HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 11/21/1989 ... .. ... .r.......................•...................,..ir..«..::.:';'..:..::::::::.'::::::::.:i;<i..::a\i::}..`:.:.,o}}}::<:r:a.;}::<;'}}}'.}:%::.:i:j::i:`:':2:i:::i:::::::i::
CNtof Kent
Y nc
EI Meeting
Cit Cou
�#
Agenda
t
:ns
Mayor Dan Kelleher
Council Members
Jim White, President
Berne Biteman Steve Dowell
111*111 Christi Houser Jon Johnson
Paul Mann Judy Woods
S,4Aj;
November 21 , 1989
Office of the city clerk
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
November 21, 1989
Summary Agenda
City of Kent Council Chambers
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. The Council may add and
act upon other items not listed on this agenda.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
A. Proclamation - Home Care Month
B. Presentation - VATA
2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Lemmon Appeal Dover Place PUD-89-1 and SU-89-2
B. Cam West Appeal Dover Place PUD-89-1 and SU-89-2
C. Adjustment of Salary Ranges
D. Executive Sessions - Procedure
3 . CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes
B. Bills
C. Economic Development Corporation-Resolution
D. Contract for Collection of Solid Waste
E. ATCO-WATT
F. Kent Library Sculpture Commission
G. Annual Accounts Receivable Write-Off
H. Mayor's Appointments
2 4 . OTHER BUSINESS
A. Dover Place Preliminary Subdivision No. SU-89-2
B. Green River Corridor Trail
C. Senior Housing Bond Issue - Ordinance
D. Human Service Roundtable Action Agenda Funding Package
E. Adjustments to the 1990 Budget
5 . BIDS
A. Food Service for Corrections Facility
6 . REPORTS
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time,
make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly
heard.
A. Proclamation - Home Care Month
B. Presentation - VATA
Terry Lewis of the Boeing Company will make a presentation
on the South County Area Transportation Benefit Proposal.
I+0'i 01 1989
CITY OF KENT
CITY CLERK
TO: COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: JIM WHITE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT
RE: Valley Area Transportation Alliance (VATA)
DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 1989
The Valley Area Transportation Alliance (VATA) would like to
make a brief presenttion to the members of the council to express
the business community' s support for the ongoing efforts of the
regional plan for the South King County Transportation Benefit
District.
Mr. Terry Lewis, from the Boeing Company, will be making the
presentation at the Novmeber 21, 1989 council meeting.
JW:am
cc: Dan Kelleher, Mayor
�-• Ed Chow, City Administrator
Marie Jensen, City Clerk
Kent City Council Meeting
lSUvl' Date November 21, 1989
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: LEMMON APPEAL DOVER PLACE PUD-89-1 AND SU-89-2
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This public hearing will consider an
appeal filed by Lucille and John Lemmon of the Hearing
Examiner's recommendation of conditional approval of the Dover
Place PUD-89-1 and Preliminary Subdivision No. SU-89-2 .
MRS. LEMMON HAS FILED A REQUEST TO POSTPONE THE APPEAL HEARING
TO THE DECEMBER 19 COUNCIL MEETING.
3 . EXHIBITS: Postponement request, Notice of Appeal (see other
Business section (Item 4A) of packet for additional material on
Dover Place)
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner 10/25/89 conditional approval
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X _ YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: None
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
MOTION TO POSTPONE HEARING OR
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT
CLOSE HEARING:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councmember seconds
to adopt/modify/deny the findings of/the Hearing Examiner and to
concur with/disagree with the Hearpg Examiner's recommendation
of approval of PUD-89-1 and SU-89-�2 with 17 conditions.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 2A
E c E �.
PJOU 13 1989
CITY OF KENT
._ CITY CLERIC
46,
cz-
J4
/
1;
. I
Office of the City Clerk
220 S . 4th -
859-3370
City of Kent
Order for Transcript for
Appeal from Decision of Hearing Examiner
Resolution 896
Ordinance 2233 (7p
Date Q 1, 6 ��d 1 Appeal filed
Appellant ' s Name
Address �OtSt P�-- SGS �en-�- cyl� `��y3 )
Phone_8Sa-Y��3 Hearing Examiner ' s File No . �) nOVer r r4ct
Date of Hearing Examiner Public Hearing � �/�� q
. CG O/1S% i0n
Date of Hearing Examiner ' s DecisionCo�2�c'o�%e., /ssucc/ ioAs�f9
Notice of appeal must be filed with the City Clerk within 14 days of
the action taken by the Hearing Examiner and must be accompanied by
a $25 filing fee. Treasurer ' s Receipt # 7/0;
Within 30 days of the Hearing Examiner ' s decision, the appellant shall
order from the City Clerk a full transcript of the hearing held before
the Hearing Examiner and must post at the time of the order, security .
in the amount of $100 for each tape to be transcribed. If the actual
cost incurred by the City exceeds the amount posted, the appellant
shall be required to reimburse the City for the excess amount. If the
cost is less tham the amount posted, any credit due will be returned
to the appellant.
Order for Transcript received
Treasurer ' s Receipt # (100 . 00)
NOV 81989 ut
CITY OF KENT _•.
TREASURY
October 16, 1989 aa nn
Oa ! 61989
Mr. Theodore Paul Hunter `
Hearing Examiner
City of Kent r
220 Fourth Ave. S.
Kent, WA 98032
Re: ResryDnse to Cam-West's Request for Reconsideration
PrOPOsed Lover Developrent JU- Y f_oZ
Dear Mr. Hunter:
We the people of Kent, specifically Brier Lane, have the follcwihq objections
to the Proposed Dover Development we would like to submit in r1.
esponse to
Cam-West's Request for Reconsideration.
The proposed Lover Development has reduced its average size lot even further,
to a typical lot size of 4,140 (which was stated on Cam-West's Request for
Reconsideration Exhibit "A" Typical Lot Dimensions of 45 ft by 92 ft. ) They
have enlarged the street width which is great, but to acconmlish this they
have not compromised by eliminating a lot, but rather reduced the lot sizes
even further at the expense of the families who will be living there and the
surroundinq community. Thev have taken even more land from the future
residents.
The people of Kent have been strongly opposing 5,000 sq. ft. lot$ the last
few months and Cam-West want to build a twical lot size which i.5 under the
5,000 sq. ft. , almost 20% under. This would be a gross injustice to this
community, that has an average lot size of 9,600 sq. ft. for single family
homes.
A PUD is suppose to be a buffer between multi-family and single family homes.
As stated by the Citv, if 5,000 sq. ft. lots are passed they are to be for
areas between apartments and single family homes so there would be a gradual
transistion from seeing an apartment, a developed area of 5,000 sq. ft. lot
homes, and then normal single family homes. The Proposed project is surrounded
by R-1 9.6 lots. You are asking us to annrove lots less than 1/2 in ire.
We are even being asked to approve lots sizes which are less than the 5,000
sq, ft.
The Proposed Lover Project is located in the middle of a R-1 9.
(see map, Exhibit A of Brier 6 zoned area
Lane)
True, Dover Development will. have the same minimum requirement of an 8 ft.
back yard, 5 ft. side yard and 20 ft. front yard. However, no homes in Kent
only have this bare minimum yard space due to the fact that the lot sizes
Hearina Examiner
October 16, 1989
Page 2
are a minimum of 7,200 to 9,600 sq. ft. , so their yards are much larger.
Dover Development, with an average lot size of 4,140 sq. ft. will only be
able to have the bare minimum yard space. This in no way will blend in
with the existing neighborhood or community. We will be forcing people to
have their children leave home to plav (in the proposed open space) where
they will be left unattended and out of sight (even worse they will be
forced to play in the street) and the city will be discouraging any gather-
ings or family get-togethers, holiday parties, etc. These are the reasons
people want yards, and yards are the reason people want to own homes
versus condaninums or living in apartments. Space and privacy - this is what
it all entails. The oeople'of Kent and Western Washington have spoken out.
Don't litter our hills with dense housing. When we walk, jog or drive
around our area we want to see space, not door to door housing.
There is also the question of an unsightly parking lot right in the middle of
the north side of the development. Parking lots are for apartments. This
develoFzment will become an extension of Brier Lane. Parking lots do not
fit in with the immediate housing area. They will become a place to park
your broken down car, a source of litter, etc.
According to John Newell, the Engineering consultant for CamrWest, the
fact that in order to install the biofiltration system some of the natural
vegetation, which from his testimonv was the trees on the west side of the
property, will be cut down and replaced by grass. According to page 19
of the Staff Report, 15% of the site must be retained as native vegetation.
The tree plan had been submitted, now they need to bulldoze this area for
installing the biofiltration system. A percentage of the required 15%
vegetation is lost.
Cam-West's map does not clearly show the development's actual dimensions;
lot sizes, roads, open area, passive area, etc. They have barely
qualified for their bonus points and the way they have moved thinqs around
we do not know if they still qualify. For instance, they have added four
additional parking spaces to the active open space. This section of land
can no longer be called open active space. Another case in question would
be lot #36. Hoka do they propose to n_ut in an access way from the lot into
the street. I think an indepth map would clear some of these obvious
concerns. A map showing actual footages, that you can read.
There is also the question of. the CCR's. This was to be submitted but
as to date has not. How will the open space be maintained?
This particular PUD falls way short of its main purpose.
See Exhibit B of Brier Lane
ll.......Y y.lN LACu lIL llJ.
October 16, 1989
Page 3
RESPONSES TO CITY WIDE CaTPREHENSIVE PLAN: "tom 0_?c,"')a17_ /3
GOAL 2, OBJECTIVE 2, POLICY 1:
The City has already stated that 100th Avenue, which is the street our
children use to walk to school, is alreadv substandard and inadepuate.
Adding 39 additional. homes would make it more dangerous and would also
increase the city's liability of a lawsuit.
GOAL 2, OBJECTIVE 2, POLICY 3:
This particular PUD would not be attractive to single-£amily homeowners.
Single-family homeowners desire yards and privacy. Parking lots in
the middle of their development would not be attractive.
GOAL2, OBJECTIVE 2, POLICY 4 :
PUD's belong down in the valley, next to the freeways and work areas.
Thev do not belong on the East I1il.l, which creates urban sprawl..
GOAL 2, OBJECTIVE 3, POLICY 3•
Allowing a private road severely reduces services to this project.
GOAL 2, OBJECTIVE 3, POLICY 4•
Havinq this project on a private road reduces services to it.
GOAL 2, OBJECTIVE 3, POLICY 5•
This project would be in the middle of an already developed area that is
zoned R-1 9.6. No apartments are around the ilmlediate area. This project
would be against this policy.
GOAL 2, OBJECTIVE 3, POLICY 6•
They have refused to help out in the area of sidewalks and street lighting
for the children of this development to enable them to get to school
safely when they walk down 100th- Avenue. 100th Avenue is the only way
to get to the elementary school from this development.
GOAL 2, OBJECTIVE 3, POLICY. 8:
This policy is aimed at improving multi-family neighborhoods. This project
will not improve the quality of development in this particular area.
GOAL 2, OBJECTIVE 3, POLICY 9:
This will not be a new development. THis will be an extension of the
existing Brier Lane develo?xnent as there is only one way to get into Dover
Development and that is through Brier Lane.
Once they plant the trees, it will take approximately 15-20 years before there
would be adequate buffering.
nea.i.uiy Exaitmier
October 16, 1989
Page 4
GOAL 3, OBJECTIVE 1, POLICY 3:
How will the city guarantee any/all services to a project on a private road?
Where will liability fall?
GOAL 3, OBJECTIVE 3, PO.LICY 3:
First of all, this PUD is not in an appropriate area for density. This
development is surrounded by R-1 9.6 zoned areas.
Brier Lane and the surrounding areas already have a variety of lot sizes
(7,200 and up) styles of homes, and a wide range of home prices. A
variety of homes and styles on 7,200 sq. ft. .to 12,000 sq. ft lots would
be comparable to the surrounding community. Havinq this wide range of
lot sizes would increase the variety of home prices.
WE THE UNDERSIGNED REQUEST THAT THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION BE DENIED
AND THE HEARING EY,AMINER RECONAEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF THE PUD.
oZdy'/ SC rl P_JL
/D .s� PL /�-e-��--
�' 3//
1
2.0 7 ZZ�
,�i �/� ���J • � / �,,- ///�r" �(�l ' �,� 0 1 � � �p/11/1t� 6 f���f�A( may) ^�7%
bearing Exanuner
October 16, 1989
Page S
rd
/0 rZ1Ci ..
1,123
.(po r- � � � ��i ire a(-t
l� 3 ,-e
� 03
. ` 2zK 12-
03
25
/Z '4171
< 7
Hearing Examiner
October 16, 1989
Page 6
C I
Z2o3
Cl IC
a19 S' �. F' � �j ' Pl. n�,, r, AA yS�o 31
S-7 3 �
Zo
Q c ACT-- 9�03
A �' S 63/
/� �^71/
v v Y I •is SE.224TM. ST. We 6 R i E 2 La•E EX�I(Li/T rl
eJu
5 '� S p p' •e5° t
-t aA• y i� A t' 2 MANZ °ADD.a VOL.7 -6b• 1aa1 ro �yy -
00 •r•° 508380
,« '• Pa[Pncse D,uS� Rrteµ
I I r c l I r 'ire W gecrss /lA .41 Sf n'xSF L' JJ .A.vf
Sf-
x td
"Al. r !w. A! r/) •5 a, _- __.. ._. -
W
,ro r'')• - Jews/ 0 v'I ,J /S YeiALCr�
It
lW - Ja,,,„ 1 o Pkef•,[4 ABVGR Pi ecJ
a sukRr w,/aed 6�.Q'i.9.G LerJ __ .
o ' &
A`• I ri� t arr R6lT
1 0
C
ry rJJ a.rrer
Mr
10,
' P r
e• Y n r �wr rr ��I r^ '°
�� • , .,
Ilk,,�r Ts X S.[4 ) vi !/
^ I r u A • pc k i � •. �S la e1Bi^0 a 5 °j5i °x� r5ro + a1x
a I`lr� yrA`• a s 5±^ . 1 t vO a ly ..; ,-
�r� ; nss J.JJ //// 1f5 ^rpo0 foe ' y,; ° JO �2 3f •'e°
W Y x)e rLl` Il • !� A IiiO � j59° <r°
� � I PR �ll/� BP�LS.. I ( I2 rr.a«I •,} .-rue rae e[ie
L04D 3E.2
Or
Na i`r<. 1 r.ijAa aZ.' O�{f z' 4; e5^°5� ��ee ,.�'xs5e
ssr.r, aor. 69-33,� 5 y a. • _ n r „
NY a]o .� 171. 3���— v a•a 11 �� � f l >e
to
,�rii •_! 3 A m N reJTrr11 MR.ee
IJ 0 v r - " r? ! 27 R n 26 J 24 23 22 1"t } = j0i se ru (l •A a
�_ - 43 5 *' o"' 3I l�,:'G °- ,. 20 {n «, ° '. ai, Ij_ A 1M 5 cc r• r r r•
TR.A `t ri ii30 •a° 29M1✓r; J°ti wn_ •'i if ri°•'r N I J ae 1
_' ° - r x x r, er a* i i.,..I.•w 4:
d� r r u.4 n•, 5• ° !. •5i ° : r i A i vi su[na w< aow a `i Y rJ Y I ^
\• ei^ne 1'« ° 44 �,• i„ 32 a y it • °p• °rn n.r.'_•wr ) GSM 226 2 �^ • ..-„- '
Y I g ••" '' i"c p5 y i Buare„` i.i) r Y ,
°I'° S'E 228 17�1 CT N Q 1r r l; LrL • Q " •1<•/•IK 1 L, rJ
n ° S r' .r a • „ �' , ,a.ra a � e, v ax 7�i^ ° 1
u•rnsrM ^ r`p o �. oyl� [x •.�, - ,ra'e e a'r 1 ^i !r� , •lt y
J \E-S[ '+yi:e,7 a 'L'+"^i a,•>°�r r 5 39 i_�_s •i Ja e^Pfi'•i i i5 �'�\09\h14O 7.Xi S:Y 05 r ,- r'ir k.«-x e u,a-a♦.•<i oa a r_- n 20
16 IT IB._m - e °oJ•^« ai2°•.1e<ris0•• Lr_r°I 3i 4-i, E ]e' }}2`di )]
nxo I^
41 Y 3 C er.r a.r•I °5a
u f�i
•�: yi• 4 t
S� � r Z 42 + ✓. fp t e ,Cl 'rror •ro u a rm y ti r,5 ° r i, -
f 4 ,e f O ° e..) _ _ - •ei rsxafv I vrr
�� + ' r i e•-0 .r ae A +° "i ilia 13 pv'r'"°r^. E-mrJ�^4° �� p o �� r,r � 1 Y •6 e;
j �y `J 40 '1 "-/o �sO�N� +�..r°°, ^ "�r., .�°°• r r'�B y9° ^ Iz�aiB F,e°'r's � Il A't i.,I ]A r,.5 o W Z,?�r°,)"i �. !.':
(l�\\\, 93i 40 r•+/n �r 3 �N12
Ivrr r .Tn•n"^:ri. I•ro w • Y5 �, r r5 '0 ,..IS rr °2 uc s.av:yra x.7 oN f+,arsz.rs ,,
0 2T
t'
.I!-' prr
�� oK A 1�ouS l N C� �(.�itri�1 T '�P pATE' K,�oRfi f
7W' ;
O t Y41!7 1 61OS9} '��te ome housing is located on the Valley Floor.
