 2101MirL SCALE = Vicinity Map 1" = 1000' Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 REPORT ON AREA "A" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: R1-9 .6, Single Family Residential, for that area west of 100th Avenue SE extended. R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Residential, for the area east of 100th Avenue SE extended. I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Description of the Proposal This portion of the annexation area is composed of approximately 135 acres of land. This proposal recommends approximately 90 acres be zoned R1-9. 6, Single Family Residential (minimum lot size of 9, 600 square feet) and the remainder to be zoned R1-7. 2, Single Family Residential (minimum lot size of 7, 200 square feet) . Upon annexation to the City, all land is automatically designated R1-20 , Single Family Residential . This designation is an interim zoning which remains with the property until the Hearing Examiner and City Council establish appropriate zoning on the newly annexed area. B. Location Area A is bordered by SE 248th Street on the south, 94th Avenue S on the west (except a small portion to the north which extends further to the west) . It lies south of SE 240th Street and lies west of a line approximately 300 feet west of 104th Avenue SE. C. Size of Property The size of Area A is approximately 135 acres. This is a portion of the original 410 acre annexation known as East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 . D. Zoninca The property is currently zoned R1-20, Single Family Residential (minimum lot size of 20, 000 square feet) . Prior to annexation, the property was zoned SR-7200 under the jurisdiction of King County. 4 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 E. Comprehensive Plan The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 1969. The Comprehensive Plan is made up of two basic sections; the goals, objectives and policies and the land use map. The goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan represent an expression of community intentions and aspirations concerning the future of Kent and the area within the Sphere of Interest. The goals, objectives and policies are used with the Plan Map to guide the Mayor, City Council, City Administrator, Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner and City departments in growth , development and spending decisions . The Comprehensive Plan Map is to be used together with the text of the Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is within the East Hill Plan subarea. This Plan also includes goals, objectives and policies which apply to the area and complement the overall City-wide Comprehensive Plan. The following is a review of each of the above Plans as they relate to the proposal for initial zoning. The area west of 100th Avenue SE is designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map as Single Family, 4-6 units per acre. The area east of 100th Avenue SE is designated MF 12, Multifamily, 7-12 units per acre. CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISH A BALANCED, SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR ALL MODES OF TRAVEL. GOAL 1: Assure the provision of safe and efficient routes and terminal facilities for vehicular traffic moving within and through Kent. Oblective 1: Provide adequate trafficways for both local and through traffic, separating the systems when possible. Planning Department Comment The existing street system is not adequate to serve traffic generated from current development. Many streets are substandard and, as the area develops, improvements will be required to bring the system up to current standards. 5 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 HOUSING ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL POPULATION IN KENT, ASSURING A DECENT HOME AND SUITABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT FOR FAMILIES DESIRING TO LIVE IN KENT. GOAL 3 : Assure an adequate and balanced supply of housing units offering a diversity of size, densities, age, style and cost. Planning Department Comment In recent years, the City of Kent has developed at a rapid pace. In 1985, the City issued a record value of 164 million dollars in permits, second only to the City of Seattle in the State of Washington. And yet even in these peak years of construction, the number of single family residential permits were minimal (12 issued in 1985) . A recent study on multifamily development revealed that the City of Kent has 8, 950 apartment and condominium units. These units make up 59 percent of the housing stock. Single family homes make up 35 percent and the balance are mobile homes. In 1970, one year following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, this situation was reversed. At that time, multifamily units accounted for less than a third of all dwellings. Today, the City has 6,994 more multifamily dwellings than it had in 1970, an increase of 358 percent. For this reason, the City now would like to increase the single family development to balance the existing multifamily development. This was articulated recently in the adoption of Resolution #1123 which calls for a 20 percent reduction in the amount of undeveloped multifamily zoned land. Zoning the properties in this area single family would encourage this kind of development. EAST HILL PLAN OVERALL GOAL: ASSURE PRESENT AND FUTURE EAST HILL RESIDENTS HOUSING THAT IS SAFE, OFFERS A DESIRABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT, ' AND IS SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES. GOAL 1: Residential development that is related to the availability of community facilities and services. Objective 1: When making decisions concerning land use, consider the adequacy of and impact 6 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 upon roads and other public facilities and services including utilities, police and fire protection , public transportation, schools and parks. Policy 1: Ensure that public facilities and services are available or will be available to support development at proposed densities. Policy 2 : Locate new single-family detached residential development in areas and at densities which permit roads, utilities, public transit, schools and other public facilities and services to be provided in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Planning Department Comment In an effort to implement the above Comprehensive Plan goals and policies (and others found throughout the document) , it is necessary to consider a reduction in potential densities represented in the land use plan map. In other words, the City cannot provide all of the needed public services in a timely manner should densities go as high six units per acre. A discussion of several public services follows: Fire response time in this area is one of the highest in the City. Emergency vehicles must come from the downtown area or from 140th Avenue SE. Although a recent bond issue was passed to provide a fire station closer to this area, construction is a few years off and equipment and personnel have not been secured at this time. Increasing densities to their highest potential in this area would not be responsible when emergency services are not adequate for the area. Traffic concerns have been the number one issue for citizens and staff the past few years. The amount of growth that has occurred in the East Hill area in recent years has increased the traffic to unacceptable levels of service. Increasing densities in this area would cause additional traffic congestion to an area that is already overburdened. By increasing densities to their highest potentials under the Comprehensive Plan Map the estimated p.m. peak hour trips generated would be 864 versus an estimated 675 trips generated under the proposed single family scenarios. 7 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 II. HISTORY A. Site History Area A was annexed as part of the East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 in the spring of 1987. The annexation occurred as a result of the City taking over and improving the water system for customers of the East Hill Well Company. The area is predominately developed as rural single family homes. The majority of parcels are one-half acre or more in size. A few County short plats are scattered in this region with the largest subdivisions being the two 16-lot plats known as Kennedy Lane and Link Addition. These two plats were approved in the 1970's and are located adjacent to each other at the northwest corner of 98th Avenue S. and SE 248th Street. B. Area History The East Hill area was first settled in the early 1900's. Since that time residential and commercial developments have grown tremendously. Property near this area is primarily residential. The exception is the commercial areas adjacent to 104th Avenue SE. Major commercial nodes occur at the intersection of SE 240th and 104th Avenue SE and at the intersection of SE 256th and 104th Avenue SE. Many multifamily developments have been built near the area. Several units lie west of 94th Avenue S. , south of SE 248th at 98th Avenue S. and more recently several developments have been built on the east side of 104th Avenue SE, south of SE 248th. - III. LAND USE Land use in the area is predominantly rural single family. The lots west of 100th Avenue SE vary in size but the majority are at least one-half acre in size. All lots exceed the 9 , 600 square foot recommended lot size except for a few lots within the Link Addition which average about 9,400 square feet. Also, one lot west of this plat is 6, 000 square feet in size. The lots east of 100th Avenue SE tend to be larger parcels with the majority exceeding one acre in size. Most of these parcels are vacant or _. underdeveloped. 8 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS A. Significant Physical Features - Topography and Hydrology The area' s topography is slightly varied. The elevations range from 300 at 94th Avenue SE to 425 at 103rd Avenue SE extended. The land slopes generally from east to west at an average grade of four percent. A shallow ravine occurs east of 100th Avenue SE extended. The area does not have any significant creeks or streams. Vecxetation - The property is mainly developed with rural type single family homes. These homes have typical residential landscaping. Many small orchards are in this area as well as open fields and pastures where grazing animals can be found. A few parcels are heavily wooded with mixtures of evergreen and deciduous trees. B. Significant Social Features Street System Significant streets within this area are 94th Avenue SE, 98th Avenue SE, SE 248th Street and SE 244th Street. One-Hundredth Avenue SE should also be improved to serve this area but currently is not a through street. All of the existing streets are two lanes. They have narrow gravel shoulders in some areas and most are bordered by open ditches. There are no sidewalks in this area. As properties develop, right of way for 94th Avenue SE, 98th Avenue SE and 100th Avenue SE will have to be obtained to widen these streets to make improvements. The following criteria will be used prior to the issuance of any development permit on properties abutting these streets: 94th Avenue SE 60 feet in width as centered on the easterly line of the westerly one-quarter of the NE 1/4 of Section 19-22-5. 98th Avenue SE 60 feet in width as centered on the westerly line of the 9 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 easterly one-quarter of the NE 1/4 of Section 19-22-5. 