� Block Grant funds ftheseeareas I
th�f areas are earmarked for City it is not only areas
infrastructure improvements. However,
which are in need of upgraded infrastructure. For example,
lace. In working to preserve j
that have been annexed into the City do not always have existing `
and/or adequate infrastructure in p the City should of correction.
and protect these existing neighborhoods,
identify such deficiencies and establish a program
While the City provides for adequate public services to existing I
neighborhoods,
it should also insure the protection of existing
residential neighborhoods from incompatible hstheauseoofeopen
This can be accomplished bthrough
hr lug, density gradations,
intrusions. fencing,
space buffers, ' landscaping, means.
intensity gradation, and other appropriate
ere
GOAL 2 : Guide new residential development into and ein aas h manner
e
needed services and facilities areresidential neighborhoods.
which is compatible with existing
ment on
Objective 1_: Encourage new residential close vtooptransportation
suitable areas of the Valley Floor,
corridors .
al 2 , Objective 1 applies solely to the Valley
(Editor' s Note: Go
Floor. ) Policy 1: Designate suitable areas for future
residential development.
po1�2: Expand opportunities for multifamily
development where feasible e a commercial
centers , major transportation
corridors, and
major commuter transit routes.
policy 3 • Retain agricultural and rural residential
opportunities.
obile
poles manufacturedProvide formhousing-
ntial uses in
home parks
and
poles 5: Encourage upper-story reside
commercial and office buildings.
Objective 2 : peas1thenew
necessarytfacilitiesal pandtservices East
are
and West Hills
available.
sin le-family neighborhoods
poll 1; protect existing g
from adverse impacts of n8R/0Z LA
22 J3
Policy 2 : Designate suitable areas for future
residential development.
Policy 3 : Encourage development of new single-family
housing, by creating neighborhood
environments attractive to single-family
builders and homeowners.
Policy 4 : Utilize regulatory measures, such as zoning,
to restrict and discourage development which
contributes to urban sprawl.
Policy 5 : Limit opportunities for multifamily
development.
Policy 6 : Limit expansion of multifamily development in
rural residential areas.
Objective 3 : Guide new residential growth so that it occurs
in a responsible manner, consistent with neighborhood
objectives.
Policy 1: Limit opportunities for high-density
multifamily development, where appropriate.
Policy 2 : Provide opportunities for low-or medium-
density multifamily development in nodes and
near commercial centers.
Policy 3 : Encourage infill development of areas already
served by utilities and transportation
systems, to achieve maximum efficiency in the
provision .of services and preservation of
natural features.
Policy 4 , For undeveloped areas, encourage densities
which promote efficiency in providing needed
utilities and services.
Policy 5 : Provide for increased single-family
residential densities as a transition between
more intensive and less intensive residential
areas.
Policy 6 : Require developments to provide for all
necessary on-site improvements, as well as
their fair share of off-site improvements
needed as a result of the development.
Policy 7 : Through enhanced development standards and
other mechanisms, improve the appearance and
8(Z I O 2 l_
23
"fit" of multifamily developments within the
community.
/Policy 8 . Encourage the use of clustering, zero lot
line, planned unit development and other site
planning techniques to improve the quality of
developments.
Policy 9 : Ensure adequate buffering between new
developments where buffering is needed to
mitigate an adverse impact of the new
development.
Polic 1 Promote annexation as a means of guiding
development which may impact existing
residential areas.
RATIONALE FOR GOAL 2
Kent is an urban area. The large amount of
industrial/commercial/ office development within the City, which
coexists with the residential development here, has forever
changed the rural character that once was. Although the
opportunities for large-lot, pastoral development should be
protected where feasible, the city' s population will presumably
continue to grow and housing will be required for new residents.
By Resolution 1123 , Kent ' s City Council evidenced a desire to
achieve reductions in the density of multifamily housing
developments within the City. Through the Housing Study
authorization, the Planning Department was charged with the task _
of determining areas appropriate for density reductions, for
potential new multifamily areas, or for density increases. Using
input from the September 1988 public meeting and the meetings of
the Housing Advisory Committee, an overall strategy for locating
residential density was established: "Limit new opportunities
for high density multifamily development. Provide opportunities
for low- or medium-density multifamily development in nodes or
near commercial centers. Protect and expand existing single-
family neighborhoods . "
Efficient use of city services--including utilities and
transportation systems--is reinforced through careful density
planning. By concentrating multifamily development in centers ,
advantage can be taken of the economies of scale. By limiting
densities on the urban fringe and encouraging infill development,
continued urban sprawl can be slowed. A gradual integration of
densities--from highest to lowest--creates a smooth transition in
order to protect all housing types .
Higher density developments have typically suffered from
"intensity" problems . Unattractive features of such development
could be mitigated through enhanced development standards or
2 /&2 L -
24
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 21, 1989
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: CAM WEST APPEAL DOVER PLACE PUD-89-1 AND SU-89-2
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This public hearing will consider an
appeal filed by Cam West Development, Inc. of the Hearing
Examiner's recommendation of conditional approval of the Dover
Place PUD-89-1 and Preliminary Subdivision No. SU-89-2 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Notice of Appeal ,(see Other Business section
Item 4A of packet for additional material on Dover Place)
{
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearin `Examiner 10 25 89 conditional approval
(Committee, Staff, ,Wxaminer, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCALA6SONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL. OTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE UIRED: None
SOURCE OF FUG DS.
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT
CLOSE HEARING:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to adopt/modify/deny the findings of the Hearing Examiner and to
concur with/disagree with the Hearing Examiner's recommendation
of approval of PUD-89-1 and SU-89-2 with 17 conditions.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 2B
FROM:CITY OF WENT TO: 226 454 5719 NOU 7, 1989 9:34RM #339 P.02
Ff
T Office of the City Clerk p (,
220 S . 4th V
859- 3370 NOV g 1989 Ll
City of Kent
CITY OF KENT
Order for Transcript for CITY CLERK
Appeal. from Decision of 14earing Examiner
Resolution 896
Ordinance 2233
Date- 11-08-89 Appeal filed 11-08-89
Appellant ' s Name 'Cam-West Development, Inc. (Eric Campbell )
Address P. O. Box 308 , Kirkland, WA 98083-0308
Phone 454-9160
Hearing Examiner' s File No. Dover Place #PUD'89-1 and #SU-89-2
Date of Hearing Examiner Public Hearin 9-6-89 Reconsideration
g filed O-Qd-a2-
Reconsideration decision
Date of Hearing Examiner' s Decision 9-20-89 issued 10-25-89
Notice of appeal must be filed with the City Clerk within 14 days of -
the action taken by the Hearing • Examiner and must be accompanied by
a $25 filing fee. Treasurer ' s Receipt #
Within 30 days _af the Hearing Examiner ' s decision, the appellant shall
order from the City Clerk a full transcript of the hearing held before
the Bearing Examiner and must post at 'the time of the order, security
in the amount of $100 for each tape to be transcribed. If the actual
cost incurred by t e City exceeds the amount posted, the appellant
shall be required to reimburse the City for the excess amount. If the
cost is less thaw the amount posted, any credit due will be returned
to the appellant.
Order for Transcript received Transcript of 9-06-89 Hearing has alre� y
Teen prepared.
Treasurer' s Receipt 0 (100 . 00)
I
Ok o
it
CITY OF KENT
1 CITY COUNCIL
I
21
3 Appeal of Hearing Examiner' s )
Decision and Recommendation )
4 on Dover Place #PUD-89-2 )
j and #SU-89-1, ) NOTICE OF APPEAL
5 i )
Cam-West Development, Inc. , )
6 Appellant j
7
8
1. Appellant. Cam-West Development, Inc. , the applicant for the
9 Planned Unit Development and preliminary plat.
10 2 • Basis for Request. The Kent City Code provides that an
aggrieved party may file a written appeal to the City Council
11 within 14 days of the Hearing Examiner' s decision. The
Hearing Examiner issued a decision on reconsideration in this
12 matter on October 25, 1989.
i
13 3 . Grounds for Appeal.
14 a. The Hearing Examiner has erred in the interpretation of
Section 15. 04 . 080 D. 2 of the Kent Zoning Code. By
15 applying an incorrect interpretation of this section of
the Planned Unit Development ordinance to the Dover Place
16 PUD, the Hearing Examiner has required a reduction in the
number of residential units from 39 to 38 .
17
b. Section 15. 04 . 080 D. 2 concerns Density Bonus Standards
18 in Planned Unit Developments, specifically the density
bonus which may be granted for active recreation areas.
19 ,
Section 15. 04 . 080 D. 2 Active Recreation Areas.
20 � A four (4) percent density bonus may be authorized if at
least ten (10) percent of the site is utilized for active
21 recreational purposes, including but not limited to
jogging/walking trails, pools, children's play areas,
22 etc.
Only that percentage of space contained within accessory
23 structures that is directly used for active recreation
purposes can be included in the ten (10) percent active
24 recreation equipment.
25
i
065AO046 1 11/8/89
FERGUSON 5 BURDELL
KOLL CENTER BELLEVUE
500- 108TH AVENUE N.E.
SUITE 2100
BELLEVUE,WA 98004
(206)453.1711
C. The Hearing Examiner has misinterpreted Section 15. 04 . 080
D.2 by finding that only that percentage of space
1 contained within accessory structures that is directly
used for active recreation purposes can be counted toward
2 the active recreation area requirements, and by finding
that the four percent density bonus for active recreation
3 areas must be denied because the minimum, area requirement
within accessory structures is not met. (Exhibit 1. )
4
d. The staff report submitted to the Hearing Examiner for
5 the September 6, 1989 hearing clearly states that the
site plan for Dover Place PUD shows ten percent of the
6 site will be used for active recreation, describes the
location and nature of the active recreation area and
7 proposes condition as to timing of completion and type
of planting materials. Staff found that Dover Place PUD
8 met the requirements for the four percent density bonus
allowed under Section 15. 04 . 080 D. 2 . (Exhibit 2 . )
9
e. Section 15. 09. 060 of the Kent Zoning Code concerns
10 administrative interpretations and provides that the
Planning Director has the authority to make
it interpretations of the provisions of the code.
(Exhibit 3 . )
12
f. Section 15. 09 . 070 of the Kent Zoning Code concerns
13 Appeals of Administrative Interpretations and provides
that appeals of administrative decisions relating to
14 interpretations of the Code shall be heard and determined
by the Board of Adjustment. The Hearing Examiner has no
15 authority within the Zoning Code to make official
interpretations of the zoning ordinance or to overrule
16 the interpretations of the Planning Director.
(Exhibit 3 . )
17
g. The Planning Director, on November 1, 1989, made an
18 administrative interpretation of Section 15. 04 . 080 D. 2
and found that there is no provision in the PUD chapter
19 (15. 04 . 080) that says a PUD development shall have an
accessory building with active recreation before the ten
20 percent open space calculation can be made. The four
percent density bonus may be granted based on active
21 recreation areas located entirely in outdoor areas.
(Exhibits 4 - 5. )
22
h. The Hearing Examiner makes no other adverse findings in
23 his reconsideration which provide a basis for denial of
the four percent density bonus allowed by Section
24 15. 04 . 080 D. 2 .
25
065AO046 2 11/8/89
FERGUSON&BURDELL
KOLL CENTER BELLEVUE
500- 1 OBTH AVENUE N.E.
SUITE 2100
BELLEVUE.WA 98004
(206)453-1711
i
i. The Appellant accepts all other conditions of approval
as recommended by the Hearing Examiner in his decision
1 of October 25, 1989 .
2 4 . Relief Requested. The Appellant requests that this appeal be
granted, and that PUD-89-1 be approved for 39 units as
3 submitted, consistent with all applicable regulations.
4 DATED this 8th day of November, 1989 .
5
6 By: � (/l'l G /l/j• L =�iY14YI
Nadine M. Zackrisson
7 Attorneys for Applicant Cam-West
Development, Inc.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
065AO046 3 11/8/89
FERGUSON 6 BURDELL
KOLL CENTER BELLEVUE
500- IOSTH AVENUE N.E.
SUITE 2100
BELLEVUE,WA 98004
(206)4S3.1711
Decision on Reconsideration
Dover Place
#PUD-89-1 and #SU-89-2
guests only. This means each residence will have four on-
site parking spaces (above all code minimums) with reserved
guest spaces for 15 vehicles. Conditions to implement this
are detailed in the Decision below. The Hearing Examiner
understands the concerns of the Fire Marshal and citizens
surrounding the site regarding violations of parking
restrictions. However, the Hearing Examiner has no authority
to modify Kent ordinances which address parking requirements.
The applicant has prepared a Parking Assessment Study which
has been reviewed and agreed to by the Kent Planning
Department. The applicant has revised the street widths
beyond what is strictly required by the Kent Zoning Code. Any
further concerns about street widths and parking restrictions
should be directed to policy makers.
4 . The new evidence provided on the proposed active open space
area shows that the four percent density bonus should not be
allowed. Section 15. 04 . 080 (D) (2) of the Kent Zoning Code
states that, for a PUD proposal:
A four (4) percent density bonus may be authorized if at
least ten (10) percent of the site is utilized for active
recreational purposes. . . only that percentage of space
contained within accessory structures that is directly
used for active recreation purposes can be included in
the ten (10) percent active recreation requirement.