100th Avenue SE 60 feet in width as centered on the easterly line of the NE 1/4 of Section 19-22-5. Planning Department Comment Depending on the development proposal additional street improvements may be required. Increasing densities will burden the street system because substandard streets are immediately within the area and the closest major intersections are already at level of service 'IF" (104th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street and SE 256th Street and 104th Avenue SE) . Water System Most of the area is presently served by City of Kent water. The City is in the process of upgrading some of the old lines that were part of the East Hill Community Well system that originally served this area. These improvements should be completed sometime next ,year. The major water lines serving this area exist along 94th, 98th, 100th, 241st, 242nd, 244th and 248th. Water lines would have to be extended to serve development where existing lines are not adequate. Sanitary Sewer System Sanitary sewers serve portions of the area. Main line extensions will be required along 94th, 98th, 100th, 244th and 248th according to the Comprehensive Sewer Plan Map as the area develops. Storm Water System Storm drainage systems service portions of the subject area. Extensions will be made as the area develops. LIDs There are currently no LIDS in this area. V. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW The Planning Department has reviewed this proposal in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, present zoning, land use, street system, 10 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 flood control problems and comments from other departments and finds that: A. The primary streets serving this area are 94th Avenue SE, 98th Avenue SE, and SE 248th Street. These streets as well as others in this area are not improved to minimum City standards and are not adequate to serve the traffic generated in the area. As development occurs, street improvements will be required to accommodate any increase in density. B. There are no flooding problems in the area. C. Water and sewer service are available but extensions may be required to accommodate future development. D. Fire and emergency medical response time to this area is one of the highest in the City. Although the Fire Department is currently in the process of obtaining a station site closer to this site, construction will not occur for another few years and equipment and personnel remain unsettled to supply this station. Increasing densities dramatically in this area would add an additional strain to existing services. E. The property is now zoned R1-20, Single Family Residential. This designation is the interim zoning given to all land annexed to the City of Kent. F. The County zoning of this area prior to annexation was SR 7200 (Suburban Residential--7, 200 square foot lots) . G. The predominant land use in the area is rural-type single family residential. Most lots are one-half acre in size or greater. H. The Kent East Hill Subarea Plan Map designates the property west of 100th Avenue SE as SF 6 (Single Family, 4-6 units per _ acre) and the property east of 100th Avenue SE as MF 12 (Multifamily, 7-12 units per acre) . This proposal is recommending R1-9 .6 (Single Family, 9, 600 square foot minimum) for that property lying west of 100th Avenue SE and R1-7.2 (Single Family, 7, 200 square foot minimum) for that property lying east of 100th Avenue SE. The City's zoning classification R1-9 .6 provides for a maximum 4 . 5 lots per acre which is consistent with the East Hill Plan Map. In keeping with the residential character and large rural lots typical of this section, this zoning is an appropriate designation for these lots. The properties east of 100th Avenue SE abut property to the City is recommending for office and commercial zoning. Typical planning practice is to place higher density residential next to commercial and 11 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 office areas in order to best utilize public services. Rl- 7. 2 is the highest single family development in Kent. By recommending single family zoning for all of area "A" , the City will encourage single family development to balance the housing types that have occurred the last few years. The Comprehensive Plan goals and policies call for a variety of housing types. Due to permit activity in recent years where nearly 70 multifamily permits were issued for every single family permit, existing multifamily units exceed the single family in the City by approximately 25 percent. Increasing multifamily zoning strains the ability of the City .. to provide the needed utility, transportation, recreation and emergency services those densities require. It also discourages a balanced social , economic population that can be achieved through a diversity in housing types. I. The City Council passed a resolution in October 1986 stating its intent that vacant multifamily zoned lands within the City be reduced by 20 percent. This resolution was passed in response to a large number of citizens who had concerns about the amount of multifamily development occurring in Kent and the problems (including traffic) generated by this kind of development. Although this resolution did not specifically address how this reduction should be accomplished, it is reasonable to assume that lands should not be zoned multifamily until the City Council has studied this issue in more detail. A multifamily density report has been prepared for the council's review and is currently being studied by the Planning Committee. VI. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION On July 30, 1987, the City of Kent staff represented by James Harris, Planning Director; Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director; Jim Chandler, Building Director; Mike Evans, Assistant Fire Marshal, and Kathy McClung, Associate Planner, met to review this initial zoning proposal. Upon discussion of all pertinent factors the staff recommends an initial zoning of R1-9. 6, Single Family Residential , for those properties lying west of 100th Avenue SE and R1-7 . 2, Single Family Residential, for those properties lying east of 100th Avenue SE in Area A. 12 CITY Or KENT p ,IO KIRK ODy y u Sn �� =^r .,�/..,-,.. PtanniT�mm o .... ; 09 AVE mn;i N'1�N $ r�s •z9E1-1 N PDURK AVE KEN INOTON •AVE DOOW ! 11,+ ]f M Om m -1 FNd. 1 N JASON a AVE ~ 2 S -VAND AN ER AVF p 8 't.C,HO '�6,I1• - n O u a u S" r , :. lC'C 1 H PROSP GT AVE rj} MAR 0pl Nan D > mALEXA DER u jT n;_}i,l y LfHORA AVE is S CREST AVE - S a AVE 0 ~ \a A;V'. N HAZEL AVE 'sa (D ONE9IRNER * _ u i {• Dt Ol t.l:�'rr ^< 'IELD LH nr AVE f -I a r !%i i<' • FT LANE m A .0J ALVOAD > A y u VE TLISVIEW E Ot Af• ,�,r N SUM ' PL ti P1 m `I�"•'i 'MIf HILLTOP AVE c REITEN AD O u -1 Z u •I S MAPLEWOOD AVF , ll'�\i: p �' 1 1 1 .1 - 0 92NO PL S. Ir ox 1 0 u AVE /A TOOO -��1.`L cl LA ,3AY�•P.\:�pJc.[L•.•s) `AVE 1 -STII SAVE f. (' Ej Z.Ai •� yCA 1 I 1 ..(lam/FILL\°mow ns' CJ ps ti a 0 T�,•. ' t�,b. ,LOa O -1 � p RAWB RAY M '• 9 H O t ' N tat TT > 0 99TH AVE S � OJ 6n • L SE a I OOTN AVE NS ..,.. 6T 9m 0rm .- Z m v t 5C ?I 03y Om Za A r1l�' 102ND. ..e Or rIC0d0 8p u K AVE SE u O r> O 104TH AVE E n O !"1 yLn T 9>•1 9>•1 9� a 2-1 �>•�� SN.TH ra N N 109TH __ '' W W u � m a -1--11 W[ ][ u W SZ 19TH E SC •'\ m `V i - o 105TH AVE] 11II I111111111111111 � 109TH /—�p 0 PL SE 11TH AVE 3E f r- MOTH - PL SEwit Iim imii In � y `\ _ 113TH AVE SE in1111111�1111111 11111 I>•m,l 114TH A E ISE .,, n ' --I I I I I I1111 11 TIN �N iSVE - y 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 Ir ,N N 1 1 1 1 111111�- V' DO —117TR PL APPLICATION Name EAST HILL WELL N2 ANNEXATION LEGEND Number Az-81-2 Dale August 19, 1987 allplibafiell site E1111111111ITE Pd roposed �{egpe$t Annexation Zoning Zoning bndry city limits ■l m l a w SCALE = Vicinity Map 1 - 1000 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 REPORT ON AREA "B" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: O, Professional and Office, for that portion lying south of SE 244th Street. CC, Community Commercial , for that portion north of SE 244th Street. I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Description of the Proposal This portion of the annexation is composed of approximately 12 . 28 acres of land. This proposal recommends that approximately 7 .46 acres be zoned O, Professional and Office, and 4.82 acres be zoned CC, Community Commercial. All newly annexed land is given an interim zoning designation of R1-20 , Single Family Residential . This interim designation will remain valid until the Hearing Examiner and City " Council establish the initial zoning for the newly annexed area. B. Location Area B is bordered on the south by SE 248th Street, extends approximately 250 feet north of SE 244th Street; extends approximately 300 feet west of 104th Avenue SE, and approximately 300 feet east of 104th Avenue SE except north of 244th Avenue SE where the line is approximately 420 feet east of 104th Avenue SE. C. Size of Property The size of Area B is approximately 12 .28 acres. This is a portion of the original 410 acre annexation known as East Hill Well Annexation Area 2. D. Zonincr The property is currently zoned R1-20, Single Family Residential. Prior to the annexation, the property was zoned SR-7200 under the jurisdiction of King County. 13 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 E. Comprehensive Plan The City of Kent adopted a City-wide Comprehensive Land Use Plan which provides policy statements that offer guidelines on future land use decisions. Initially adopted in 1969, this Plan was revised in 1971 and 1977. The Comprehensive Plan offers goals, objectives and policies that speak to a broad range of land use considerations. The City of Kent has also adopted subarea comprehensive plans which address concerns of a more specific geographic area of the City. The area under consideration in this case is covered by the East Hill Plan. The following is a review of each plan as they relate to the request for initial zoning. The East Hill Subarea Plan Map designates the property north of SE 244th Street as Community Retail and the property south of SE 244th Street as O, Office. CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ECONOMIC ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: PROMOTE CONTROLLED ECONOMIC GROWTH WITH PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT, RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION. GOAL 2 : Assure retail and commercial developments are in suitable locations. Obiective 1: Minimize adverse physical impacts of strip commercial development. Policy 1: Encourage planned retail-commercial business development. Planning Department Comment The area being recommended for commercial and office zoning lies on either side of 104th Avenue SE. The area north of SE 244th Street is recommended to be zoned CC, Community Commercial. This area abuts a commercial area to the north which is located at the intersection of SE 240th Street and 104th Avenue SE. In 1984, the Planning Department completed the East Hill Commercial Zoning Study at the request of the City Council (Resolution #1027) . This study examined land use and zoning in the vicinity of the intersection of 104th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street. This area included portions of what was King County and part of the area under consideration at this time. The results of this study indicated that the East Hill 14 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 commercial area was about 80 percent developed. The report recommended that certain areas within the City be rezoned to commercial and areas in the county be designated community retail on the Comprehensive Plan Map. The zoning for this section of the annexation area reflects the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Map that was amended as a result of the 1984 study of this area. This area would be a logical extension of the shopping center to the north and would not create a strip commercial situation on 104th Avenue SE. The area proposed to be zoned as O, Professional and Office, would offer an interruption to the commercial uses at the intersections of 104th Avenue SE and SE 256th and 104th Avenue SE and SE 240th. EAST HILL PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISH A BALANCED, SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM LINKING THE EAST HILL WITH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL HOUSING, EMPLOYMENT, SERVICE AND RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES. THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM SHOULD BE DESIGNED AS BOTH MULTI-MODAL AND A MULTI-PURPOSE SYSTEM THAT CAN BE _.- ECONOMICALLY IMPLEMENTED THROUGH JOINT EFFORTS OF LOCAL JURISDICTIONS, THE STATE AND TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS. GOAL 3 : ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN THE HIGHEST FEASIBLE LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR EAST HILL. Objective 1: Determine the minimum level of service. Policy 4 : Coordinate the transportation plan with land use patterns and plans. Planning Department Comment The areas recommended for commercial and office zoning front on 104th Avenue SE which was recently improved to a four-lane facility with a continuous left-turn lane. As part of this project, a new traffic signal was installed at the intersection of 104th Avenue SE and SE 248th Street. These recent street improvements reduced the front yard setbacks of the properties abutting 104th Avenue SE. Many buildings are now within 15 feet of the right of way. Since most of these buildings are in good condition, demolition may not be economically feasible. Although these structures may not be highly desirable for residential units, they may be 15 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 converted to small office buildings. Many of these lots have adequate room to the rear of the structure to support required parking and other improvements. These same improvements will support commercial and office activity in this area between SE 240th and SE 256th. Expanding intensity of land use past the properties immediately adjacent to 104th Avenue SE would be inappropriate since the road systems leaving 104th Avenue SE are not adequate to serve more intensive land uses. The streets leaving 104th Avenue SE are two lane roads with gravel shoulders and open ditches. HOUSING ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ASSURE PRESENT AND FUTURE EAST HILL RESIDENTS HOUSING THAT IS SAFE, OFFERS A DESIRABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT, AND IS SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES. GOAL 2 : Objective 2 : Decisions concerning land use designations and development proposals shall consider surrounding residential land uses and mitigating measures necessary to minimize potential conflicts. Policy 1: Re.quire separation between residential and nonresidential areas _.. and between adjacent lower and higher density residential areas through landscaping , building placement, location of off-street parking, traffic control and other measures. Planning Department Comment Many of the residences abutting 104th Avenue SE are being used for light commercial/home occupation types of uses including a hearing aid sales and repair shop, small contractor's shop, and a ceramic shop are some of the businesses that now operate in Area B. The development standards in the 0, Professional and Office, zoning district are more restrictive than those for the - commercial zoning districts. The purpose of the Office zoning district as stated in the Zoning Code is to serve as a buffer between residential districts and commercial uses. Development standards for the office zone are such that office uses should be compatible with residential districts. 16 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 II. HISTORY A. Site History Area B was annexed as part of the East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 in the spring of 1987. The annexation occurred as a result of the City taking over and improving the water system for customers of the East Hill Well. The area is developed with a mixture of residential, commercial, and some office uses. To the north of Area B is a large commercially developed area at the intersection of 104th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street. To the south is some office complexes and a large commercial area at the intersection of 104th Avenue SE and SE 256th Street. B. Area History The East Hill area of Kent was first settled in the early 1900 ' s . Since that time commercial and residential development have grown steadily. Area B is located adjacent to 104th Avenue SE which is classified as a minor arterial. The property in this area is a mix of residential and some light commercial uses. Major commercial nodes occur at the intersections of 104th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street and 104th Avenue SE and SE 256th Street. Some small professional office complexes are also in this area. III. LAND USE Land uses in Area B consist of a mixture of single family residential and light commercial uses. A majority of the land immediately adjacent to 104th Avenue SE is developed to a large extent with residential uses. Minimum lot size requirements in the recommended zoning district is 10,000 square feet. It appears that most of the lots in this area meet the minimum lot size requirement. The East Hill Community Well is located on the southwest corner of 104th Avenue SE and SE 244th Street. The well is now a City utility and operated by the City of Kent. -- IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS A. Significant Physical Features - Topography and Hydrology The area's topography is generally flat with a slight northeast to southwest slope. The slope is very slight, 17 Staff Report - East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 generally 3-5 percent. The area has no significant creeks or streams. Vegetation The area is developed mainly with residential dwellings and some light commercial uses. The homes in the area have typical residential landscaping. Many of the parcels have large stands of deciduous evergreen trees. B. Significant Social Features Street System Area B is bisected by 104th Avenue SE which is a state route and classified as a minor arterial. It is a four- lane facility with a continuous left turn lane. Southeast 248th Street intersects with 104th Avenue SE in Area B. Southeast 248th Street is a two-lane road with gravel shoulders and no sidewalks. Water System Most of this area is served by City of Kent water. The city is now in the process of upgrading some of the old lines which were part of the original East Hill well system. These improvements are anticipated to be completed by next year. The major water lines that serve this area exist along 242nd, 244th, 248th and 104th. Water mains will have to be extended or upgraded where development occurs where inadequacies exist or water lines are nonexistent. - Sanitary Sewer System Sanitary sewers serve portions of the newly annexed area. Main line extensions will be required in accordance with the Comprehensive Sewerage Plan as the area continues to develop. Storm Water System Storm drainage systems service portions of the subject area. Extensions will be made as the area develops. LIDS LID 's 321 and 281 , both for improvements for 104th Avenue SE affect the properties in this area. 18 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 V. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW The Planning Department has reviewed this proposal in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, present zoning, land use, street system, flood control problems and comments from other departments and agencies and finds that: A. The Comprehensive Plan Map designates the subject property as CR, Community Retail, and O, Office. The proposed zoning of Cc, Community Commercial and 0, Professional and Office, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map designations. B. The property is currently under an interim zoning designation " of R1-20, Single Family Residential. This interim zoning is given to all land annexed into the City until such time as the initial zoning designations are determined. C. The land use in this area is a mixture of residential, light commercial, and offices. Many of the residences in this area are used for small businesses in the form of home occupations. Some of these uses include a hearing aid sales and repair shop, a small contractor's shop and a ceramic shop. The proposed zoning would be generally consistent with existing land uses. D. Office zoning is designed to buffer residential uses from higher intensity commercial uses. Landscaping and sign requirements are designed to complement residential uses. E. The property in Area B has access to 104th Avenue SE and SE 248th Street. one-Hundred Fourth Avenue SE was recently improved to a four lane facility with a continuous left-turn lane. Southeast 248th Street is a narrow two-lane facility with narrow, gravel shoulders . As part of the 104th Avenue SE project, a traffic signal was installed at the intersection of 104th Avenue SE and SE 248th Street. „•• The street system in this area with the exception of 104th Avenue SE consists of narrow two-lane facilities with gravel shoulders. This road system is considered inadequate for all uses other than low density single family residential. As a result of the widening of 104th Avenue SE, the front yards of the residences abutting 104th Avenue SE have been substantially reduced. Many of the structures are now within 15 feet of the right of way. This would make this area less desirable for residential and more appropriate for office uses. Most lots have sufficient area to accommodate parking for office uses in the rear of the structures. F. There are no apparent flood control problems on the site. 19 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 VI. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION On July 30, 1987, the City of Kent staff represented by James Harris, Planning Department; Kathy McClung, Planning Department; Greg McCormick, Planning Department; Jim Chandler, Building Official; Mike Evans, Assistant Fire Marshal, and Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director, met to review this proposal for initial zoning. Upon discussion of all pertinent factors, the staff recommends an initial zoning of Cc, Community Commercial, and O, Professional and Office. 20 -` CITY OF KENT I o ko �ADOD KIRK OnOf la 13 �coo=^ .0,�.. ...nmm a ptlnni . L 09 AVE mw.� N�OH ~ TO N �f Zsy N rCLARK AVE > KEN INDTON 3 AVE DODO' ] u n a nP, m y fA• r N lASON O AVE ~ n ] -VANDE ANTER AVC a O 1y8,HD •!fK M \ Y O u O u -H��f L N PROSt CT AVE re MAR O}I yy O C •" x ^o 'b�.S.a, a u LENORAsa- PL S yCREST AVE�x. I nALE%AA CEER y `D,tT va'Y•(. > N HAT EL AVE Ka (9 m m Z 7 m 1. D ONE8IRHER ] = L F LY O( t���' 1 r ^�^T yY•"t . LH m m s A n y < Nr It `IELD [ a L C _i AYE -I p p - r�• 2'1 (C S LANE O rm• T. y <O. ,L ,LO a ALVORO i AVE VIEW i 1 FLPL y y PL n `C1'!••,( n N SUM611r HILLTOP AVE -. C REITEN RD <�'`�V\�- d0 -WI N AVE N u N a S MAPLEWCOD AV$- ~ '1•` L�1• �i•• OZ Ot IIIIII t11111111- y 92NDuPL S. , Ox S 4 KIMeER1, DM �Ir �jj�•.�•..�`' u i iOm N AVE .f�OO 1 h 9 lL..�,V � r .yam - y [ i Zr";.i ,4c{ iYu _ `96TH 1 u •3AV/�.d3. n"lL`'' Lt N 41-AVE ] :67H AVE ] �STII "AVE tiIIIIII ] T(j\.�I^,t R�A•f' '(,.' 