(emphasis added)
The applicant provided a clarification of the type of active
recreational area proposed as part of the "Notice of
Reconsideration" . Exhibit on Reconsideration #3 designates
an area with a green border as the "proposed active open space
area" . Statements on the Exhibit indicate that the active
recreation area is for "field sports" and that there would be
one "sport court area" . The designation of the "sport court
area" was changed from a previous indication of a "possible
tennis court" . Thus, although no dimensions of the "sport
court area" are indicated, the size of the "sport court area"
is assumed to be about the size of a tennis court. The
"Notice of Reconsideration" on page 3 states that the "active
recreation area is approximately 28,000 square feet" . This
calculation clearly includes all area within the green border
as an active recreation area. This is in direct conflict with
the ordinance which states that only that percentage of space
contained within accessory structures that is directly used
for active recreation purposes can be counted toward the
active recreation area requirement.
6
EXHIBIT 1
Decision on Reconsideration
Dover Place
#PUD-89-1 and #SU-89-2
The Exhibit indicates no accessory structure for active
recreational purposes. Even if the "sport court area" were
to become an accessory structure, the area designated would
not meet the ten percent requirement. The applicant has
requested a density bonus for an active recreation area. The
granting of this bonus is discretionary. However, certain
minimum code requirements must be met before the bonus can be
requested. The four percent density bonus for active)
recreation areas must be denied because the minimum area
requirement within accessary structures is not met. The
number of proposed residences shown on the revised preliminary
plat (Exhibit on Reconsideration #2) should be reduced
accordingly. This means that 38 dwelling units should be
authorized rather than the proposed 39 . The Hearing Examiner
recommends that the residence be removed from Lot 12 on the
proposed Preliminary Plat and that space allocated to
additional open space or additional guest parking. The final
determination on implementation of density bonus reduction,
however, can be made by the Planning Department.
j
I
Staff Report
V Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
located along the south property line. The
landscape plan for Dover Place indicates a screen
of evergreen conifers to be planted within the 30
foot open space along this southern edge.
Eventually an evergreen screen will visually break
up the facades of homes located along the southern
edge.
Additional landscaping is also proposed along the
south half of the eastern edge. Evergreen and
deciduous trees will help to provide a screen for
new residents from 104th Avenue SE.
2) Active Recreation Areas: A four (4) percent
density bonus may be authorized if at least ten
(10) percent of the site is utilized for active
recreational purposes, including but not limited to
jogging/walking trails, pools, children' s play
areas, etc.
Only that percentage of space contained within
accessory structures that is directly used for
active recreation purposes can be included in the
ten (10) percent active recreation requirement.
Planning Department Comment:
According to the site plan, ten (10) percent of the site
(33 , 105 square feet) will be used for active recreation.
The area designated as active open space is located in
the center of the property between lots 27-30 and 31.
A landscape plan indicates the location of a sport court
and open lawn area. To ensure that residents moving
into the earlier constructed homes have this open space
for their use, the following conditions should be
applied: '
A. The active open recreation area shall be
constructed and operable upon completion of 50
percent of the homes within the Planned Unit
Development.
B. Lawn areas shall be planted using typical lawn
planting techniques (e.g. 4 inches 5-way topsoil,
seed or sod, irrigation system, etc. ) .
9
EXHIBIT 2
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
C. The active open recreation area shall be
permanently maintained by the home owners
association. A maintenance agreement to this effect
shall be included in the Conditions, Covenants and
Restrictions for the project.
3) Storm Water Drainage: A two (2) percent density
bonus may be authorized if storm water drainage
control is accomplished using natural off-site
drainage features. Natural drainage features may
include streams, creeks, ponds, etc.
Planning Department Comment:
Natural off-site drainage features used for storm water
drainage control have not been proposed for this site.
Therefore a two (2) percent density bonus can not be
granted for this project.
4) Native Vegetation: A four (4) percent density
bonus may be authorized if at least fifteen (15)
percent of the native vegetation on the site is
it
left undisturbed in large open areas.
>.,.,.,.
Planning Department Comment:
According to the site plan, fifteen (15) percent of the
site (49 , 658 square feet) will be retained as native
vegetation. The area designated to be retained as
native vegetation includes the area around the perimeter
between the proposed lots and property lines. A tree
plan showing the location of all trees on the site with
a caliper of six inches or greater has been submitted.
To ensure that the native vegetation is left undisturbed
during construction and permanently retained as native
vegetation, the following conditions should be applied:
A. No construction practices of any kind shall take
place within the area designated to be retained in
native vegetation. This excludes such activities
as: vehicle maneuvering, materials storage, etc.
B. The Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions for the
project shall require the proposed native
vegetation area to be designated as permanent and
be left as native vegetation. Further, no voting ~
10
a
Staff Report
Dover Place \
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1 \\\
Planning Department Comment:
A team of designers has been used by the applicant for
this project. These include architects, a landscape
architect, and engineers. Therefore a two (2) percent
density bonus may be granted for this project.
Density Bonus Determination:
The underlying zoning for the subject. property allows
34 .48 units. The applicants have fulfilled the
requirements of numbers 1, 2 4, and 7, therefore, a
fourteen percent (14 percent) density bonus may be
granted. This increase would allow an additional 4 .84
units resulting in a development potential of 39 . 32
units or 39 total developable lots for a single-family
PUD.
II. HISTORY
A. Site History
M The proposed 39-lot subdivision and Planned Unit
Development was reviewed by members of the Subdivision
+ivaa�= Committee at a tentative plat meeting held on June 1,
1989 . All relevant comments and concerns discussed at
the meeting are included in the staff report.
B. Area History
The site is located at the northern boundary of the
recent 142 acre East Hill Well Annexation, Area I, which
was incorporated into the City in 1987. Annexation of
the area occurred as a result of local residents needing
to obtain water services from the City. After much
deliberation by the City Council and community input,
the annexation area was predominantly zoned R1-9 . 6,
Single-family Residential .
Review of City and County maps indicate that a
considerable amount of subdivision activity has occurred
in the area prior to annexation. Most of the
subdivision activity has occurred directly east of 104th
Avenue SE and south of the subject property. The Brier
Lane Subdivision abuts the subject property to the
12
E. City Council Action
1. omp a ensrve Plan
Ai rn , ays of the receipt of the recommendation from the
Planning Commission for the comprehensive Plan for the area of the proposed
annexation, the City Council shall consider the Comprehensive Plan at a
public meeting. The Council may approve or disapprove the Comprehensive
Plan as submitted, modify and approve as modified, or refer the
Comprehensive Plan back to the Planning Commission for further proceedings.
If the matter is referred to the Planning Commission, the Council shall
specify the time within which the Planning Commission shall report back to
the Council with findings and recommendations on the matters referred to
it. An affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total members of
the Council shall be required for approval. Upon approval of the
Comprehensive Plan for the area of the proposed annexation, the Planning
Director shall cause an application to be made to the Hearing Examiner for
recommendations for initial zoning pursuant to the procedures set forth in
this section.
2. Initial Zonin .
pon receipt of the recommendations of the Hearing Examiner
for the initial zoning of the area of the proposed annexation, the Council
shall hold two or more public hearings at least 30 days apart. Notice of
the time and place and purpose of such hearing shall be given by publication
in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and in the area to be
annexed at least 10 days prior to the hearing. The ordinance adopting the
initial zoning may provide that it will become effective upon the annexation
of the area into the City. The City Clerk shall file a certified copy of
the ordinance and any accompaning maps or plats with the County Auditor.
15.09.060 ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION
The Planning Director may make interpretations of the provisions of this
code. Such administrative interpretations shall include determinations of
uses permitted in the various districts, approval or disapproval of
development plans, and zoning permits. Other interpretations may be made as
specific circumstances arise which require such interpretations. The
purpose of such administrative interpretations is to provide a degree of
flexibility in the administration of this code while following the intent of
the City Council.
15.09.070 APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATIONS
Any appeal of administrative decisions relating to the enforcement or
interpretation of this code, unless otherwise specifically provided for in
this chapter, shall be in writing, and shall be filed with the city Clerk
and the Planning Department within ten (10) days after such decision stating
the reasons for such appeal.
A. Said appeal shall be heard by the Board of Adjustment and the Board
of Adjustment shall render its decision within sixty (60) days after the
filing of such appeal with the City Clerk and Planning Department.
6/28/85
- 143 -
EXHIBIT 3
CITY OF MIMI
IN ab November 1, 1989
.►--`
Nadine M. Zackrisson
Ferguson & Burdell
Koll Center Bellevue
500 - 108th Avenue N.E. #2100
Bellevue, WA 98004
Re: Administrative Interpretation of Section 15 . 04 . 080 D. 2 of the
Kent City Code
Dear Ms. Zackrisson:
I have reviewed Section 15. 04 . 080 D.2 of the Kent City Code as per
your request dated October 31, 1989, and find that your
interpretation of this section is correct. The section clearly
states that when there is an accessory structure, only that part
of the structure directly used for active recreation purposes can
be included in the ten (10) percent active recreation requirement.
I cannot find any section in the PUD Chapter (15. 04 . 080) that says
a PUD development shall have an accessory building with active
recreation before the ten (10) percent open space calculation can
be made.
If you have questions concerning my interpretation, please call me
at 859-3390 .
cerely,
James P. Harris
Planning Director
JPH: ca
a:
:,.: EXHIBIT 4
LAW OFFICES OF
Ferguson 8 Burden
KOLL CENTER BELLEVUE
500 108TH AVENUE N.E..1210C
BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 95004
NAOINE M. ZACKRISSON• AICP TELEX: 32-0382 FAX:(206) 454-5719
(206)453-1711
October 31, 1989
Mr. Jim Harris, Planning Director
City of Kent
220 - Fourth Ave. South
Kent, WA 98032
Re: Request for Administrative Interpretation of
Section 15. 04 . 080 D. 2 Kent Zoning Code
Dear Mr. Harris:
Under Section 15. 09 . 060 which provides for administrative
interpretation of the Zoning Code by the Planning Director, I would
like to request an interpretation of Section 15. 04 . 080 D. 2 . This
section concerns Density Bonus Standards in Planned Unit
Developments, specifically the density bonus which may be granted
for active recreation areas.
Section 15 .04 . 080 D.2 Active Recreation
Areas.
A four (4) percent density bonus may be
authorized if at least ten (10) percent of the
site is utilized for active recreational
purposes, including but not limited to
jogging/walking trails, pools, children' s play
areas, etc.
Only that percentage of space contained
within accessory structures that is directly
used for active recreation purposes can be
included in the ten (10) percent active
recreation requirement.
My reading of this section is that it contains two separate
standards by which a project is evaluated. The first is that in
order to obtain the four percent density bonus, at least ten
percent of the site must be used for recreational activities such
as jogging, tennis, children's playgrounds (which might include
swings, slides, etc. ) and similar uses. The entire ten percent can
be provided by such activities, and thereby warrant the four
SEATTLE BELLEVUE ANCHORAGE EXHIBIT 5
Mr. Jim Harris, Planning Director
October 31, 1989
Page 2
percent density bonus. However, if the applicant chooses to
include a clubhouse or community building, a second test is
applied. Only the portion of the building which is actually used
for active recreational purposes can be counted toward the ten
percent requirement. For example, a community building might
include a lounge, meeting rooms, an office, and racquetball courts.
Only the area occupied by the racquetball courts would apply toward
the ten percent active recreation requirement; the other areas
would not.
In other words, it is not necessary to provide an accessory
building as a condition to meeting the ten percent active
recreation requirement. On the contrary, the intent of the
ordinance appears to be to encourage outdoor recreational
opportunities and to discourage or limit the use of indoor space
for active recreation.
I have discussed this question with Stephen Clifton of your
staff and think that my understanding of the ordinance is
consistent with the department' s interpretation. This question,
as you may know, is relevant to a recent Hearing Examiner's
M decision on a small PUD called Dover Place (PUD-89-1) . As we would
like to consider whether or not an appeal should be filed in this
matter, I would very much appreciate a response as quickly as
possible.
Sincerely,
FERGUSON & BURDELL
SC5'I
By:
Nadine M. Zackrisson
NMZ: rlm
cc: Eric Campbell
Stephen Clifton
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 21, 1989
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: ADJUSTMENT OF SALARY RANGES
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The City Council recently acted to grant
greater flexibility in setting salaries for top City officials.
The Council has asked for reconsideration and a public hearing.
3 . EXHIBITS: Letter from Mayor dated 10/31/89 ; memo from City
Administrator.
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor and City Administrator
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES _
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: _
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT
CLOSE HEARING:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 2C
MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
S-bject: DEPARTMENT HEAD SALARY FISCAL NOTE
,,., .ator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 11/17/89 at 0924.
THE IBC TAKES NO POSITION ON THE DEPARTMENT HEAD SALARY RANGE ADJUSTMENT
ISSUE BECAUSE UNTIL THE ACTUAL SALARY ADJUSTMENTS ARE GIVEN THE BUDGET IMPACT
IS UNKNOWN. CONCEIVABLY THERE COULD BE NO CITY WIDE BUDGET IMPACT BECAUSE
THE BUDGET ALLOWS NORMAL MOVEMENT WITHIN THE EXISTING RANGE.
AS BACKGROUND INFORMATION THE 11 DEPARTMENT HEADS AS A WHOLE MAKE $53 , 365
PER MONTH. THE AGGREGATE EXISTING RANGE SYSTEM ALLOWS MOVEMENT TO $58,755
PER MONTH BUT ONE DEPARTMENT HEAD IS AT THE MAXIMUM LEVEL.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY ADMINISTRATOR ED CHOW
DATE: November 16, 1989
SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT HEAD SALARY OPTIONS
Though the City Administration feels that prior Council action to
raise the salary ranges of City department heads by $1, 500 was
appropriate, other alternatives exist. The intent of this proposal
was to raise the ranges with salary adjustments to be made based
on performance evaluations. The evaluations would consider the
unique nature of the department heads job and his or her
performance in that job. Past practices for all City employees
provide for cola and step increases. The department head's pay
plan incorporates this but is based on job performance. Until
actual salary adjustments are made there is no budget impact. Even
after implementation the impact if any, because an amount for cola
adjustments has already been reserved in the budget, will be
absorbed in the departmental budgets.
Other alternatives to the original proposal are:
1) Increase all department heads top allowable salary range by
between $1, 000 and $1, 500 per month.
2) Create a new category for one department head
3) Move one department head to the City Administrator level
4) Do nothing
City administration supports any of the top three._
City of Kent, Washington 1989 Final Budget
SALARY SCHEDULE AND J08 CLASSIFICATION
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR POSITIONS
Salary Range
• Control
Range Job Classification Minimum Point Maximum
Level 1 City Administrator
4 777 5,789 6,800
Level 2 Director of Public Works 3,840 4,655 5,470
Police Chief
Fire Chief
City Attorney
Director of Parks & Recreation
Level 3 Assistant City Administrator 3,457 4,190 4,921
Finance Director
Director of Planning
Information Services Director
- 247 -
15-S*p-89
)
CITY OF KENT _~
EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT PAY PLAN
EXISTING PR0P0SED EXIST[N6 AVA[ LABL[
MINIMUM MAXlMUM MAXlMUM ACTUAL TO PROPOSED
M&XlMUM
LEVEL I 4^ 777 6/800 8, 3O0
� 958 3/342
City Xdm�n ��stratnr �`
LEVEL [ l 3,840 5/470 6`973
S 471"
Fire. Chief .
� 3�0 1 '640
PubliC Works Director ,
5 000 ,
Chief of Polio* . 1 2 970
,
4 90S ,070
City Attorney ,
4 900 2' 070
Parks Director `
LEVEL lll 3,467 4,921 6, 421
4 620 1 '80l °^
Finance Director . �
4 620 1 .801 ~'
Plonning Director .
4 550 1 ,87i
Aast. City Admin. ,
Per5nnnel Director
1 .6�1 ,~^^
� 4 487 1 934
lnForm. Svos D`r*otor
640 380 262`68O
ANNUAL COST
.
* from 5` 330, ratro to 4/1
~
r City of Kent 17-Nov-89
1989 Department Head Salary Comparison
Kent Renton Redmond Auburn Kirkland
--------- --------- --------- -------- ---------
Current Current Current Current Current
------- ------- ------- ------- -------
City Adm/Manager/Mayor 4,958 4,796 4,377 4,934 5,923
Asst City Administrator 4,550 3,982 4,970 Not applicable 2,774
Fire Chief 5,470 4,818 5,023 4,650 4,641
Police Chief 5,000 4,818 5,147 4,650 4,641
Public works Director 5,330 5,060 5,361 4,531 4,632
Parks Director 4,900 4,818 4,669 4,251 4,429
City Attorney 4,900 Contract Contract 4,650 Contract
Finance Director 4,620 4,818 4,475 4,375 4,629
Planning Director 4,620 4,392 4,156 4,213 4,629
Personnel Director 4,530 4,163 4,778 3,758 3,335
Info Services Director 4,487 3,117 Not applicable Not applicable 3,153
Other Benefits:*
City Administrator
Car Allowance 200 Car Phone Car Allowance
Management Benefit 125 Extra Life Ins 275
Management 83 Car Phone Car Allowance
Extra Life Ins 100-200
Longevity:
5 yr 40
10 yr 80
15 yr 120
20 yr 160
20 days vacation
on hire
*All Police and Fire Chiefs have City cars.
_ _ v o
0- Y M �t N P P P In M n O
cou W P O I� �T .Y M N N N M Y1 N N
1� �O �O • �t t0 O O M
O • L i �O N �t T d �t Y v .} M M U O
2 7 i C C I
n U i U O U
C
E O a~0 v d •NO
.t M M U 6
1L L
aI
IT Vl V1 IA pOppp U
i C N M M
i Y �
W al
C M d 1101 0i M in 01 n M N L
N P a] •O 10 10 M N n al
L V U
L v •_^ � �? � v v v v M •_
7
U • a a
4 6
C • � Y Y
L • O o
• Z
< � m
•
•c
d a at w
• Y o M n P Y v� •o m d u w u L
C • n N It •O �O U n 1� L C C C C
0) • M O• O M ' Z m L
U O L C L
U 6 U U O
00 co
G E] N a
•L pE� • E P M M Mrz P rz Z J J
aQ1I m L L
U W W a
P P Pin N d m a
_ � P P OM• Ir •O Vl lr O
al N
M M M M M M M M
C m
Z •
Y
w
a
O a) Y .O N CO m O m Y CO N M n O O O O
s C • P m •O U P 'O �_ v m ^ •O
T N • n P O a0 O � m a0 M
Y V L L
U N 7 C
E U O
Y U
L
0
a) O 0 — ;3 0Go 0 co 0,
M co n
O C E O m COLO M
P N
m d' W
P S
^ 1 M M M Vl 10 10 v
_ vPi Off. P 10 P P lrPi v�i
M N
Y CO O O O O O O O O O
W P VM1 �f O M P P 10 � VMi N N a0
L
J
U i
E m
C 7 O N Ol Ol � ol n � n N N m
N 66 M P P P P P P P
Y
X DD �O
N Y
E • � �T a0 � a0 CO V OD � v v N
t
m
a1
L L
L O L Y U
O Y L O
T aI O Y L •f al
10 L Y U O d L
Y U L Y c C
\ m N L O L a) 0 a! LL
L L L O Y t L U m
al C •^ O Y U O •• Y C
ap
m Q w �a u c o u •« ' c i; m
T t Lo oL a o i c K a rn `•
^ L O Y a) C al m L C W a! T T T T O
< U U W < u 0 N T at al m rn d
U m C C O L Y U Z C C V1 O Ili O
T Y N A Y T M C m O W
m< —
.^ O J m •^ J N C Y Q
U W d d d U u. d d o t
MEMORANDUM
TO: JIM WHITE, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
. FROM: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR \'I_�
DATE: OCTOBER 31, 1989
SUBJECT: RECENT CITY COUNCIL ACTION ADJUSTING SALARY RANGES
The City Council recently took action to grant City Administration
greater flexibility in setting salaries for top city officials.
To be more specific, the Council ' s action enhanced administrative
salary setting flexibility by raising the maximum allowable
salaries permitted in top salary ranges. As you are aware, the
practical impact of this action will be that one city employee who
is now being compensated at the very top step within his range [and
who is therefore ineligible for any further merit increases] will
receive a pay raise.
This action has generated controversy.
Some citizens have expressed concern because they disagree with the
Council ' s action; others have expressed concern because the issue
was discussed in executive session, and then acted upon without
notice to the public.
I wish to offer two suggestions which may not completely satisfy
our critics, but which may help to reduce their level of
dissatisfaction with our decision:
1. In future when the Council intends to act on an item
which it has discussed in executive session, and which
it has determined is not time-sensitive, the Council
should give the motions] it intends to pass a "first
reading" to let people know what we intend to do. Then
any such motion[s] should be automatically scheduled for
a "second reading" and for final passage at the next
consecutive Council meeting two weeks later.
RECENT CITY COUNCIL ACTION ADJUSTING SALARY RANGES
PAGE 2
Such a procedure would give citizens and the press an
opportunity to offer suggestions or criticisms . Even if
we were to implement this procedure and allow public
review of motions which we have discussed in executive
session, it' s important to _note that Council Members
would still be under no obligation to discuss any aspect
of their decision-making rationale if they felt that such
information would be sensitive, confidential, or
privileged.
2 . As a gesture of good faith, courtesy and openness, the
Council should agree to hold a re-consideration vote on
this controversial issue, and we should agree to hold a
public hearing to allow open comments or criticisms of
the subject proposal .
Mr. Chow and I still think that the City Council ' s recent action
was the best step possible considering the circumstances. We are
fully prepared, however, to discuss alternative approaches in
dealing with this situation, and of course should the Council
decide to reverse or change their prior decision, we pledge to work
with you faithfully to implement whatever course of action you
ultimately choose.
Thank you for considering my suggestions. I respectfully request
that you implement them. Please notify me of your decision.
DK: am
SALARY' RANGES (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C)
AND EXECUTIVE (ADDED AT REQUEST OF MAYOR KELLEHER)
SESSIONS It was noted that the Mayor had sent a memo to the
Council dated October 31, relating to the fact that
salary ranges for Administration had been discussed
in executive session and then action to approve
taken immediately after the closed session. The
public has objected to raising the maximum allowable
salary ranges and to the fact that action was taken
without notice to the public. The Mayor has
suggested that after executive sessions, motions
could be given a "first reading" and not pass
ed
until the next Council meeting. He also suggested
that the Council reconsider the matter of the salary
ranges at a public hearing. HOUSER MOVED to
implement the Mayor' s suggestions and Woods
seconded. White noted that he ,had some concern
about the proposal 'to have first and second readings
but that he had no problem with. delaying action
after an executive session. Mayor Kelleher
suggested that a public hearing be held at the next
meeting on both subjects. Houser and Woods
concurred and the motion carried.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 21 1989
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: EXECUTIVE SESSIONS - PROCEDURE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Recently the Council discussed a
personnel issue in an executive session and upon reconvening,
took action. Comments have been received that the public had no
notice that action would be taken after the closed session.
This hearing has been established to receive input from the
public suggesting how executive sessions might be better
conducted.
3 . EXHIBITS: Letter from Mayor dated 10/31/89 ; excerpt from City
Council minutes of 11/7/89 .
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: None
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT
CLOSE HEARING:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember
moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 2D
MEMORANDUM
TO: JIM WHITE, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR �"�
DATE: OCTOBER 31, 1989
SUBJECT: RECENT CITY COUNCIL ACTION ADJUSTING SALARY RANGES
The City Council recently took action to grant City Administration
greater flexibility in setting salaries for top city officials.
To be more specific, the Council ' s action enhanced administrative
salary setting flexibility by raising the maximum allowable
salaries permitted in top salary ranges. As you are aware, the
practical impact of this action will be that one city employee who
is now being compensated at the very top step within his range [and
who is therefore ineligible for any further merit increases] will
receive a pay raise.
This action has generated controversy.
Some citizens have expressed concern because they disagree with the
Council ' s action; others have expressed concern because the issue
was discussed in executive session, and then acted upon without
notice to the public.
I wish to offer two suggestions which may not completely satisfy
our critics, but which may help to reduce their level of
dissatisfaction with our decision:
1. In future when the Council intends to act on an item
which it has discussed in executive session, and which
it has determined is not time-sensitive, the Council
should give the motions] it intends to pass a first
reading" to let people know what we intend to do. Then
any such motion[s] should be automatically scheduled for
a "second reading" and for final passage at the next
consecutive Council meeting two weeks later.
RECENT CITY COUNCIL ACTION ADJUSTING SALARY RANGES
PAGE 2
Such a procedure would give citizens and the press an
opportunity to offer suggestions or criticisms . Even if
we were to implement this procedure and allow public
review of motions which we have discussed in executive
session, it' s important to note that Council Members
would still be under no obligation to discuss any aspect
of their decision-making rationale if they felt that such
information would be sensitive, confidential , or
privileged.
2 . As a gesture of good faith, courtesy and openness, the
Council should agree to hold a re-consideration vote on
this controversial issue, and we should agree to hold a
public hearing to allow open comments or criticisms of
the subject proposal.
Mr. Chow and I still think that the City Council ' s recent action
was the best step possible considering the circumstances. We are
fully prepared, however, to discuss alternative approaches in
dealing with this situation, and of course should the Council
decide to reverse or change their prior decision, we pledge to work
with you faithfully to implement whatever course of action you
ultimately choose.
Thank you for considering my suggestions. I respectfully request
that you implement them. Please notify me of your decision.
DK: am
SALARY. RANGES (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C)
AND EXECUTIVE (ADDED AT REQUEST OF MAYOR KELLEHER)
SESSIONS It was noted that the Mayor had sent a memo to the
Council dated October 31, relating to the fact that
salary ranges for Administration had been discussed
in executive session and then action to approve was
taken ' immediately after the closed session. The
public has objected to raising the maximum allowable
salary ranges and to the fact that action was taken
without notice to the public.. The Mayor has
suggested that after executive sessions, motions
could be given a "first reading" and not passed
until the next Council meeting. He also suggested
that the Council reconsider the matter of the salary
ranges at a public hearing. HOUSER MOVED to
implement the Mayor' s suggestions and Woods
seconded. White noted that he 'had some concern
about the proposal to have first and second readings
but that he had no problem with. delaying action
after an executive session. Mayor Kelleher
suggested that a public hearing be held at the next
meeting on both subjects. Houser and Woods
concurred and the motion carried.
CONSENT CALENDAR
3 . City Council Action:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember �
seconds that Consen alendar Items A through X be approv
ry
Discussion
a"
Action
ti
IJ
3A. Approval of Minutes. )
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
November 7, 1989.
3B. Approval of Bills.
Approval of payment of the bills received through November 17,
1989 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting
at 3 : 00 p.m. on December 1, 1989 .
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
Approval of checks issued for payroll:
Date Check Numbers Amount
Council Agenda
Item No. 3 A-B
Kent, Washington
November 7 , 1989
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at
7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor Kelleher. Present: Councilmembers Dowell, Houser,
Johnson, Mann, White and Woods, City Administrator Chow, City Attorney
Driscoll , Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom,
Finance Director McCarthy, Police Chief Frederiksen, Fire Chief
Angelo, Assistant City Administrator Hansen and Information Services
Director Spang. Parks Director Wilson was not in attendance.
Approximately 100 people were present.
PRESENTATIONS Mayor Kelleher noted that Webelos Pack 506 , Badger
Patrol, was in attendance. He pointed out they are
working on their Activity Pins in Citizenship, and
welcomed them to the meeting.
(PRESENTATIONS - ITEM 1A)
City Administrator Ed Chow, who is the State
Chairman of Vietnam Veterans of America, introduced
Lt. Mike Sweeney and his family. Chow noted that
Sweeney' s father, Capt. Clarence Sweeney, had been
killed in Vietnam on February 71 1967 . Chow and
other Vietnam Veterans presented Sweeney with a flag
and a collage, in honor of Capt. Sweeney.
(PRESENTATIONS - ITEM 1B)
Employee of the Month. Mayor Kelleher announced
that Jan Bannister of the Administration Dept. has
been named Employee of the Month for November. He
noted that she is the Administrative Secretary to
the Mayor, City Administrator and Council, and
commended her for her dedication and
professionalism. He then presented her with the
Employee of the Month plaque.
(PRESENTATIONS - ITEM 1C)
National Bible Week. The Mayor read a proclamation
declaring the week of November 19-26, 1989 as
National Bible Week in the City of Kent and urged
all interested citizens to participate in its
observance.
(PRESENTATIONS - ITEM 1D)
Human Services Month. Mayor Kelleher read a
proclamation declaring November, 1989 as Human
Services Month in the city of Kent. He presented
the proclamation to Rev. Eckfeldt, Chairman of the
Human Services Commission.
_. 1
November 7 , 1989
CONSENT HOUSER MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through L
CALENDAR be approved. Mann seconded and the motion carried.
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A)
Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the
regular Council meeting of October 17 , 1989 .
HEALTH AND (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G)
SANITATION Tudor Square III. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale
and warranty agreement for continuous operation and
maintenance of approximately 11709 feet of water
main extension and 1, 753 feet of sanitary sewer main
extension constructed in the vicinity of S .E. 270th
and lllth Pl. S .E. for Tudor Square III and release
of cash bond after expiration of the maintenance
period.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H)
Seven Oaks East. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale and
warranty agreement for continuous operation and
maintenance of approximately 2 ,033 feet of water
main extension and 2 , 147 feet of sanitary sewer main
extension constructed in the vicinity of S .E. 263rd
and 119th Dr. S.E. for Seven Oaks East and release
of cash bond after expiration of the maintenance
period.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I)
Victoria Ridge. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale and
warranty agreement for continuous operation and
maintenance of approximately 2 ,042 feet of water
main extension, 2 , 128 feet of sanitary sewer
extension, and 885 feet of storm sewer improvements
constructed in the vicinity of Lake Fenwick Road and
S. 272nd for Victoria Ridge and release of cash bond
after expiration of the maintenance period.
STREET (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3L)
VACATION Signature Pointe Street Vacation. ADOPTION of
Resolution 1220 , setting the public hearing date of
December 5, 1989 on the petition of Signature Pointe
Limited Partnership to vacate a portion of the
Hawley Rd.
2 w
November 7, 1989
PRELIMINARY (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E)
SUBDIVISION Dover Place Preliminary Subdivision No. SU-89-2.
AUTHORIZATION to set November 21, 1989 for a public
meeting to consider the Hearing Examiner' s
recommendation of conditional approval of a 39 lot
residential subdivision. The property is 7 . 6 acres
in size and is located north of the intersection of
103rd Ave. S.E. and S.E. 228th St. and abuts a
portion of the west side of 104th Ave. S .E. Upon
Johnson' s question, Planning Director Harris
clarified that this would be a public hearing if an
appeal is filed. Two appeals were subsequently
filed and a public hearing will be conducted on
November 21.