0z- II VESr �. N : Y N ~ O �1• W > — y x fl; ♦ 6 Da O y 98TH AV o ,L 0 E S RAW8 RRY N �.: q y. 11L O v y C W W .Q 99TH AVE S '" O 1 nr, 031 OOTN y ,.a �'s } AVE SE N% I _ - a sr ai r N Omm sms I _r' 11 am (Nlm �V '1 ��F 102NO- -B Orricade is O W _ Q u D AVE SE to r 303R0 ( m 2 ui a ' O IOITH AVE _ y s O n> _ n _.• u z .SCSTH m y' PL SE = u M N _ ' V W •� -1 109TH AVE SF 0 y a (OATH AVE S> 111111II II1I11111111 109THis tot PL SE u ^ IITH AVE SL;•r- IIOTH — �\ PL SE = In is (Putt I IJTH AVE SE InIIIIIIII Et11111 lilt, ttlse olleiii Ron sssoIr N assIll,also0- II4TN A f ARE �a (� •+, on .." r j1 T IN ( VE y - 1 iW N N 1,O11t1 y' DO I-1L7TN P-L r at APPLICATION Name EAST HILL WELL #2 ANNEXATION LEGEND : Number Az-87-2 Date August 19, 1907 apllcatieu Site I,t,1,t,ltlllt, proposed ROgUeSt.Annexation Zon'ina Zoning bndry - city limits ■1minis- SCALE = Vicinity Map I" = 10001 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 REPORT ON AREA C STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. R1-7 .2 , Single Family Residential (minimum lot size of 7, 200 square feet) for the area west of 112th Avenue SE extended and north of SE 248th. 2 . MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential with a maximum of six units per acre for the five acre Bainton property lying south of SE 248th Street immediately adjacent to the former City limits. 3 . R1-9 . 6, Single Family Residential (9 , 600 square foot minimum lot size) , for the area east of 112th Avenue SE, north of SE 252nd extended, south of SE 248th except the Bainton property. 4 . R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Residential (71200 square foot minimum lot size) , for the area south of SE 252nd extended. I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Description of the Proposal This part of the annexation area consists of approximately 290 acres. This proposal recommends approximately 185 acres of R1-7 .2 , Single Family Residential, zoning; 100 acres of R1-9 . 6, Single Family Residential, zoning, and five acres of MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential, zoning to be developed as single family, zero lot line development. B. Location Area C is bordered by SE 240th Street on the north, SE 256th Street on the south, 116th Avenue SE on the east and 105th Avenue SE extended to the west. 21 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 C. Size of Property The size of Area C is approximately 290 acres. This is the largest portion of the original 410 acre annexation known as East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 . D. Zoninv The property is currently zoned R1-20, Single Family Residential. Prior to annexation the property was zoned Suburban Residential under jurisdiction of the King County except for a small portion adjacent to SE 256th which was zoned RM 2400 (Multifamily, 18 units per acre) . E. Comprehensive Plan The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 1969 . The Comprehensive Plan is made up of two basic elements; the goals, objectives and policies element and the map element. The goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan represent an expression of community intentions and aspirations concerning the future of Kent and the area within the Sphere of Interest. The goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan are used with the Plan Map to guide the Mayor, City Council, City Administrator, Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner and City departments to guide growth, development and spending decisions. The Comprehensive Plan Map is to be used together with the text of the Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is within the East Hill Plan subarea. This Plan also includes goals, objectives and policies which apply to the area. The following is a review of each of the above plans as they relate to the proposal for initial zoning. The East Hill Subarea Plan Map designates the area west of 112th Avenue SE extended and north of SE 248th as MF 12, Multifamily, 7-12 units per acre. The area east of 112th Avenue SE and north of SE 252nd Street is shown as SF 6, Single Family, 4-6 units per acre. The remaining section lying south of SE 252nd is designated MF 24, Multifamily, 12- 24 units per acre. CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISH A BALANCED, SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR ALL MODES OF TRAVEL. 22 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 GOAL 1: Assure the provision of safe and efficient routes and terminal facilities for vehicular traffic moving within and through Kent. Objective 1: Provide adequate trafficways for both local and through traffic, separating the systems when possible. Planning Department Comment The existing street system is not adequate to serve traffic generated from current development. Many streets are substandard and, as the area develops, improvements will be required to bring the system up to current standards. HOUSING ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL POPULATION IN KENT, _ ASSURING A DECENT HOME AND SUITABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT FOR FAMILIES DESIRING TO LIVE IN KENT. GOAL 3 : Assure an adequate and balanced supply of housing units offering a diversity of size, densities, age, style and cost. Planning Department Comment In recent years, the City of Kent has developed at a rapid pace. In 1985, the City issued a record value of 164 million dollars in permits, second only to the City of Seattle in the State of Washington. And yet even in these peak years of construction, the number of single family permits . were minimal (12 in 1985) . A recent study on multifamily development revealed that the City of Kent has 8,950 apartments and condominiums units. These units make up 59 percent of the housing stock, single family homes make up 35 percent and the balance are mobile homes. In 1970, one year following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, this situation was reversed. At that time, multifamily - accounted for less than a third of all dwellings. Today, the City has 6,994 more multifamily dwellings than it had in 1970, an increase of 358 percent. For this reason, the City now would like to increase the single family development to balance the existing multifamily development. Zoning the properties in this area single family will encourage this kind of development. 23 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 EAST HILL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ASSURE PRESENT AND FUTURE EAST HILL RESIDENT HOUSING THAT IS SAFE, OFFERS A DESIRABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT, AND IS SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES. GOAL 1: Residential development that is related to the availability of community facilities and services. Objective 1: When making decisions concerning land use, consider the adequacy of and impact upon roads and other public facilities and services including utilities, police and fire protection , public transportation, schools and parks. Policy 1: Ensure that public facilities and services are available or will be available to support development at proposed densities. Policy 2 : Locate new single-family detached residential development in areas and at densities which permit roads, utilities, public transit, schools and other public facilities and services to be provided in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Planning Department Comment The rapid growth of multifamily in recent years has greatly stressed the City's ability to provide public services to the Kent community. Zoning these lands to their highest potential would be premature when public services are not able to meet the demands of the development at that level. Fire and emergency medical response time in this area is one of the highest in the City. Emergency vehicles must come from the downtown area or the station on 140th Avenue SE. A recent bond issue was passed to purchase land for a new station within this area. Negotiations are currently underway for property at the northwest corner of 116th Avenue SE and SE 248th Street. Once the property is purchased, construction is still a few years off and equipment and personnel have not been secured or approved at this time. Increasing densities to their highest intensities would not 24 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 be responsible when emergency services are not adequate for the area. Traffic concerns have been the highest priority issue for the citizens of Kent as well as the staff and elected officials. The amount of growth in the East Hill area in recent years has increased traffic counts to unacceptable levels of service. Increasing densities in this area would cause additional traffic congestion to an area that is already overburdened. By increasing the densities to those suggested by the East Hill Comprehensive Plan Map the estimated p.m. peak hour trips generated would be 2 , 164 versus an estimated 1, 563 trips generated under the proposed zoning. This is an increase of 38 percent (SEE chart) . ESTIMATED TRIPS UNDER STAFF RECOMMENDATION Acres Units/Acre Units SF/MF ADT P.M. -• 145 6 870 SF 8 ,700 870 5 6 30 SF 300 30 100 4.5 450 SF 4 ,500 450 33 6 198 SF 1,980 198 5 5 25 MF 165 15 TOTAL 288 N/A 1,573 N/A 15, 645 11563 ESTIMATED TRIPS UNDER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Acres Units/Acre Units SF/MF ADT P.M. 145 12 11740 MF 11,484 1,044 5 6 30 SF 300 30 100 6 600 SF 61000 600 33 24 792 MF 51227 475 5 5 25 MF 165 15 TOTAL 288 N/A 3, 187 N/A 23 , 176 21164 Percent increase ADT = 48 percent Percent increase PM = 38 percent 25 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISH A BALANCED, SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM LINKING THE EAST HILL WITH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL HOUSING, EMPLOYMENT, SERVICE AND RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES. THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM SHOULD BE DESIGNED AS BOTH A MULTI-MODAL AND A MULTI-PURPOSE SYSTEM THAT CAN BE ECONOMICALLY IMPLEMENTED THROUGH THE JOINT EFFORTS OF LOCAL JURISDICTIONS, THE STATE AND TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS. GOAL 1: A transportation system that is designed to protect the safety of its users. Objective 1: Provide a system of walkways, bikeways and roads that are designed to ensure the safety of pedestrians. Policy 1: Different modes of transportation should be separated to the greatest extent possible. Objective 2 : Require that safety be considered as a top priority in the design, construction and maintenance of existing and planned transportation facilities including but not limited to roadway surfaces, signage, sight clearance , lighting and landscaping. Planning Department Comment Streets in this area are primarily two-lane roads with little or no shoulder and in many places open ditches. Sidewalks are non-existent as well as any provision for bike lanes. A concern that has been raised in this area at prior public hearings is the need for adequate walkways for children walking to school or to catch the school bus. Any development in this area should be reviewed to see that this concern is addressed and provided for. _. GOAL 3 : Establish and maintain the highest feasible level of service for East Hill. Objective 1: Determine the minimum level of service. Policy 1: Develop a plan to obtain minimum level of service. Policy 2 : Work with developers to minimize their development's impact on traffic. 