(Two appeals were subsequently filed and a public
hearing will be conducted on November 21. )
PORNOGRAPHIC/ (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B)
OBSCENE American Family Association. Dale Dvorak of the
MATERIALS American Family Association stated that state laws
permit prosecution of businesses which sell or
display pornographic materials, with the county
prosecutor authorized to pursue such cases. He
noted that censorship is not the issue and further,
that videos were the biggest problem. His handout
listed 20 stores in the Kent area which carried
obscene materials. The association has asked that a
trained officer be assigned to this problem for a
few hours a week to investigate such businesses.
Andrea VanGore suggested that Washington Together
Against Pornography could assist in training an
officer. Dowell noted that some of these could also
be zoning infractions inasmuch as the City had adult
entertainment zoning restrictions. WHITE MOVED for
a plan of action to be drafted by the City Attorney,
Police Chief and City Administrator and for such
plan to be considered by the Public Safety
Committee. Dowell seconded and the motion carried.
BUDGET (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A)
1990 Budget. Tonight' s meeting has been set to
receive public input on the City's 1990
Comprehensive Budget. The budget document was
_. 3
November 7 , 1989
BUDGET presented to the Council at a workshop on October 17
and has been available to the public since that
date. Council committees are meeting as scheduled
through November 15 to discuss any possible changes
to the budget.
The meeting of the Council-as-a-whole is scheduled
for November 21 to review any changes and to direct
the preparation of the 1990 Budget ordinance and the
tax levy ordinance to be presented at the Council
meeting of December 5.
The public hearing was opened by Mayor Kelleher. In
response to questions from Anne Biteman of 24324
Military Road, Finance Director McCarthy clarified
that the 1990 Civil Service budget included
provision for a full time person instead of part
time. He also noted that the miscellaneous revenue
reflected rental income and contributions to the
city. He pointed out the differences between the
6 1/2% garbage utility tax and the 3% tax on power,
gas, phone, etc.
Mrs. Biteman commented that the increase in utility
taxes was difficult for retirees and seniors.
McCarthy noted that the City had a lifeline program
with reduced rates for 300 qualifying seniors.
White suggested that McCarthy research the
possibility of lowering the utility taxes and to
report to him and to Mrs. Biteman.
Marvin Eckfeldt, Chairman of the Human Services
Commission, introduced the heads of the 10 agencies
funded by the City under this program. There were
no questions and no further speakers, and WOODS
MOVED to close the public hearing. Houser seconded
and the motion carried.
PURCHASE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J)
AGREEMENT Interlocal Cooperation Purchasing Agreement.
AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign an Interlocal
Cooperation Purchasing Agreement with Mason County,
as recommended by the Public Works Committee.
4
November 7 , 1989
POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C)
Standards for Public Defense Services. As
recommended by the Public Safety Committee, ADOPTION
of Resolution 1219 , establishing standards for
public defense services. The 1989 Legislature
requires each city to adopt such standards for
delivery of public defense services.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F)
Drinking Driver Task Force Donations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of donations to the Drinking Driver
Task Force from Patterson's Optical in the amount of
$10. 00 and Nor-Pac Systems in the amount of $25. 00.
Both will be used for the 1990 Design Contest
awards.
EQUIPMENT (BIDS - ITEM 5A)
RENTAL Articulating Multi-Grader. Bid opening was held
October 20 with three bids received. Each bid
contained some minor variations from the
specifications. The fleet manager has reviewed the
bids, tested the equipment, and has found it
satisfactory for our use. He therefore recommended
_. that the minor discrepancies be waived and the bid
be awarded to the low bidder, Fray Equipment
Company, for the bid amount of $43 , 974 . 00. JOHNSON
SO MOVED. Houser seconded and the motion carried.
SALARY RANGES (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C)
AND EXECUTIVE (ADDED AT REQUEST OF MAYOR KELLEHER)
SESSIONS It was noted that the Mayor had sent a memo to the
Council dated October 31, relating to the fact that
salary ranges for Administration had been discussed
in executive session and then action to approve was
taken immediately after the closed session. The
public has objected to raising the maximum allowable
salary ranges and to the fact that action was taken
without notice to the public. The Mayor has
suggested that after executive sessions, motions
could be given a "first reading" and not passed
until the next Council meeting. He also suggested
that the Council reconsider the matter of the salary
ranges at a public hearing. HOUSER MOVED to
__ 5
November 71 1989
SALARY RANGES implement the Mayor' s suggestions and Woods
AND EXECUTIVE seconded. White noted that he had some concern
SESSIONS about the proposal to have first and second readings
but that he had no problem with delaying action
after an executive session. Mayor Kelleher
suggested that a public hearing be held at the next
meeting on both subjects. Houser and Woods
concurred and the motion carried.
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills
received through October 31, 1989 after auditing by
the Operations Committee at its meeting at 3 : 00 p.m.
on November 15 , 1989 .
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
10/16-10/27 84919-84950 $ 252 , 177 . 13
10/30/89 84951-85364 939 , 634 . 46
$1, 191, 811 . 59
Approval of checks issued for payroll :
10/20/89 126195-126862 $ 742 , 045 .95
11/3/89 126863-127552 753 , 767 . 89
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D)
Early Payoff of LIDS on City-Owned Property.
APPROVAL of the Finance Department proposal to pay
off two LIDS on City-owned property, as discussed at
the Operations Committee meeting of November 1,
1989 . LID 301 with an interest rate of 10 . 35%
through 1993 requires an additional $89 , 830. 00 to
save $23 , 243 . 20 in additional interest costs. LID
300 with an interest rate of 10. 06% through 1995
requires an additional $162 , 603 . 00 to save
$49 , 073 . 18 in additional interest costs.
The analysis, including an IBC fiscal note noting
funding sources, describes the payoff and its net
economic savings in more detail. The proposal
6 M
November 7 , 1989
FINANCE includes the complete payoff of LID 301 due November
15, 1989 . A subsequent analysis relates to paying
off LID 300 on February 15, 1990, assuming the
City's financial condition continues to improve and
no urgent capital need arises for which there is no
other funding option.
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A)
Contribution for Dr. Woods' Trip to Kherson Soviet
Union. After discussion, the Operations Committee
recommends APPROVAL of $500 for partial
reimbursement of travel expenses for Councilperson
Judy Woods for her trip with other City personnel to
Kherson, Soviet Union. The fiscal note reviewed the
Council 's budget for travel, subsistence, and
training and noted that there appear to be available
funds within the budget. The note also showed that
Dr. Woods has had minimal direct travel expenditures
charged against that budget.
Dowell noted that although he feels the sister city
proposal is a good one, that it should be a people-
to-people program rather than government-to-
government, and that it should be funded by the
people participating rather than the City. Jeanne
Humphrey, 23725 156th Ave. S.E. , a member of the
Youth Exchange Society, explained that such a
program must be arranged officially by the
government. She pointed out that the program was
approved by Kherson's council, just as it was in
Kent. She also noted that 33 members of the Youth
Exchange Society will be visiting Kent in the future
and that that visit will not be funded by the City
or taxpayers.
Mann stated that this program does not endorse the
government of the Soviet Union, but rather is an
opportunity to show brotherly love and establish a
relationship with them.
The Mayor said he feels the request is appropriate
and urged the Council to support it. White pointed
out that the Council has stayed within their travel
budget this year, and expects to in the future as
well .
7
November 7 , 1989
FINANCE The motion to approve the appropriation of $500 . 00
to Dr. Woods then carried, with Dowell voting nay.
APPOINTMENTS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K)
Mayor's Appointments. CONFIRMATION of the Mayor' s
following appointments:
Reappointment of Carol Stoner to the Planning
Commission to December 1992 .
Reappointment of Marci Hobbs to the Arts Commission
to October 1993 .
Appointment of Sally Storey to the Arts Commission
to October 1993 to replace Rob Dreblow, whose term
has expired.
Reappointment of Walt Flue to the Board of
Adjustment to February 1995.
REPORTS (REPORTS - ITEM 6C)
Public Works. Johnson noted that the Public Works
Committee will meet at 3 : 00 p.m. on November 14 in
the Engineering Building Conference Room to discuss
the budget.
(REPORTS - ITEM 6F)
Parks Committee. Dowell noted that the Parks
Committee will meet at 4 : 00 p.m. on November 8 , in
the Courtroom.
(REPORTS - ITEM 6G)
Administrative Reports. The Mayor pointed out that
he and Councilmember Woods will be in Kherson,
Soviet Union on November 21. WHITE MOVED that they
be excused from the Council meeting of that date.
Houser seconded and the motion carried.
EXECUTIVE At 8 : 15 p.m. , City Administrator Chow announced that
SESSION there would be an executive session of approximately
20 minutes to discuss potential litigation. No
action will taken.
ADJOURNMENT At 8 : 25 p.m. , the meeting reconvened and adjourned.
Marie Jensen, CMC
City Clerk
8 _w.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 21, 1989
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - Resolution
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution 1 $�lproviding for the
appointment of Jon Johnson to take Berne Biteman's position on
the Board of Directors of the City of Kent Economic Development
Corporation.
Authorization to set a TEFRA hearing on the application of
Continental Mills for Industrial Revenue Bonds for the Council
meeting of December 5 , 1989 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Letter from Jim White.
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL ttOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3C
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Council President Jim White
SUBJECT: EDC Appointment
DATE: November 16 , 1989
-------------------------------------------------------
I have asked Jon Johnson to take Berne Biteman ' s
place on the Board of Directors of the Economic Develop-
ment Corporation. The Corporation is processing an
application for industrial revenue bonds for Continental
Mills and the Council is required to have a public hearing.
We have scheduled this hearing for December 5, 1989.
� N
\v
�. Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 21 1989
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: CONTRACT FOR COLLECTION OF SOLID WASTE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for approval of the
non-exclusive contract for collection of solid waste within Kent
city limits with the Rabanco Company for a period of six months.
Pursuant to Kent City Ordinance 2870, companies providing
collection of solid waste services in the City may either enter
into a contract or continue to provide service if that company
was providing such on the effective date of the ordinance. The
Rabanco Company chose to enter into the contract that was
specified in the Ordinance. That contract is set to expire on
December 19 , 1989 , ninety (90) days from the date of execution.
The company has requested an extension of that contract, which
is permitted by the terms of the contract.
3 . EXHIBITS: Extension contract
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: O erations Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT_ NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember
moves Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3D
EXTENSION OF CONTRACT REGARDING SOLID WASTE HANDLING
This extension of the contract regarding solid waste handling is entered
into this day of December, 1989, between the City of Kent, a Washington
municipal corporation ("City") and the Rabanco Companies, a Washington
partnership, dba Kent Disposal Company ("Contractor") .
WHEREAS, the City of Kent has authority to provide for public health,
safety and welfare pursuant to the Washington State Constitution and,
specifically, for solid waste handling services as provided by state law; and
WHEREAS, from January 1 , 1987, the Contractor has provided solid waste
collection and disposal services within the City on a non-exclusive, interim
basis; and
WHEREAS, the City entered into .a contract regarding solid waste handling
with the Contractor on September 29, 1989, a copy of which is attached and
incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit A; and
of
WHEREAS, the City has determined that it is and extendlallhtermseandtconditeonsbofc
health, safety and welfare to continue
this contract on a non-exclusive basis; NOW, THEREFORE,
In consideration of mutual benefits and promises herein, the parties
hereby agree as follows:
1 . The Contract regarding Solid Waste Handling (Exhibit A) shall be
extended for a period of six months from the expiration date of that contract.
2. All terms and conditions as set forth in that Contract shall continue
in full force and effect with all parties being bound thereto.
This agreement is executed and dated this day of December, 1989.
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
By: '
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
Attest:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
THE RABANCO COMPANIES
By:
WARREN J . RAZORE, PRESIDENT
RABANCO LTD. , INC.
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
COUNTY OF KING )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Warren J . Razore
signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the
instrument, and acknowledged it as the President of Rabanco Ltd. , Inc. as
General Partner of The Rabanco Companies, a general partnership, to be the
free and voluntary act of such general partnership for the uses and purposes
mentioned in the instrument.
Dated this day of 1989•
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, residing at
My commission expires
5601L-2L
a
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 21, 1989
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: ATCO - WATT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of the bill of sale and
warranty agreement for continuous operation and maintenance of
approximately 300 feet of sanitary sewer extension constructed
in the vicinity of 88th Ave. S . and S. 224th for the ATCO-WATT
project and release of the cash bond.
3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3E
3 .
s
J= w'
. - 00
ATCO-WATT
1
Kent City Council Meeting
( Date November 21 , 1989
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: KENT LIBRARY SCULPTURE COMMISSION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to approve the selection of
sculpture by artist Valdis Zarins for the new Kent Library. The
artwork was chosen from proposals by three finalists who were
selected from a field of 95 artists who applied for the
project. The jury for the project was Dr. Judy Woods, Kent City
Council ; Grace Hiranaka, Arts Commission; Jeanne Thorsen and
Thom Richardson, King County Libraries; Laurel Whitehurst, Kent
Library Board; Loralynn Young, Kent Library; Tom Jay and
Elizabeth Sandvig, artists.
3 . EXHIBITS: Artwork proposal (model available at meeting) ; City
art process; project chronology.
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Library project fury, Kent Arts Commission
Kent Library Board Kent Parks Department Kent Parks Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT• NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $33 , 000
SOURCE OF FUNDS: City Art Program Fund (alreadv budgeted)
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3F
CITY ART PROGRAM PROCESS
1. Project listed in City Art Plan
*Kent and King County Library Board input and process
approval
2 . Advisory Panel established
-site
-general scope of project
3 . Jury selects art
4 . Arts Commission reviews and approves
5 . Parks Committee reviews and approves
6. *Kent Library Board reviews and approves
7 . *King County Library Board reviews and approves
8 . City Council reviews and approves
*extra steps incorporated at request of King County
Library System
KENT LIBRARY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
1987 * Project listed in City Art Plan
* Library architect selection committee notified of
Arts Commission interest
1988 * Grace Hiranaka and Liz Carpenter attend Library
Board meetings and propose gallery space designed
by an artist be integrated into new library as a
public art project
* Gallery space (designed by architects) is eventually
integrated into facility at no cost to Arts
Commission budget
* Public art funds now available for an artwork
1989 * Advisory .Panel assembled. Voting Members: Judy
Woods, Grace Hiranaka, Dan Walters, Laurel
Whitehurst, Loralyn Young, Pat Shelby
* February 7 first meeting
-project and sites discussed
-entrance area designated as site for art (after
review of several sites - indoor and outdoor)
-outdoor artwork/sculpture deemed appropriate for
site
* March 9 second meeting
-project prospectus reviewed and approved
* Project advertised
* May 22 first jury meeting
Members: Judy Woods, Grace Hiranaka, Laurel
Whitehurst, Loralyn Young, Tom Jay, Elizabeth
Sandvig (artists) , Jeanne Thorsen (King County
Library)
95 proposals from artists reviewed
3 finalists selected
Finalists notified - each researches project and
puts together specific proposal
* June 26 second jury meeting
-Jeanne Thorsen replaced by Thom Richardson as King
County Library representative
-proposals reviewed
Valdis Zarins selected
Other artists: Larry Anderson, Gerry Tsutakawa
i
Kent City Council Meeting
{\� Date November 21, 1989
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: ANNUAL ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE WRITE-OFF
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to write off $130, 297 . 18 in
City accounts receivable as discussed at the Operations
Committee meeting of 11/15/89 . The amount represents 1. 3% of
total City accounts receivable as of October 31, 1989 . Both the
Finance Department and Law Department feel they have pursued all
cost effective collection efforts. The attached information
describes the City's accounts receivable collection process and
identifies the individual accounts to be written off. The
write-off has a minimal budget impact since all accounts dated
prior to 12/31/87 have been 100% reserved, and those accounts
since 12/31/87 have been 5% reserved. The net budget impact is
therefore approximately $6, 500.
3 . EXHIBITS: As attached.
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Finance Department Law Department Operations
Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: `` �� NO YES _
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended / DIN Not Recommended
6 . EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS: A L.� PAA+L1 L k0 f-G F"0'b S
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
-
Council Agenda
Item No. 3G
MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
^"bject: ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE WRITEOFF FISCAL NOTE
,..,.eator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 11/16/89 at 1008 .
THE IBC RECOMMENDS THE ACCOUNT WRITEOFF AS PROPOSED BY THE FINANCE AND LAW
DEPARTMENTS BECAUSE ADDITIONAL COLLECTION EFFORTS ARE NOT DEEMED TO BE COST
EFFECTIVE. THE WRITEOFFS OF $130, 297. 18 REPRESENTS 1.3% OF TOTAL CITY
RECEIVABLES AND HAS A NET BUDGET IMPACT OF $6,488. 31 SINCE AMOUNTS OLDER
THAN 12/31/87 HAVE ALREADY BEEN 100% RESERVED AND OTHER AMOUNTS OLDER THAN
12/31/88 HAVE BEEN RESERVED AT A 5% RATE. THIS BUDGET IMPACT WILL BE ABSORBED
IN THE INDIVIDUAL FUNDS.
THE IBC FURTHUR NOTES THAT EVEN THOUGH AMOUNTS ARE WRITTEN OFF, THEY CAN STILL
BE COLLECTED AND THAT THE CITY SHOULD MAKE ONE LAST EFFORT TO COLLECT THE
INSURANCE CLAIM FROM A BANKRUPCT CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY ON THE KENT
COMMONS RACKETBALL COURT LEAK. THIS EFFORT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE
STATE OF WASHINGTON INSURANCE COMMISSIONER.
MEMO
DATE: November 9, 1989
TO: Operations Committee /�
FROM: Tony McCarthy, Finance Director 0�
SUBJECT: Account Receivable Writeoffs
Our Accounts Receivable Subsidiary Aging Schedule for October 31,
1989 shows $10, 215, 916 .tq receivables with $375,442 . 94 in the 90 day
and older category. Many in the 90 day and older category are over
12 months past due and we are requesting writeoff authorization for
the following.
Amount Reason
Miscellaneous receivables (a) $112 , 464 . 38 I
60E-gAdfi ZZ143 L Ga y
Parking Citations older than WyIsaH, 11, 003
12/31/87 11, 003 . 00 II
-$330;-s13 12 1301Z91.A �3�433
I. These accounts have been pursued to the maximum that is cost
effective. For many the responsible party cannot be located
or is bankrupt. These accounts include $79 , 597 . 09 for drain-
age charges disputed by the State and determined, by the City
Attorney to be too costly to pursue given the uncertainty of
the outcome. Also some utility accounts are included for
which the responsible party has become bankrupt or for which
we have lost our lein rights.
(a) . All accounts older than 12/31/87 are 100% reserved and
their writeoff will have no budgetary impact.
(b) . Accounts subsequent to 12/31/87 are 5% reserved and will
have a budgetary impact of $�—�. This amount will
be absorbed in the individual fund budqets.
6�488.3►
II . Account is over 18 months past due. Individual billings are
for $5 to $25 parking citations for which further collection
effort is not cost effective.
Attachments: October 31, 1989 Aging Schedule
Receivable Procedures
List of Proposed Writeoffs
OCTOEfR 31, 1969
ACCOUTS RECEIVABLE AGIW SCNEOl4.E Exhibit C
NRiBER OF FM 10/1-10/31 9/1-91no s/1 s/31 Total
ACCOUNTS NEPiBER 0-30 days 30-W days 60-91 days 90F days Due
---------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------
wAL.RM
Riscellwwis 141 001 109,?44.18 1,O<.J6.00 987.54 52,761.i72 164,1t9.54
Traffic Violations 620.0) 455.00 MOO 26,7EA.00 28,554.00
192,743.54
CAPITAL IRFROVEWS 0 150 0.W 0.00 0.00 OM
O.W
HOUSING 0(apt, DEV. 1 1XX 16,710.55 0.00 0.03 0.00 15,710.55
OTHER OKRATIN; PROJECT 1 NXX 5,316X5 0.00 0.00 O.UO 5,316.65
STREET CAPITAL PROJECTS 5 RXX 3 1,166.89 7,081.92 0.001 16.w 333,265.41
PARK CAPITAL PROJECTS 1 PXX 15,161.26 0.0) 0.00 0100 15,161.26
OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS 1 w 0.00 0.00 0.0) 19,92 19.9L �
HATER
Riscellaneous 61 410 4,440.93 3,93r7.63 i,fF7.22 14,702.53 24,941.31
Utility 509,559.07 1EA,016.51 15,906.35 15,569.37 695,U70.30
HATER CAPITAL PROJECT 0 HXX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.W
720,011.61 x
SENERA(
Riscell".01s 32 440 33,128.45 2,753.47 2d. 6 69,867.77 125,7P4 85
5
ULID ai 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.65 6.8 / �MCL, Jtt
Utility 543,209.25 1FA,370.44 15,323.06 X,707.62✓ 733,610.39 f
SENEW CAPITAL PROJ 1 OXX 0.00 0.00 0.0) 461.78 461.78
CALF COURSE 1 480 1,572.64 0.W 0.0) 6.00 1,572.84
EWIFtUT RENTAL 7 510 59.15 2,058.41 O.W 1,515.78 3,633.34
0TRAI. SERVICES 9 0 1,776.13 M.19 310M 0.00 2,408.3O
It✓clW:'E 0 SF,X O.W 0,00 0.GO 0.00 0•01) '
UTILITY CLEARING 2 670 860.17 aN.94 0.0) 0.00 92U.11
Erm DEU OR 0 686 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
SPECIAL R.-ZESSMENTS
295 7 262 3,263.40 0.013 O.W 753.Q9 4,016.49
278 1 251 0.0) 0.01) 0.00 594.35 594.35
280 2 255 0.00 0.03 O.W 339.82 339.82
2, 3 259 3,5bs.25 0.W 0.M 0.0) 3,EtiJ.25
288/92/93/94 27 251 33,026.28 0.00 0.00 3,m.it �,158.39
285/299 �rA3 M 265 36,062.95 0.00 0.00 11,191.06 47,254.01
291 12 261 90,1120.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 9 ,61,om
287/296 9 267 1063,875.-3 O.DO 0.00 12,0M 118,881.77
293 25 N 797,762.07 0.0) 0.00 12,400.42 810,242.49
289 0) 260 66,676.94 0.W 0.00 0.00 66,676.94
3 /3b 8 269 129,177.BO 0.00 0.00 O.W 129,177.80
3MI311 10 272 197,9F�2.90 DA 0.00 512.87 198,MZ.77
3W/307/.309 47 273 516,659.17 0.00 0.90 17,176.70 533,835.87
3U8/314/317 24 274 258,136.01 O.00 O.W 244.95 258,sq).96
313 34 268 Z'O,IW.33 0.00 0.00 11,905.21 232,005.54
297/31O/318 95 275 1,3P2,261.R9 0.00 0.0) 50,267.64 1,422,529.53
316/19/20121/24 110 270 9t8,063.3) 0.00O.W 22,399.94 9EG,463.33
322/323/321., 158 279 975,973.77 0.00 0.00 8.00 975,973.77
327 49 280 2,135,776.65 0.01) 0.00 03) 2,M,776.65
23XX TOTALS 644 5,774,500.34 0J00 0.00 143,004.70 8,053,2E3.69
.......... ------------- ------------- ------------ -----------
TOTAL ACtWS RECEIVABLE 9,463,229.51 ,130.31 ?5,113.53 375,442.44 10,215,916.29
OCTOPI 31, 1989
ACJ.OIINIS RECEIVABLE AGING SCNEOULE Exhibit C
HIM OF FUND 10/1-10/31 9/1-9/30 8/1-8/31 Total
ACM KS NNE 0-30 days 30-60 days 60-90 days 0 daya ------- D`x--•------
HISCELIANEOUS 264 519,557.0] 17,288.36 3,194.10 159,345.40 6%,Sam
TRAFFIC VIOLATIOPti 620.00 455.00 690.00 26,789.00 28,5°.A.00
UTILITY 1,052,767.32 304,;`d6.95 31,2Z3.43 46,296.99 1,434,680.69
D.00 O.I0 141,011.55 8,053,2%.54
SPECIAL AMSSMITS 645 5,774,508.34 ............. -----_•-____
TOTAL At�i1QfTS RECEIVABLE 7,347,452.86 am 1 o.31 35,11m3 375,442.94 10,215 916.29
ascvsmG v
RECEIVABLE PROCEDURES
This receivable write-off request is based on our current
practice, which involves the following steps:
1. Initial billing for all receivables is the original
invoice. Parking citations receive a billing in
addition to the ticket because the ticket does not
always go to the registered owner of the vehicle.
2 . Past due notices are sent to all accounts 30 days
after due date except for special assessments which
are annual billings per state law.
3 . A second notice is sent 60 days after due date
except for parking citations for which a second
notice to collect $10. 00 is not cost effective. With
three tickets, information is turned over to State of
Washington Motor Vehicle Division, with a hold placed
on vehicle license.
4 . Those accounts still delinquent after 90 days are
referred to the City Attorney for further action.
5a. Door hanger for nonpayment of water utility account.
b. Letter from City Attorney for nonpayment of other
accounts following filing of property lien for non-
payment of utility service. Lein is good for only 6
months.
6a. Water cutoff for non payment of water service. b.
Foreclosure action for special assessments. C. Small
claims court for other accounts if cost effective
7 . Account write-off.
WtITEO F SCHEDULE 10-31-89
FUND ORG DATE HAKE Atom SERVICE INVOICE COfiffS
410 GOOD 85/00/00 BISHOP ROAD HATER CO 476.15 0 IN HATER DIST #111/OFF AXT R/0 A/411C(LIECTABLE
476.15
001 1500 86/O2/ll CROY, STEVEN 100j)o REUOUPHEHT OF PUBLIC DEFENDER 3876 9/0 A/NO REW P UT ORDERED
001 1.500 66/05/ll•2 HAYFORD, OkD 200.00 REM11HENT OF PUBLIC DEFENDER 3_n H/0 A/M 2 YEARS OLD
410 DODO 86/08/31 JT AWN())HFANY 9.23 UTIL TFR#730M CAM ONLY 8523\ Hp A/LOST LIEN RIGHTS
440 DODO 86/173/31 JT •I4CM COHPANY 460.01 UTIL TFR#7303 4756 366 GA2HA� LILY 89..%/ H/0 A/LOST LIEN RIGHTS
440 5595 86/12/11 JONES&ROBERTS L5O.66 REPAIR FEE H�A/ATTOk1�Y PURSUING
001 5623 86/12/11 JONES&ROBERTS 2,061.M TRAFFIC TEMIGIAN 4756 4/0 WE 2 YEARS OLD
GOi 5510 86112M FEY, STEVEN 1,152.11 REPAIR STREET LIGHT 5183 N/0 A/NRAED OVER TO ATT
001 5530 86/12/29 BEKEL, MIS 1,247.91 REPAIR STREET LIGHT 5185 H/O AJURNED OVER TO ATT
410 0000 bpi/12r1 CLAUSSEN, L.A. 5.45 UTIL TFR. #576-2356 GARBAGE OILY 8922\ H/O Ap3T LIEN RIGHTS
440 0000 86/12/31 CLAIISEN, L.A. 315.Q UTIL TFR. #576-25S% GA 9)GE(PLY 8922 / H/O A/LOST LIEN RIGHTS
--------------
5,721.85
440 OOOO 87/02/07 DEPT OF TRAHSF%TATIOH 70,036.36 UTILITY ACCHT TRANSFER 5474\ 4/0 A/SIfIT T00 COSTLY
410 0000 87/02/07 DEFT OF TRK-PNTATIO14 1,560.73 UTILITY TRANSFER 5474 / 4/0 A/SUIT TOO COSTLY
001 O0[A) 87/04/30 HILLER, GRAHAM 21,0)0.00 BAU.P1/kEC WRITE OFF BY ATTNY 5075 N/0 A/BANKRUPTCY
001 ]500 87/04/30 KELLEHER, DALE 1Ea),00 RECOLFKHT OF ATTORNEY FEES 4!I38 H/O A/AO RECGt4D FOUND
C01 15M 97/04/30 JONES, DARNELL 125.00 R£COUPHENT OF ATTORNEY FEES 4939 W/O A/HO RECOLPKENT ORDERED
OOl 1500 67/04/30 HITCHELL, JOHN 100.00 RECC9)PfEHT OF ATTORNEY FEES 49C H/0 Aj`MR 2 YEARS OLD
001 1500 87/05/01 HERTZLER, HICHAEL 125.00 REGOUPfEW OF PUBLIC DEFENSE 4941 H/0 A/NO RECORD FOUND
001 1500 87/06/10 NADLEY, JEFFREY 100.00 REW)PHENT CL PUBLIC,DEFENSE 3966 H/O A/UIER 2 YEARS OLD
001 1500 97/07/16 HASCA, MICHAEL 100.00 R£CI1k91EHT SERVICE FEES 4942 H/O kW REC-0RO FOIX
OUi 2331 87/09/02 CENTRAL STATES TWIN 1,723,71 OVERTIHfE&OTHER SERVICES WY3 HA A/ATTURHEY PURSUING
001 15M 87/09/22 CANTRELL, CHARLES 1SOM RECO(P"EHT OF PUBLIC DEFENSE 6215 RA A/COURT DISMISSED
001 1500 87/09/12 C0KIH, KENETH 150.00 REC(1. UT OF PUBLIC DEFENSE 6212 HA A/ JRT DISMISSED
001 15w 87/09/22 BMW, DAVID 150.00 R£COUPHENT OF PUBLIC DEFENSE 6213 WA A/OVER 2 YEARS OLD
001 15M 87/10/06 FEW'£, ERRY 1ii.00 REC13UPHENT OF PUBLIC DEFENSE 6216 H/O AM)RECORD FOUND
001 1500 87/10/12 SULLIVAH, DANIEL 150.00 RECfJJPHENT OF PUBLIC DEFENSE 6217 H/O A/COURT DISMISSED
O01 150) 97/10/21 KAPP, FRED 125.00 R£COUPHENT OF PUBLIC DEFENSE 6221 Hp A/CGURT DISHIM
001 15W 97/11/04 LABOYNE, JEANNETTE 150.00 RECOUPMENT OF PUBLIC DEFENSE 6224 H/O A/OVER 2 YEARS OLD
Lot 5530 87/11/1)<i PORTER, ROBERT 1,546.41 REPAIR DMAGED POLE 6643 4/0 A/ATTORNEY PURSUING
DOt 5530 97/11/05 KING, STEVEN M.17 REPAIR DAHAGED POLE 5642 H/O A/00 2 YEARS OLD
--------------
106,2C6.36
RRITEOFF SCHEDULE I0-3149
FUND ORG DATE NAME WNT SERVICE INVOICE COMMENTS
001 1500 68/Ul/04 HALTER, CARL 150.00 REMYrE1{T OF PUBLIC DEFENSE 6226 RA A/NO RECOUPMENT MD
440 0000 68/ol/27 SOUTH KC ACTIVITY W R W2.61 UTILITY ACCOUNT TRANSFER 6759\ HA A/BAHKR PTCY
410 l>OCiI 88/01/27 SOUTH KC ACTIVITY G11TR 167.01 UTILITY ACL'O K TRANSFER 6759/ H/O A/BAMPIFTCY
410 5550 8C/03/11 ROGER;&SONS 23.68 HYDRANT RATER PERMIT 6658 N/0 A/RETURHED MAIL
001 - 2331 66/041W MAY TRUCKING 0.10 DIESEL SPILL 6136 W/o A/ATTORH<1'PLVFm%
0) W 80/05/17 FIRESIDE INN 2,435.30 UTILITY TRANSFER 7060\ H/O A/4AHKRUPTL'Y
410 Oo60 89/05/17 FIRESIDE INN 49.01 UTILITY TRANSFER 7960 / 4/0 A/£'AMWTCY
DOI 55.a oo/D5/26 MAY TRUCKING M.40 HORK ORDER#75339 7011 9/0 A/ATTORNEY PURSUING
OD1 5530 so/10/10 1Y1m, AR"DO i41.83 GAS SPILL LABOR&EQUIP 7484 R/O A/RETURHED MAIL
410 555o 60/10/17 GREAT NORTHERN DEV 25.DO HYDRANT HATER PERMIT 7489 H/U A/RE111RNED HAIL I
1 0000 88 11 15 S41RA, BRIAN 225.00 DECEMBER RENT 744E N ERkOR JL oN
(Y)1 553A 88/12 AU S aR 5Q5 94 REPAIR LIGHT FME 1N<3-_W68 7943 Nm A/UffilLECTABLE 859^ 7
5,501.63
O<ll 2210 89AII20 ZEINER, LISA 250.00 DAWES TO 37 CAPRICE B8O.8244 7730\ H/D A/REA)RIED MAIL ,
510 5544 89/01/20 ZEINER,LISA 779.72 DAMAGE TO 87 CAPRICE #860-8244 7730/ N/0 A/RETURHED MAIL
440 0000 89/02/17 BLAIML, RICHARD 479.4) #.W-0120 DELINQ UTILITY BILL GO13 H/0 A/DUT OF CRT SETTLEMENT
001 5530 89/02/22 GEORGE, LEE 30.24 AX CLEAMIP#00-01297 7944 N/0 A/RETTIR?ED NAIL
^0 5510 89/03/06 FRANKLIN&NATKINS 16.r',U PHOTO 6 YR TIP REPORTS T174 H/0 A/ATT RF1Sk MATIOH
•-A DOW 89p/-28 KALBACH, HARRY 25.78 WAGE UTILITY BILL 9173\ N/0 A/UNAFIE TO LOCATE
410 DODO 89/D3/28 KALBACH, My 0.39 CAM UTILITY BILL 8173/ H/0 AJl1HAPJ..E TO LOCATE
001 66A 89/04/20 CONKLIN, RU;;SELL 341.73 REPAIR TREE/JAM0 &HILLTOP 7279 N/O A/RETURNED MAIL
--------------
1,923.06
TOTAL ATT WRITEOFF 119,893.12
\ y
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 21 , 1989
I� Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: -mAyeR''S APPOINTMENTS .