26 Staff Report -• East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 be responsible when emergency services are not adequate for the area. Traffic concerns have been the highest priority issue for the citizens of Kent as well as the staff and elected officials. The amount of growth in the East Hill area in recent years has increased traffic counts to unacceptable levels of service. Increasing densities in this area would cause additional traffic congestion to an area that is already overburdened. By increasing the densities to those suggested by the East Hill Comprehensive Plan Map the estimated p.m. peak hour trips generated would be 2 , 164 versus an estimated 1,563 trips generated under the proposed zoning. This is an increase of 38 percent (SEE chart) . ESTIMATED TRIPS UNDER STAFF RECOMMENDATION Acres Units/Acre Units SF/MF ADT P.M. -.- 145 6 870 SF 81700 870 5 6 30 SF 300 30 100 4. 5 450 SF 41500 450 33 6 198 SF 1,980 198 5 5 25 MF 165 15 TOTAL 288 N/A 1, 573 N/A 15,645 1,563 ESTIMATED TRIPS UNDER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Acres Units/Acre Units SF/MF ADT P.M. 145 12 1,740 MF 11,484 1, 044 5 6 30 SF 300 30 100 6 600 SF 6, 000 600 33 24 792 MF 51227 475 5 5 25 MF 165 15 TOTAL 288 N/A 31187 N/A 23, 176 21164 Percent increase ADT = 48 percent Percent increase PM = 38 percent 25 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 Policy 3 : Coordinate with the cities, county and state to maintain the planned level of service for the East Hill area. Policy 4 : Coordinate the transportation plan with land use patterns and plans. Policy 5: Regularly monitor and evaluate the level _. of service of existing streets and intersections to identify those transportation improvements that will most effectively obtain/maintain the planned level of service for East Hill. Planning Department Comment The Engineering Department has determined that the intersections at 104th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street and _.. 104th Avenue SE and SE 256th Street are both at level of service "F" for traffic service. These two intersections are major east/west arterials onto the East Hill from/to the Kent valley and border this area on the north and south. Creating more east/west corridors to serve the East Hill area is a priority with the City of Kent. Any major development in the past year on the valley floor or on East Hill was approved through SEPA with mitigating agreements to contribute to future east/west corridor projects. Another problem intersection bordering the subject property is the intersection at 116th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street. SE 240th Street is four lanes from the Kent valley floor, east to approximately 108th Avenue SE. At this point a "bottleneck" occurs during a.m. and p.m. peak hours where the four lanes narrow to three. Since the subject area is bordered and served by these problem intersections, the recommendation of lower densities then those shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map would reduce additional impacts. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISH A PLANNED AND COORDINATED SYSTEM OF ,._ PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES FOR EAST HILL THAT PROTECTS THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. THE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES FOR EAST HILL SHOULD BE COST EFFECTIVE TO IMPLEMENT AND MAINTAIN AND SHOULD PROMOTE IN- FILL AND PHASED DEVELOPMENT FROM EXISTING DEVELOPED AREAS. 27 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 GOAL 3: A planned and coordinated storm drainage system that utilizes the natural drainage system without adversely affecting water quality in streams or creeks on East Hill. Objective 1: Preserve vegetation and open space where significant natural drainage systems exist. Policy 1: Allow intermittent or permanent wetlands or streams to satisfy a portion of open space requirements. Policy 2 : Limits on vegetation removal and site coverage shall be required for any development adjacent to streams, creeks, drainage swales or any other watercourse. Planning Department Comment Part of Area C lying west of 108th Avenue SE have natural drainage courses with seasonal ponding and saturated soil conditions. By encouraging single family development, the amount of impervious surface will be reduced. Single family development allows a greater degree of groundwater recharge versus multifamily developments that must pave a greater portion of the lot to provide on site parking. The City will seek to preserve any natural drainage swales through platting or development review. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: 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. Objective 1: Ensure that the design and construction of new development is in harmony with the suburban/rural character of East Hill, while maintaining the feeling of openness that exists throughout the area. GOAL 2: Development that will preserve, maintain and enhance East Hill ' s natural and manmade environments. 28 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 Objective 1: Preserve those natural features which contribute to the aesthetic quality and rural feeling that exists on East Hill, i.e. , streams, lakes, significant views, tall evergreen trees, woodlands and pastures. Planning Department Comment .... This area for the most part is rural in character. The lots are generally large. Gravel driveways, hobby farming, orchards, pastures, and wooded lots all characterize portions of this region. By recommending that a majority of this land be zoned single family, these aesthetic features will be lost at a far less rapid rate then would occur through multifamily development. Objective 3 : Provide for the preservation of historical landmarks and sites. Policy 1: Provide the means to identify, acquire or otherwise preserve properties of historical value. Planning Department Comment Two sites in this area are currently registered on the King County's Historical Preservation Program. The Leigh House (#492 King County) is located at 10445 SE 244th Street. This home was built by early East Hill settlers in 1916. The residents logged off the land, planted an orchard, and operated an egg hatchery. Eight children were raised on this site. Not as much information is known about the other site. The Martin House (#643 King County) is located at 10824 SE 248th STreet and was built in 1907 . This structure is also a typical, early farm house. The City of Kent has pursued the idea of adopting a historic preservation program or entering into an interlocal agreement with the County to administer their program but no program has been adopted at this time. The Kent East Hill Plan recognizes historical sites as a natural feature of the area. Without an adopted plan, the City cannot guarantee preservation but every effort will be made to protect these properties when development occurs on or near the sites. 29 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 II. HISTORY A. Site History Area C was annexed as part of the East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 in spring of 1987 . The annexation occurred as a result of the City of Kent taking over an inadequate water system that was supplying the area. This area is predominantly developed with single family residences on large lots with a rural character. Hobby farming, pastures, orchards, and wooded lots are common. Two large churches are located on SE 248th Street. An 86-unit apartment building is located on a five-acre parcel on SE 256th, near illth Avenue SE. B. Area History The East Hill area was first settled in the early 1900's since that time residential and commercial developments have grown tremendously. Property surrounding this area is primarily residential. Multifamily development occurs -to the west, north, and south of the area. Single family development on similar large lots occur to the east of the area in the County. Major commercial nodes occur at the intersections of SE 240th and 104th Avenue SE and the intersection of SE 256th and 104th Avenue SE. Recently the City approved an 89-lot zero lot line plat known as Walnut Park located south of SE 248th Street, north of SE 252nd Street at approximately lllth Avenue SE. The applicant has plans for a second phase of this plat to include 4 .80 acres within the annexation area known as the Bainton property. III. LAND USE Land use in the area is primarily residential. Two churches are ` located north of SE 248th Street. An existing 86-unit apartment building is located along SE 256th Street known as Stratford Arms. 30 Staff Report -•. East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS A. Significant Physical Features Topography and Hydrology _. The area' s topography is slightly varied. The elevations range from 400 feet to 475 feet. The land slopes generally from east to west at an average grade of one percent. Natural drainage swales and seasonal ponding occur on the easterly portion of the area. Vegetation The property is mainly developed with rural type single family homes. These homes have typical residential landscaping. Many small orchards are in the area as well as open fields and pasture. A few parcels are heavily wooded with mixtures of evergreen and deciduous trees. B. Significant Social Features Street System Significant streets within this area are SE 240th Street , SE 244th Street , SE 248th Street, 116th Avenue SE , and SE 256th Street . One- Hundredth Eighth Avenue SE, SE 252nd street and 112th Avenue SE should also be improved and extended to serve this area. Most of the streets, with the exception of SE 256th Street and SE 240th Street, are two-lane "country" type roads. They have narrow gravel shoulders, open ditches and no sidewalks. As properties develop, right of way for SE 252nd Street, 108th avenue SE, 112th Avenue SE and 114th Avenue SE will have to be obtained and improved. The following right-of-way widths will be required for these streets: _ SE 252nd Street 60 feet in width as centered on the north line of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 22-22-5. 108th Avenue SE 60 feet in width as centered on the westerly line of the NE 1/4 of Section 20-22-5. 31 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 112th Avenue SE 60 feet in width as centered on the easterly line of the westerly half of the NE 1/4 of Section 22-22-5. 114th Avenue SE 60 feet in width as centered on the westerly line of the easterly 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 20-22-5. Water System Most of the area is currently served by City of Kent water. The City is in the process of upgrading some of the old lines that were part of the East Hill Community Well system that originally served this area. Phase I of this project is complete. Phase II is in the design stage with estimated construction completion estimated for 1988. The major water lines serving this area exist along SE 240th Street, 116th Avenue SE, SE 256th Street and SE 248th Street. Another main line extension is planned for--SE 244th Street. Additional water lines may be required as development occurs in the area. Sanitary Sewer System Sanitary sewers serve portions of the area. Main line extensions will be required throughout this section according to the Comprehensive Sewer Plan Map as development occurs in the area. Storm Water System Storm water drainage systems service portions of the subject area. Extensions and additions will be made as the area develops. LIDS A sewer LID #305 applies to a portion of the area adjacent to SE 256th Street and 113th Avenue SE. Fourteen lots are affected. V. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW The Planning Department has reviewed this application in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, present zoning, land use, street system, flood control problems and comments from other departments and finds that: 32 Staff Report ` East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 A. The primary streets within this area are SE 240th Street, 116th Avenue SE, SE 248th Street, SE 244th Street, and SE 256th Street. Many streets within the area need to be extended and/or improved to City standards. Primary intersections serving this area are SE 256th Street and 104th Avenue SE, SE 240th Street and 104th Avenue SE, 116th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street, and SE 248th Street and 104th Avenue SE. The first three mentioned are all at level of service "F" during peak hour traffic. The intersection at SE 248th Street and 104th Avenue SE is close to this level of service. Increasing densities in this area would also increase traffic generated to these intersections which are already at unacceptable levels of service. B. P.M. peak hour trips increase 38 percent between the proposed recommendation and that shown on the Comprehensive Plan. C. There are no flooding problems in the area, however, drainage problems are common on the easterly portion of this section. Since multifamily development typically has more impervious surface causing more runoff, single family zoning is recommended to increase groundwater recharge. D. Water and sewer service are available in this area but extensions may be required to accommodate future development. E. Fire and emergency medical response time to this area is one of the highest in the City. Although the Fire Department is currently in the process of purchasing a station site within this area, construction, personnel and equipment are a few years away. Increasing densities in this area would add an additional strain to existing services. F. Two historic sites are within this area. The City does not currently have a historic preservation program but will try to preserve these sites. G. The property is now zoned R1-20, Single Family Residential. This designation is the interim zoning given to all land annexed to the City of Kent. H. The County zoning of this area prior to annexation was SR 7200 for the majority of the property and RM 2400 (allowing 12 units per acre) for a small portion abutting SE 256th including the Stratford Arms property. 33 Staff Report _ East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 I. The predominant land use in the area is rural type single family residential. Two large churches are also within the area, adjacent to SE 248th Street. An 86-unit apartment is located along SE 256th, near illth Avenue SE known as Stratford Arms. The City recognizes open rural lots with pastures, orchards and trees as natural features to preserve through the East Hill Subarea Plan. J. The Kent East Hill Subarea Plan Map designates the property west of SE 112th extended and north of SE 248th Street as MF 12, Multifamily, up to 12 units per acre. The properties south of SE 252nd are also shown as multifamily allowing 24 units per acre. The Planning Department feels zoning these properties to their highest potential at this time is premature when the City cannot adequately respond to the services these densities would require. The exception is the five acre +/- parcel adjacent to SE 256th Street which is currently developed with 86 units. In order to accommodate the existing development, a zoning of MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential, is appropriate and would permit the existing density of 17 units per acre. K. . The Kent East Hill Subarea Plan Map designates the area east of 112th Avenue SE extended and north of SE 252nd extended as SF 6, Single Family, 4-6 units per acre. The City of Kent has a R1-9. 6 zoning which permits 4 . 5 units per acre. This zoning is recommended for this area in order to keep in line with reduced densities to lessen impacts on City services. The exception is a 4.8 acre parcel located south of SE 248th, adjacent to the former city limit line known as the H. L. Bainton property. This parcel is part of a pending zero lot line single family development. The developer has requested MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential, zoning for the two previous lots so that consistent development standards can be applied to the ultimate development. L. By recommending single family zoning for all of Area C except the existing multifamily development and the property involved in the zero lot line development, the City will be encouraging a variety of housing types that will help balance the number of multifamily developments that have occurred in recent years. Due to high multifamily permit activity in the past few years, multifamily units exceed single family by approximately 25 percent. M. The City Council passed a resolution in October 1986 stating its intent that vacant multifamily zoned lands within the City be reduced by 20 percent. This resolution was passed in response to a number of citizens who had concerns about the 34 Staff Report East Hill Well Annexation Area 2 #AZ-87-2 amount of multifamily development occurring in Kent and the problems (including traffic) generated by this kind of development. Although this resolution did not specifically address how this reduction should occur, options should be left open until this matter is further studied. A multifamily density report has been prepared for the Council's review and is currently being studied by the Planning Committee. VI. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION On July 30, 1987 , the City of Kent staff represented by James Harris, Planning Director; Don Wickstrom, Public Works director; Jim Chandler, Building Official ; Mike Evans, Assistant Fire Marshal and Kathy McClung, Associate Planner, met to review this proposal. Upon discussion of all pertinent factors, the staff recommends the following zoning designations: 1. For the area west of 112th Avenue SE extended and north of SE 248th Street: R1-7 .2, Single Family Residential (7, 200 square foot minimum lot size) . 2 . For the area south of SE 252nd Street: R1-7.2 , Single Family Residential (7 , 200 square foot minimum lot size) except the 4 .80 acre parcel known as Stratford Arms. 3 . Stratford Arms: MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential, allowing 23 units per acre. 4 . H. L. Bainton property south of SE 248th, adjacent to former City boundary: MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential, maximum of six dwelling units per acre. 5. Property east of 112th Avenue SE extended, north of SE 252nd except Bainton property: R1-9 . 6, Single Family Residential (9, 600 square foot minimum lot size) . These conditions shall apply: 1. If the H. L. Bainton property is not developed as proposed under the Walnut Park zero lot line plat, the property shall revert to R1-9. 6 2. As development occurs, property will be deeded to provide right-of-way widths as discussed earlier in this report prior to issuance of a development permit. KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT August 11, 1987 35 CONSENT CALENDAR 3 . City Council Action: Councilmember ' � `���-�� _ moves, Councilmemb r seconds that ConsentCal ndar Items A through be approved . Discussion Action 3A. Approval of Minutes . Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of ti December 22. 1987 . "'Y 3 Approval of Bills . Approval of payment of the bills received through January 8 , 1988 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting C` at 8 : 30 a .m. on January 15 , 1988 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers : _. Check numbers available for vouchers after December 31, 1987 payment. Date Check Numbers Amount / +Approval of checks issued for payroll : C Date Check Numbers Amount 1 12/20 98418 - 98982 $564 , 120. 91 Council Agenda Item No. 3 A-B Kent, Washington December 22, 1987 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7: 00 o'clock p.m. by Mayor Kelleher. Present: Councilmembers Biteman, Dowell, Houser, Johnson and White, City Administrator McFall, City Attorney Driscoll, Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom and Finance Director McCarthy. Also present: Fire Chief Angelo. Council- members Bailey and Woods were not in attendance. Approximately 25 people were at the meeting. PRESENTATIONS Northwest Burn Foundation. Kathleen Rasmussen, Executive Director, and Dr. Dean Grove of the Board of Trustees of the Northwest Burn Foundation, were introduced. Dr. Grove noted that the Kent Fire Department raised over $7000, the highest of the 97 fire departments in the state for the annual "Give Burns the Boot" campaign. Chief Angelo introduced Mike DeHart, coordinator of the drive, and Firemen John Willits, Ernie Rideout, Tom Shepard and Bob Schneider, who were instru- mental in making the drive such a success. An inscribed laser engraved wall clock was presented to the Department. - Kent 2000. In April of 1987 , Mayor Kelleher appointed a committee of 14 to undertake a vision- ary project of looking Out to the Year 2000 and _• making predictions and observations about what our community would look like at that time. The committee was also charged with making recommenda- tions for actions which should be taken to achieve their vision. Council President Jim White, Chairman of the Kent 2000 project, filed the com- mittee report and copies were distributed. INTRODUCTION Mayor Kelleher introduced Ron Jorgensen, Mayor- elect of the City of Pacific, who had come to observe this meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR BITEMAN MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through K be approved. Dowell seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3A) Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of December 1 , 1987 with the following correction on page 2: Reference to the CIP Fund balance of $400, 000 should be corrected to $450, 000. December 22 , 1987 HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3E) SANITATION Sunrise Point Apartments. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale and warranty agreement for continuous operation and maintenance for approximately 1 , 034 feet of water main extension and approximately 541 feet of sanitary sewer extension constructed in the vicinity of 109th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 254th and release of the cash bond upon expira- tion of the one-year period. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3F) TERRA WAREHOUSE. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale and warranty agreement for continuous operation and maintenance for approximately 1 , 030 feet of water main extension constructed in the vicinity of 80th Avenue So. and S. 208th and release of the cash bond upon expiration of the one-year maintenance p-8riod. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3D) ASHLEY MEADOWS. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale and warranty agreement for continuous operation and maintenance for approximately 622 feet of water main extension and approximately 609 feet of sanitary sewer extension, constructed in the vicinity of 119th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 251st and release of the cash bond upon expiration of the one-year maintenance period. " STREETS LID 327 - West Valley Highway Improvements - So. 212th Street to James Street. At the December 1 Council meeting, the public hearing on formation of this LID was closed and action was deferred pending response from the City Attorney ' s Office on issues raised at the public hearing by certain property owners. The City Attorney and Public Works Director have prepared responses concerning these issues. It was recommended that these reports be made a part of the record and the ordi- nance creating LID 327 be adopted. JOHNSON MOVED that the reports be made a part of the record and that Ordinance 2761 be adopted creating LID 327, the West Valley Highway Improvement from South 212th Street to James Street. Houser seconded. Wickstrom clarified for Biteman as to which portion of the Keck property had been assessed. The motion carried. - 2 - December 22, 1987 STREETS LID 321 . A public hearing to confirm the final assessment roll was concluded on December 1 . It was recommended that the Public Works Director ' s responses to the two property owners filing pro- tests on this LID be made a part of the record and that an ordinance be adopted confirming the final assessment roll. JOHNSON MOVED that the Public Works Director ' s responses to the property owners be made a part of the record. Biteman seconded. Motion carried. JOHNSON MOVED that Ordinance 2762 be adopted confirming the final assessment roll for LID 321 . Houser seconded and the motion carried. TRAFFIC CONTROL (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3C) Parking Fine Ordinance. ADOPTION of Ordinance 2759 raising charges for overtime parking from $5 to $10 as approved at the Council meeting of December 1 , 1987. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3G) Carnaby Way Stop Sign. AUTHORIZATION for staff ._ to install a stop sign at the 46th Avenue South and Carnaby Way intersection, in accordance with the recommendation of the Public Works Committee. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3H) Parking and Speed Zones. ADOPTION of Ordinance 2760, in accordance with the Public Works Committee - recommendation, establishing a 30-minute parking zone for one stall on Gowe Stret east of Railroad Avenue and changing the speed limit on 108th Avenue S.E. from Kent-Kangley Road to the city limits to 35 m.p.h. S.E. 110th Place. Alice Milne stated that the City had proposed to have S.E. 11U& Place closed at the time of the Kent Shires development. She noted the traffic hazards in the area and that these would be com- pounded by additional housing units under con- struction. She asked that S.E. 110th Place be closed to traffic and that S.E. 109th be designated as the main road. It was determined that Mrs . Milne would contact the Public Works Director to determine when the Public Works Committee would address this issue. - 3 - December 22, 1987 REZONE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3K) Summer Woods Rezone #RZ-87-2. AUTHORIZATION to set January 5, 1988 as the date for a public hear- ing on an appeal from the Hearing Examiner ' s recom- mendation to deny an application to rezone an area from R1 -7. 2, Single Family Residential to MRM, - Medium Density Multifamily Residential . The sub- ject property is located on the south side of S. E. 240th Street, directly east of 112th Avenue S.E. PLATS Policy on Plat Conditions. At the December 1 Council meeting, Council directed staff to pre- pare alternative recommendations for addressing traffic congestion for future plat applications . The Public Works Committee recommends that the City continue their present method of determining conditions for plats with the addition of the "favored nation" clause for any traffic mitigation agreements that may be required, until such time as the recently established traffic mitigation task force brings forth their recommendations to the Council. JOHNSON MOVED that the Public Works Committee recommendation be accepted. Houser seconded and the motion carried. ZONING Amendments to the "0" Office Zoning District. The Planning Commission recommends that the "0" Office Zoning District be amended to include addi- tional uses that are permitted outright and addi- tional uses that can be applied for under the conditional use permit section. These uses are listed in the staff memo. WHITE MOVED to approve the Planning Commission' s recommendation to amend the "0" Professional and Office Zoning District and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the amending ordinance. Biteman seconded. Motion carried. COUNCIL TRAVEL Johnson stated that he had some lengthy comments on this issue, but that in the interest of time, he would file a written report. BITEMAN MOVED to file the report for the record. White seconded and the motion carried. A copy was given to the City Clerk for this purpose. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Council Chambers Remodel - Architect's Contract. REMODEL A contract for architect services for the remodel of the Kent City Council Chambers has been negoti- ated and acceptance is recommended. 4 - December 22, 1987 COUNCIL CHAMBERS BITEMAN MOVED to authorize the Mayor to execute a REMODEL contract with ARAI/JACKSON, Architects and Planners, for the planning, design and project management of the remodel of the Kent City Council Chambers. Houser seconded. Motion carried. POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3J) Drinking Driver Task Force. ACKNOWLEDGMENT of donations totaling $35 to the Task Force "Keep A _.. Friend Alive" design contest from Kent Chiropractic Clinic, Meeker House Collectibles, Vallee Floral and Pugerudes Beauti-Pleat Draperies. PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3I ) RECREATION Riverbend Golf Course Phase I Project. ACCEPTANCE of Golf Course Phase I staking, clearing and grad- ing as complete and release of retainage to Hall and Lindsay, Inc. upon receipt of State releases. _.. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3B) Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through December 21 , 1987 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 8: 30 a.m. on December 31 , 1987. Approval 4f checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 55809 - 55831 189,972.01 11/30 55838 - 56144 828,157.65 $1,018,129.66 11/21 - 12/10 55832 - 55837 56145 - 56169 223,254.44 12/15 56187 - 56543 762,182.90 $ 985,437.34 Approval of checks issued for payroll: Date Check Numbers Amount 12/5 97785 - 98352 564.702.88 12/10 (Special Police Payroll) 98353 - 98417 34.359.94 5 - .y December 221 1987 COUNCIL COMMITTEES President's Report - Retreat. White noted that the Council ' s annual retreat would be conducted on January 8 and 9 covering planning, goal setting and team building. The retreat will be conducted by Lyle Sumak and will include a tour of the City and meeting with legislators in Olympia as well as regular classes . National League of Cities - Las Vegas. White gave a brief report of the Transportation and Communi- cations Committee ' s action at the National League of Cities conference. Public Works Committee. Johnson noted that the Public Works Committee would meet on Wednesday, December 30 at 4 : 15 in the Engineer ' s building. APPRECIATION Council President White introduced Resolution 1156 expressing the City ' s appreciation to retiring Councilmember Tom Bailey for his dedication over the past eight years of service. DOWELL MOVED to adopt the resolution. Houser seconded and the motion carried. EXECUTIVE SESSION When the regular business had been concluded, at 7 : 40 p.m. , City Administrator McFall requested an executive session for approximately ten minutes to discuss negotiations for acquisition of property. ADJOURNMENT The Council reconvened at 7: 50 and then adjourned. Marie Je , CMC City Clerk 6 - Kent City Council Meeting Date January 5 1988 ` Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: CREATION OF L. I .D. 331 (S.E. 240TH STREET FROM 108TH SE TO 216TH SE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance creating L. I .D. 331 for which a public hearing was held on November 17 , 1987 . In accordance with recommendations of the Public Works Committee the Council , on December 1, 1987 , passed motions to transfer $240.000 from the Unencumbered Sewerage Utility Funds to this L . I .D. project and to reduce the assessments in the same amount . 3 . EXHIBITS : Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Council and 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 . 3C CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ordering the widening and improve- ment of SE 290th Street from 108th Avenue SE to 116th Avenue SE, all in accordance with Resolution No. 1151 of the City Council; establishing Local Improvement District No. 331 and ordering the carrying out of the proposed improvement; providing that payment for the improvement be made in part by special assessments upon the property in the District, payable by the mode of "payment by bonds"; and providing for the issuance and sale of local improvement district warrants redeemable in cash or other short-term financing and local improvement district bonds. WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 1151 adopted October 20, 1987, the City Council declared its intention to order the widening and improvement of SE 240th Street from 108th Avenue SE to 116th Avenue SE and fixed November 17, 1987, at 7:00 p.m. , local time, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall as the time and place for hearing all matters relating to the proposed improvement and all objections thereto and for determining the method of payment for the improvement; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public works of the City caused an estimate to be made of the cost and expense of the proposed improvement and certified that estimate to the City Council, together with all papers and information in his possession touching the proposed improvement, a description of the bound- aries of the proposed local improvement district and a statement of what portion of the cost and expense of the improvement _ should be borne by the property within the proposed district; and WHEREAS, that estimate is accompanied by a diagram of the proposed improvement showing thereon the lots, tracts, parcels of land, and other property which will be specially benefited by the proposed improvement and the estimated cost and expense thereof to be borne by each lot, tract and parcel of land or other property; and WHEREAS, due notice of the above hearing was given in the manner provided by law, and the hearing was held by the City Council on the date and at the time above mentioned, and all objections to the proposed improvement were duly considered and overruled by the City Council, and all persons appearing at such hearing and wishing to be heard were heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined it to be in the best interests of the City that the improvement as hereinafter described be carried out and that a local improvement district be created in connection therewith; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Kent, " Washington (the "City") , orders the widening and improvement of SE 240th Street from 108th Avenue SE to 116th Avenue SE, all as described in Exhibit B attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. All of the foregoing shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications therefor prepared by Director of Public Works of the City and may be modified by the City Council as long as such modification does not affect the purpose of the improvement. Section 2. There is created and established a local improvement district to be called Local Improvement District No. 331 of the City of Kent, Washington (the "District") , the bound- aries or territorial extent of which District are more par- ticularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Section 3. The total estimated cost and expense of the improvement is declared to be $1,440,900. Approximately $1,140,000 of the cost and expense shall be paid by the City and by Urban Arterial Board funds to be received by the City and the balance of such cost and expense shall be borne by and assessed - 2 - against the property specially benefited by such improvement - included in the District embracing as nearly as practicable all property specially benefited by such improvement. Section 4 . In accordance with the provisions of RCW 35.44.047, the