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor's appointments `
a.s� L
Z/q 4
k Y t 0/93
- >�iter� n hru t0/93
�jCir ��cira iofa3
z�nK Zaratk+��' �Gz
l 1 C�(i 1�U irla rc
I'll � I �f f YIfYUC�i.I[ -Pc� r'li � � , p .JUHti�C1ti
it t, 6W CI j e rl C (2 r f5
mc�9 + ha+ { hes� cz��c��ntm 1
3 . He U
<E>� ScCcd
f-he (l 0fi ar, Ca r e c .
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3H
u � Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 21, 1989
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: DOVER PLACE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION NO. SU-89-2
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider the Hearing
Examiner's recommendation of conditional approval of the Dover
Place 39-lot residential subdivision No. SU-89-2 . The property
is located north of 103rd Ave. S.E. and S.E. 228th St.
intersection abutting a portion of the west side of 104th Ave.
S.E. This plat .is part of the Dover Place planned unit
development also approved by the Hearing Examiner.
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo, staff report, minutes, findings and
recommendations, request for reconsideration, decision on
reconsideration.
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner 10/25/89 conditional approval
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: None
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to adopt/modify/deny the findings of the Hearing Examiner and to
concur with/disagree with the Hearing Examiner's recommendation
of approval of Dover Place Preliminary Subdivision No. SU-89-2
with seven conditions.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4A
` -4
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
November 16, 1989
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: DOVER PLACE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION #SU-89-2
On September 6, 1989 the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing to consider
a request by Cam-West Development Inc for a 39-lot residential subdivision.
The subdivision is incorporated with a Planned Unit Development. The
property is 7 . 6 acres in size and is located north of the 103rd Avenue SE and
SE 228th Street intersection, abutting a portion of the west side of 104th
Avenue SE.
The Hearing Examiner issued a Decision on Reconsideration on October 25, 1989
recommending conditional approval of the preliminary subdivision and PUD.
Conditions of the Preliminary Subdivision are:
1. As to the Preliminary Plat element of the application:
A. Approval of a PUD permit as modified and conditioned in accordance
with this recommendation.
B. Prior to recordation of the final plat:
1. Design private streets to meet City standards
regarding pavement structure, concrete curb and sidewalks,
street lighting, drainage systems, street name signs and other
items consistent with good street construction practices as
determined by the City;
2 . Deed a 20 foot right-of-way along 104th Ave SE to the City for
street purposes;
3 . Design on-site storm water detention and water release at a
non-erosive point and extend storm drain facilities to
adjacent property lines with necessary easements as required
by the City;
4 . Provide public water systems to meet fire flow and domestic
flow requirements with a minimum size of a six-inch diameter;
5. Provide public gravity sewer service to all lots and extend
to adjacent property lines as determined by the City;
6. Provide a plat notation and necessary implementation measures
to assure that no .vehicle access to the proposed development
will be allowed from 104th Avenue SE.
CA:JPH:ca
DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION
BY THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT
FILE NO: DOVER PLACE #PUD-89-1 AND #SU-89-2
APPLICANT: CAMWEST DEVELOPMENT, INC.
REQUEST: Request for reconsideration on Denial issued on
September 20, 1989
LOCATION: The property is located north of the 103rd Avenue SE
and SE 228th Street intersection, abutting a portion
of the west side of 104th Avenue SE.
HEARING DATE: September 6, 1989
RECOMMENDATION
ISSUED: September 20, 1989
RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL
NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
FILED: October 4 , 1989
RECONSIDERATION
ISSUED: October 25, 1989
RECOMMENDATION
ON
RECONSIDERATION: APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS
INTRODUCTION
The applicant applied for approval of both a Planned Development
(PUD) permit and approval of a preliminary plat. Section 15. 04.080
E (6) of the Kent Zoning Code authorizes consolidation of the PUD
review process with other land use permit processes required by
other sections of the Code. A hearing was held on the consolidated
application on September 6, 1989. The recommendation of the
Hearing Examiner was issued on September 20, 1989. The Hearing
Examiner concluded that the application for preliminary plat
approval is in compliance with applicable provisions of Kent
Subdivision Code and should be approved with conditions as noted
in the recommendation. However, the Hearing Examiner also
concluded that approval of the PUD application as proposed would
not have a beneficial effect upon the community which would not
normally be achieved by traditional lot-by-lot development and may
be detrimental to existing surrounding land uses. Specific reasons
for this conclusion are detailed in the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation of September 20, 1989.
1
Decision on Reconsideration
Dover Place
#PUD-89-1 and #SU-89-2
Because the application for PUD approval was consolidated with the
application for approval of a preliminary plat, and because it was
determined that the PUD application could not be approved as
proposed, the Hearing Examiner recommended denial of the
consolidated application. A "Notice of Reconsideration" of this
decision was filed by the applicant. The Kent City Code allows an
applicant, or any aggrieved person, to request reconsideration of
a Hearing Examiner recommendation. Upon receipt of such a request,
the Hearing Examiner "may . . . take further action as he or she
deems proper" . See, KCC 2 . 54 . 150. The applicant is not entitled
to reconsideration; reconsideration is granted only if the Hearing
Examiner chooses to do so. The "Notice of Reconsideration" filed
by the applicant will be treated as a request for reconsideration.
Public notice of the request for reconsideration was provided to
all who testified at the public hearing and to those who
specifically requested notice of the Hearing Examiner decision.
A ten day period was allowed for written responses to the
applicant' s request for reconsideration. The Hearing Examiner has
reviewed the request for reconsideration and all written material
received during the public response period. This Decision on
Reconsideration is the final decision of the Hearing Examiner in
this matter. This decision is a recommendation to the Kent City
Council. Pursuant to City ordinances, the City Council has the
final authority to act on this application.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. The request for reconsideration was timely filed. At least
two people responded to the request for reconsideration by
alleging it was not filed within 14 days of the Hearing
Examiner decision. The decision was issued on September 20th.
The "Notice of Reconsideration" was filed on October 4th
according to the applicant's documents but stamped as October
3rd by the Planning Department. The question raised is
whether a filing on October 4th is within the 14 day period.
Computation of time periods is not addressed in the Hearing
Examiner ordinance or the Kent Zoning Code. However, state
statutes and court rules have addressed this issue. These
statutes and rules provide the appropriate guidance for
computation of time periods. RCW 1. 12 .040 states that " The
time within which an act is to be done . shall be computed
by excluding the first day, and including the last . . . " .
Court rules also follow this procedure. See, CR 6 (a) and RAP
18 . 6. This computation method means that October 4th would
2
Decision on Reconsideration
Dover Place
#PUD-89-1 and #SU-89-2
be the last day to file a request for reconsideration. The
request of the applicant in this matter was apparently filed
on that day. It was therefore filed in a timely manner.
Because the computation method of state statute and court rule
is not expressly adopted in the Hearing Examiner ordinance of
the City of Kent, a wiser approach would have been to file at
least a day sooner. However, it would be unfair to deny a
request for reconsideration based on untimely filing when the
filing occurred within the 14 day period as customarily
computed and as computed by state statute and court rules.
2 . The new evidence Provided by the applicant complies with the
filing requirements for a PUD application. The decision of
the Hearing Examiner issued September 20th identified two
elements essential to the Hearing Examiner' s ability to render
a decision on the PUD application which had not been submitted
into evidence for review and action. Both a parking
assessment study and a designation of the type of active open
space are critical to a determination of whether the proposed
PUD can be approved under the review criteria set forth in
Section 15. 04 . 080 F of the Kent Zoning Ordinance.
-• The applicant submitted several exhibits with the Notice of
Reconsideration. These include: (1) a report by the Transpo
Group dated October 2nd and entitled "Dover Place PUD -
Parking Assessment Study; (2) a " Preliminary Plat of Dover
Place; Conceptual PUD Plan - #1" dated "revised September 25,
1989" prepared by John R. Newell, Inc. and; (3) a "Conceptual
Landscape Plan" dated July 1989, prepared by Cliff Willwerth
& Associates. These submittals have received a variety of
designations by the applicant. For purposes of
reconsideration, they will be referred to as Exhibits on
Reconsideration 1, 2 , and 3 .
By submittal of a parking assessment study (Exhibit on
Reconsideration #1) and a conceptual landscape plan (Exhibit
on Reconsideration #3) with the Notice of Reconsideration, the
applicant has now complied with the evidentiary requirements
of the PUD code. The purpose of this Decision on
Reconsideration is to assess that new evidence, along with
evidence and testimony previously submitted, and make a
recommendation to the City Council on the consolidated
application.
3
Decision on Reconsideration
Dover Place -
#PUD-89-1 and #SU-89-2
3 . The new evidence provided in the parking assessment study
shows that sufficient parking can be provided if certain
modifications are made and specific conditions are attached
to the PUD proposal. Exhibit on Reconsideration #1 was
prepared by the Transpo Group on behalf of the applicant and
is labeled as "Dover Place PUD - Parking Assessment Study" .
The study notes that each residence within the proposed
development is to have an attached two-car garage as well as
driveway space capable of parking two cars for a total of four
on-site parking spaces per household. The study also notes
that very little empirical data are available which could be
used as a reference to describe what use is actually made of
garages in single family residential areas. If the garages
are not used for parking cars, then an assessment must be made
of the adequacy of parking without including garage space.
The study examined three unidentified single-family
residential developments to determine parking patterns. The
observations were made after 11: 00 p.m. on weekday evenings.
The observations revealed a "non-garaged" average parking rate
of 0.79 vehicles per residence. If one assumed each garage
contained two vehicles, the study concluded the total parking
demand is 2 .79 spaces per home. The study noted that on-
street parking did occur in all observed areas, but also noted
that this was not due to unavailability of off-street parking.
To best meet parking needs, the applicant's consultant
recommended that streets be widened to 28 feet from the 22
feet previously proposed. The consultant also concluded that
the proposed 15 guest parking spaces are unnecessary.
In response to this study, the Kent Planning Department
submitted to the Hearing Examiner a letter dated October 6th
(Exhibit on Reconsideration #4) . The Planning Department
agrees with the conclusions of the parking assessment with one
exception: it believes the proposed 15 additional parking
spaces not associated with any particular residence should
remain and be dedicated solely for guests.
Two additional submittals were received by the Hearing
Examiner in response to the Parking Assessment Study. A
letter dated October llth from Larry Webb, Fire Marshal,
(Exhibit on Reconsideration #5) noted that no mention was made
as to the parking scheme on the proposed roads within the PUD.
He also raised questions as to the width of the cul-de-sacs
and enforcement of fire lanes within the proposed PUD. He
noted that history indicates people will use fire lanes for
4
Decision on Reconsideration
Dover Place
#PUD-89-1 and #SU-89-2
parking if no other spaces are available.
Mr. Robert Hutchinson, Building Official, submitted a letter
dated October 13th (Exhibit on Reconsideration #6) . He argues
that the consultant' s claim that an increase in street width
to 28 feet will permit on-street parking without interfering
with or impeding emergency vehicles is not substantiated by
any evidence. He states that the access question is somewhat
dependent upon the length of the street and notes that the
proposed streets exceed 600 feet in length. He concludes that
the new evidence more closely resembles a new proposal and
should be submitted as such.
Testimony presented at the public hearing by Michael Evans,
Assistant Fire Marshal, indicated that a minimum street width
of 20 feet is necessary to allow for "worst case" scenario
side-by-side passage of two eight-foot-wide emergency vehicles
with a four foot clearance as well as to allow turn-around
radius for the largest vehicle. He stated that the proposal
of the applicant at that time - for street widths of 22 feet -
was acceptable if a no parking rule could be enforced.
Mr. Gary Gill, Kent City Engineer testified at the public
hearing that eight feet should be allowed for a typical
parallel parking space. This means that parking could occur
on one side of a 28-foot-wide street without interfering with
the "worst case" emergency vehicle access scenario.
Kent Zoning Code Section 15. 04 . 080 (6) (a) establishes the
minimum private street widths for Planned Unit Developments.