City may use any method or combination of methods to compute assessments which may be deemed to fairly reflect the special benefits to the properties being assessed. Section 5. Local improvement district warrants may be issued in payment of the cost and expense of the improvement herein ordered to be assessed, such warrants to be paid out of the Local Improvement Fund, District No. 331, hereinafter created and referred to as the Local Improvement Fund, and, until the bonds referred to in this section are issued and delivered to the purchaser thereof, to bear interest from the date thereof at a rate to be established hereafter by the City Finance Director or his designee, as issuing officer, and to be redeemed in cash and/or by local improvement district bonds herein authorized to be issued, such interest-bearing warrants _.. to be hereafter referred to as "revenue warrants." In the alternative, the City hereafter may provide by ordinance for the issuance of other short-term obligations pursuant to Chapter 39.50 RCW. The City is authorized to issue local improvement district bonds for the District which shall bear interest at a rate and to be payable on or before a date to be hereafter fixed by ordinance. The bonds shall be issued in exchange for and/or in redemption of any and all revenue warrants issued hereunder or other short-term obligations hereafter authorized and not redeemed in cash within twenty days after the expiration of the thirty-day period for the cash payment of assessments without interest on the assessment roll for the District. The bonds shall be redeemed by the collection of special assessments to be - 3 - levied and assessed against the property within the District, payable in annual installments, with interest at a rate to be hereafter fixed by ordinance under the mode of "payment by bonds," as defined by law and the ordinances of the City. The exact form, amount, date, interest rate and denominations of such bonds shall be hereafter fixed by ordinance of the City Council. Such bonds shall be sold in such manner as the City Council shall hereafter determine. Section 6. In all cases where the work necessary to be done in connection with the making of such improvement is car- ried out pursuant to contract upon competitive bids (and the City shall have and reserves the right to reject any and all bids), the call for bids shall include a statement that payment for such work will be made in cash warrants drawn upon the Local i Improvement Fund. Section 7. There is created and established in the office of the City Finance Director the Local Improvement Fund for the District. The proceeds from the sale of revenue warrants or other short-term obligations drawn against the fund which may be issued and sold by the City and the collections of special assessments, interest and penalties thereon shall be deposited into the Local improvement Fund. Cash warrants to the contractor or contractors in payment for the work to be done by them in connection with the improvement and cash warrants in payment for all other items of expense in connection with the improvement shall be issued against the Local Improvement Fund. Section B. Within fifteen (15) days of the passage of this ordinance there shall be filed with the City Finance Director the title of the improvement and District number, a copy of the diagram or print showing the boundaries of the District and the preliminary assessment roll or abstract of such roll showing 4 thereon the lots, tracts and parcels of land that will be spe- cially benefited thereby and the estimated cost and expense of such improvement to be borne by each lot, tract or parcel of land. The City Finance Director shall immediately post the proposed assessment roll upon his index of local improvement assessments against the properties affected by the local improvement. Section 9. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by 13w. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JEN SUE N, CITY CLERK II APPROVED AS TO FORM: P SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY r Passed the _ day of , 1988. Approved the day of 1988• Published the day of 1988' I certify this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK 347It 5 - r , . Kent City Council Meeting Date January 5 , 1988 �1 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance amending the 110" office zoning district of the Zoning Code to include additional uses which are permitted outright and additional uses _. which may be requested under conditional use, 0"approved at the December 22 Council meeting. 3 . EXHIBITS : Proposed ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission and City Council (Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc . ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves , Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No . 3D i I _• i I I it ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to uses in the Professional and Office zoning district, amending Kent City Code 15.04.150. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Kent City Code Section 15.04.150 is amended as follows: 15.04.150. PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE DISTRICT OR 0. Purpose: It is the purpose of this district to provide for areas appropriate for professional and administrative offices. It is intended that such districts shall buffer residential districts _... and the development standards are such that office uses should be compatible with residential districts. A. Principally Permitted Uses. 1. Medical and dental offices; medical and dental laboratory services. 2. Administrative and professional offices such as lawyers, engineers, real estate, accountants, financial offices such as banks, savings and loan institutions, insurance officesL auditing, bookkeeping, architectural and urban planning services, business and management consulting services, advertising services. 3. Veterinary clinics when located no closer than one hundred fifty (150) feet to any residential use, providing the animals are housed indoors (no outside runs) and the building is soundproofed. Soundproofing must be designed by competent acoustical engineers. i I 4. Schools and studios for art, crafts, photography, music, dance. Educational and scientific research, research and development services. i i 5. Blueprinting and photocopying services. 6. Consumer and mercantile credit reporting services, adjustment and collecting services. 7. Detective and protective services. 8. Stenographic services and other duplicating and mailing services. 9. News syndicate services. 10. Employment services. 11. Any other use that is determined by the Planning Director to be of the same general character as the above permitted uses. 12. Municipal uses and buildings, except for such uses and buildings subject to Section 15.04.200. Existing dwellings may be rebuilt, repaired and otherwise changed for human occupancy. Accessory uses for existing dwellings may be constructed. Such uses are garages, carports, storage sheds and fences. B. Accessory Uses. Incidental sales and services, such - as restaurants, pharmacies and retail sales to serve occupants and patrons of permitted uses, when conducted within the same building, provided there is no exterior display or advertising. C. Conditional Uses. 1. Multifamily development over office uses and multifamily developments (apartments and townhouses). 2 - 2. Mortuaries. 3. Beauty and barber services. ,III 4. Tanning salons. i 5. Nail manicuring services. I - ! 6. General Conditional Uses as listed in Section 15.08.030. 7. Retail sales as follows: I As part of a planned development where at least', fifty (50) percent of the total development is for office use. Drive-in restaurants, service stations, drive-in cleaning establishments and other similar retail establishments are not permitted. D. Special Permit Uses. The following uses are permitted provided that they conform to the development standards _.. listed in Section 15.08.020. 1. Churches. 2. Nursery schools and day care centers. E. Development Standards. 1. Minimum lot. 10,000 square feet. 2. Maximum site coverage. Thirty (30) percent. 3. Front yard. Setback twenty-five (25) feet minimum. 4. Side yard. None, except abutting a residential district and then twenty (20) feet minimum. 3 - I _ 5. Rear yard. None, except abutting a residential i district and then twenty (20) feet. 6. Height limitations. Three (3) stories or forty (40) feet. 7. The landscaping requirements of Chapter 15.07 shall apply. F. Signs. The sign regulations of Chapter 15.06 shall apply. G. Off-Street Parking. The off-street parking require- ments of Chapter 15.05 shall apply. H. Development Plan Review. Development plan approval is required, as provided in Section 15.09.010. 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 APPROVED AS TO FORM: SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY - 4 - !Kent City Council Meeting ADD TO CONSENT CALENDAR Date 1-5-88 ( Category Consent Calendar ( SUBJECT: Van Doren' s Landing Preliminary Plat #SU-87-4 Phase I SUMMARY STATEMENT: / Authorize January 19, 1988 as the date to consider the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation t of conditional approval of Van Doren 's Landing Phase I preliminary plat (SU-87-4) , a 30-lot subdivision. The property is located at the southwest corner of 228th Street and West Valley Highway. C C L EXHIBITS• None RECOMMENDATION OF: Hearing Examiner 11/18/87 w/modification 12/18/87 (Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc. ) L C EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: L CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves , Councilmember seconds LDiscussion• Action• Council Agenda Item No. I1 �' Kent City Council Meeting Date January 5 , 1988 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT Z. SUMMARY STATEMENT: In accordance with Resolution 1094 , the Council President , who is Mayor Pro Tempore, shall be selected by the Council in January of even numbered years . The term of the _ Council President shall be for two years unless otherwise determined by a majority of the City Council . The Council President shall administer the Council Budget . Standing Committees and their membership shall be decided by the President " of the Council . Any decisions made by the Council President may be overruled by a majority of the Councilmembers . 3 . EXHIBITS: 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) µ 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves , Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No . 4A Cr Kent City Council Meeting Date January 5, 1988 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: APPOINTMENTS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Mayor Kelleher proposes the following appointments : Human Services Commission u ? Reappointment of Sharon Atkin to 1/1/91 . J Planning Commission Elmira Forner to replace James Byrne to 12/31/90 ransnortation Taak Force Rex Johnson Kent Centennial Committee to January 1990 Midge Sweley Don Campbell y,��n�tiir Marie Jensen Judy Parker Steve Harris 3 . EXHIBITS: 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc . ) 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: �-- Councilmember �� _ moves, Councilmember �,' "" seconds w to confirm the pointments as listed - DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No . 4B R E P O R T S A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT C B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE E 17 C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE ) D. PLANNING AND PARKS COMMITTEE is E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE F. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS —`+