The minimum width allowed for no parking is 22 feet, for
parking on one side of the street it' s 31 feet and for parking
for both sides of the street it's 40 feet. The ordinance
allows modification of the minimum widths if the Kent Fire
Chief and Kent Traffic Engineer review and approve those
modifications. A maintenance agreement shall also be required
as a condition of PUD approval.
The Hearing Examiner concludes that the proposed street width
of 28 feet with no parking allowed on either side will be
adequate to maintain emergency vehicle access and traffic
safety. The additional six feet over the code minimum of 22
feet would allow emergency vehicle access even if the parking
restrictions were occasionally violated. The "worst case"
scenario would be if violations occurred on both sides of the
street with one vehicle parked illegally directly across from
the other. This would still allow for passage of an
eight-foot-wide emergency vehicle. The potential for this
occurrence is reduced by providing 15 parking spaces for
5
Decision on Reconsideration
Dover Place
#PUD-89-1 and #SU-89-2
guests only. This means each residence will have four on-
site parking spaces (above all code minimums) with reserved
guest spaces for 15 vehicles. Conditions to implement this
are detailed in the Decision below. The Hearing Examiner
understands the concerns of the Fire Marshal and citizens
surrounding the site regarding violations of parking
restrictions. However, the Hearing Examiner has no authority
to modify Kent ordinances which address parking requirements.
The applicant has prepared a Parking Assessment Study which
has been reviewed and agreed to by the Kent Planning
Department. The applicant has revised the street widths
beyond what is strictly required by the Kent Zoning Code. Any
further concerns about street widths and parking restrictions
should be directed to policy makers.
4 . The new evidence provided on the proposed active open space
area shows that the four percent density bonus should not be
allowed. Section 15. 04 . 080 (D) (2) of the Kent Zoning Code
states that, for a PUD proposal:
A four (4) percent density bonus may be authorized if at
least ten (10) percent of the site is utilized for active
recreational purposes. . . Only that percentage of space
contained within accessory structures that is directly
used for active recreation purposes can be included in
the ten (10) percent active recreation requirement.
(emphasis added)
The applicant provided a clarification of the type of active
recreational area proposed as part of the "Notice of
Reconsideration" . Exhibit on Reconsideration #3 designates
an area with a green border as the "proposed active open space
area" . Statements on the Exhibit indicate that the active
recreation area is for "field sports" and that there would be
one "sport court area" . The designation of the "sport court
area was changed from a previous indication of a "possible
tennis court" . Thus, although no dimensions of the "sport
court area" are indicated, the size of the "sport court area"
is assumed to be about the size of a tennis court. The
"Notice of Reconsideration" on page 3 states that the "active
recreation area is approximately 28, 000 square feet" . This
calculation clearly includes all area within the green border
as an active recreation area. This is in direct conflict with
the ordinance which states that only that percentage of space
contained within accessory structures that is directly used
for active recreation purposes can be counted toward the
active recreation area requirement.
6
Decision on Reconsideration
_. Dover Place
#PUD-89-1 and #SU-89-2
The Exhibit indicates no accessory structure for active
recreational purposes. Even if the "sport court area" were
to become an accessory structure, the area designated would
not meet the ten percent requirement. The applicant has
requested a density bonus for an active recreation area. The
granting of this bonus is discretionary. However, certain
minimum code requirements must be met before the bonus can be
requested. The four percent density bonus for active
recreation areas must be denied because the minimum area
requirement within accessary structures is not met. The
number of proposed residences shown on the revised preliminary
plat (Exhibit on Reconsideration #2) should be reduced
accordingly. This means that 38 dwelling units should be
authorized rather than the proposed 39. The Hearing Examiner
recommends that the residence be removed from Lot 12 on the
proposed Preliminary Plat and that space allocated to
additional open space or additional guest parking. The final
determination on implementation of density bonus reduction,
however, can be made by the Planning Department.
5. There were no errors of iudgment or law in the Hearing
Examiner decision as alleged by the applicant in the Notice
of Reconsideration. The applicant alleges two "errors of law"
on pages 3 and 4 of the Notice of Reconsideration. since the
applicant raised those issues, we must respond to them. The
statement of the Hearing Examiner as to parking requirements
for zero lot line developments - not at issue in this matter -
is not an "error of law" because that law is not relied on in
any way in reaching a decision in this matter. It may be
alleged to be an inappropriate example or an error of
transcription, but it is not an error of law.
The assertion that the Hearing Examiner erred in determining
that information on whether the general public can use the
active recreation area is necessary to a decision on the PUD
misunderstands the role of administrative discretion in
decision making. The decision to grant or deny a density
bonus is a decision for the City to make; not the applicant.
The City Council specified five criteria to assist the Hearing
Examiner in reaching a decision to grant, deny, or condition
a PUD application. The first criteria is a finding that "the
proposed PUD project will have a beneficial effect upon the
community and users of the development. . . " . KCC 15. 04 .080
(F) (1) . Inquiries as to the nature of use of proposed open
space are directly relevant to assist in making that
determination. Closer examination of the PUD ordinance prior
7
Decision on Reconsideration
Dover Place
#PUD-89-1 and #SU-89-2
to application would have revealed this and avoided a
prolonged decision making process.
The alleged "errors of judgment" appear to consist of one
error stated on page 4 of the Notice of Reconsideration. The
alleged error is the Hearing Examiner's conclusion that "the
PUD would not have a beneficial effect upon the community and
that it may be detrimental to existing surrounding land uses" .
There are nine subparagraphs to this alleged error which
appear to be offered in argumentative support of the main
allegation. The Hearing Examiner disagrees with the alleged
error of judgment for reasons detailed in the initial decision
in this matter. The Hearing Examiner further notes that there
is ample evidence in the record of alleged adverse impacts on
surrounding residences and the schools. This is contrary to
the assertions on page 7 of the Notice of Reconsideration that
there is "no evidence" on these issues. There certainly was
evidence presented during the public hearing. The weight and
credibility given to that evidence is another matter and is,
initially, for the Hearing Examiner to decide.
Several members of the public, particularly in the area
surrounding the proposed PUD, also submitted written testimony
in response to the Notice of Reconsideration. Generally, this
testimony argues against a reconsideration of the initial
decision for the following reasons:
A. Density would be too great because lot size is less than
9, 600 square feet allowed in the surrounding zoning.
B. Open space may not be mentioned as such.
C. Street width expansion further reduces the lot size.
D. Parking restrictions may not be enforced.
The Hearing Examiner has heard these concerns and has
addressed them, where appropriate and within the bounds of
City ordinances, in the conditions applied to approval
detailed in the Decision below. It should be noted that the
intent of the PUD ordinance is to:
"...create a process to promote diversity and creativity in site design, and protect and enhance
natural and community features."
8
Decision on Reconsideration
Dover Place
#PUD-89-1 and #SU-89-2
The allowance of bonuses in exchange for certain applicant
proposals is one method of meeting that intent. The idea is
to provide certain amenities
for the If munity this exchangeinexchange
xhdoes not
greater density for the app
appear fair, one remedy is to seek to amend the ordinance.
The Hearing Examiner merely seeks to carry out the intent of
City ordinances, he cannot adopt new policies.
DECISION
Based upon the new evidence submitted with and in response to the
request for reconsid be Aat
PPROVED with the modifn, the Hearing Examiner icationshto
the consolidated applicationapplicant on the revised
the a
street width and parking proposed by PP
preliminary plat and with the conditions applied below:
1. As to the Preliminary Plat element of the application:
A. Approval of a PUD permit as modified and conditioned in
accordance with this recommendation.
B. Prior to recordation of the final plat:
1. Design private streets to meet City standards
regarding pavement structure, concrete curb and
sidewalks, street lighting, drainage systems, street
name signs and other items consistent with good
street construction practices as determined by the
City;
2 . Deed a 20 foot right-of-way along 104th Ave SE to
the City for street purposes;
3 . Design on-site storm water detention and water
release at a non-erosive point and extend storm
drain facilities to adjacent property lines with
necessary easements as required by the City;
4 . Provide public water systems to meet fire flow and
domestic flow requirements with a minimum size of
a six-inch diameter;
5. Provide public gravity sewer service to all lots and
extend to adjacent property lines as determined by
the City;
9
Decision on Reconsideration
Dover Place -
#PUD-89-1 and #SU-89-2
6. Provide a plat notation and necessary implementation
measures to assure that no vehicle access to the
proposed development will be allowed from
104th Avenue SE.
2 . As to the Planned Unit Development element of the application:
A. Reduce the density from that proposed by one dwelling
unit in accordance with Section 4 of the Findings and
Conclusions;
B. Place a notation on the final subdivision plat which
clearly identifies the total dimension of the open space
and that it be retained as permanent open space without
further subdivision;
C. Include in the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions for
the project the following elements:
1. A maintenance agreement to permanently maintain the
open space areas;
2 . A maintenance agreement for all private streets
which has been reviewed and approved by the Fire
Marshal and City Traffic Engineer;
3 . Restrictions on removal or destruction of the
proposed native vegetation in the areas so
designated;
4 . A requirement that a reminder be delivered to all
residents each June and January which states that
no parking is allowed on the streets and that the
parking in parking areas near the cul-de-sacs is for
guests only;
5. A stipulation that the Conditions, Covenants and
Restrictions containing provisions required by the
City of Kent cannot be amended or nullified by a
vote of any Homeowner' s Association;
6. Language identical to that of Exhibit 3 (submitted
during the public hearing and attached to a letter
dated August 30, 1989 from Eric Campbell to
Lt. Mike Evans and attached) related to standards,
prohibitions, penalties and impoundment of vehicles
within the PUD with the addition of a requirement
10
Decision on Reconsideration
Dover Place
#PUD-89-1 and #SU-89-2
that the parking areas near the cul-de-sacs be
clearly posted as parking for guests only. -
D. No construction practices shall take place within the
areas designated to be retained in native vegetation;
E. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a
copy of the final version of the Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions for approval of language related to the
above conditions prior to the issuance of any building
permits for the site.
Dated this 25th day of October, 1989
THEODORE PAUL HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
APPEALS FROM HEARING EXAMINER DECISIONS.
Notice of Right to Appeal
The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written
appeal to the Council is filed by a party within 14 days of the
decision. The appeal must be filed with the City Clerk. Usually,
new information cannot be raised on appeal. All relevant
information and arguments should be presented at the public hearing
before the City Council .
A recommendation by the Hearing Examiner to the City Council can
also be appealed. A recommendation is sent to the City Council for
a final decision; however, a public hearing is not held unless an
appeal is filed.
~ 11
k�'AM
SEP -G 1989
OFFICE OF 6EAAING EXAMINER•
August 30th, 1989
Lt . Mike Evans
504 W. Crow
Kent, Wa 98032
Dear Lt . Mike Evans,
To follow up on our conservsation on August 29th, 1989, I have gone into
more specific detail what will allow Dover Place place to be approved
by the Fire Department .
The following standards shall be applied to the final plat approval of
Dover Place and be part of the Covenants, Conditions, & Restrictions for
the planned unit development . I. hope the attached items will meet the
need of the Fire Department .
I would like to thank you again for your time in reviewing the planned
unit development of Dover Place .
Sincer Fly.
Eric H. Canipbell, President
CamWest Development, Inc .
110. 11)0X H8, I(IRhI,ANR WA.'9,.0,831PII. S11 '1G04, H. 99/1- 01I9)
A. REQUIREMENTS/STANDARDS .
1 . Lanes shall provide a minimum, unobstructed width of feet and
vertical clearence of 13 feet, 6 inches .
2 . Lanes shall be identified by block letters minimum 18 inch high and
3 1/2 inch stroke, painted in the lane, at 50 foot intervals stating "No
Parking", color to be bright yellow, and by the posting of signs that
state "No on Street Parking - By the order of the Fire Marshall" . Signs
shall be posted on or immediately next to the curb line. Signs shall be
12" x 18" and shall have letters and background of contrasting colors,
readily readable from at least a 50 foot distance. Signs shall- be
posted no more than 4 feet from the ground. There shall be a minimum of
5 signs posted within the said planned unit development .
3 . All proposed plans shall have fire department approval .
B. PARKING PROHIBITED .
Except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in
compliance with the direction of a police officer or -fire official or
traffic control sign, signal, or device, no person shall :
1 . Stop, stand or park a vehicle, whether occupied or not at any
place on the private street except :
a . Momentarily to pick up or discharge a passenger or
passengers; or
b. Temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged
in loading or unloading property .
C. ENFORCEMENT
In addition to other authorized personnel, it shall be the duty of the
Kent Fire Chief and/or his authorized designee (s) , who 'shall be member
of the Fire Prevention Bureau, to enforce this section.
D . PENALITIES
Any violation of the provisions of this Section shall be a traffic
punishable by a monetary penalty of not more than two hundred ($200)
dollars . The recommended bail for such a violation shall be twenty
($20) dollars plus state assessments and costs, when applicable .
E . IMPOUND OF ILLEGALLY PARKED VEHICLES
In addition to the penalties provided for in (D) , any vehicle improperly
parked in the violation of any of the provisions of this Section shall
be subject to impound.
4 '
F. NOTIFICATION OF RESIDENTS
All residents and owners in Dover Place shall be notified during the
month of January and July of each year that "No on Street Parking is
Allowed" . This notice shall be mailed.
LAW OFFICES OF OV t"- M7
FerFsuson I3 Burdellyic7KOLL CENTER BELLEVUE �1.:�" N.i l.1`:•vIi'4
VNT
500 - IOST-AVENUE N.E.,*2100 LS
BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 98OC4
NAOINE M. ZACKRISSON, AICP TELEX: 32-0382 FAX:(206)454-5719
(206)453-1711 ,
October 4, 1989
Mr. Theodore Paul Hunter
Hearing Examiner
City of Kent
220 Fourth Ave. S.
Kent, WA 98032
Re: Request for Reconsideration
Dover Place File No. SU-89-2 and PUD 89-1
Dear Mr. Hunter:
On behalf of Cam-West Development, Inc. , I request that you
reconsider your decision, dated September 20, 1989, to deny the
application for the Dover Place PUD and preliminary plat.
This request for reconsideration is based on new evidence,
which was not available at the time of the hearing, as well as
errors of judgment and errors of law by the Examiner. The grounds
for reconsideration are more fully described in Exhibit A attached.
Dover Place is the first PUD processed by the City under the
current PUD ordinance. During the review by the City, the
requirement for a parking assessment study was inadvertently
overlooked by the applicant and by staff. This study has now been
prepared by a qualified transportation engineer, and it has been
submitted to the Planning Department for review. (Exhibit B
attached) .
It also appears that the description of the active recreation
uses to be provided as part of the project was not made
sufficiently clear at the public hearing. A copy of the
landscaping plan which shows the active play area and sport court
is attached (Exhibit C) . These uses are also noted in the staff
report dated September 6, 1989.
The applicant has worked with the staff from Public Works and
Planning to revise the site plan to increase the width of the
street from 22 feet to 28 feet. The increased width will allow on-
street parking while still providing adequate space for emergency
SEATTLE BELLEVUE ANCHORAGE
Mr. Theodore Paul Hunter _.
October 4 , 1989
Page 2
vehicles. Four additional guest parking spaces are now located in
the cul-de-sac nearest 103rd Ave. S. E.
Based on the submittal of the parking assessment study, the
increased street width which provides additional parking, and the
clarification of the proposed active recreation uses, the PUD meets
all the criteria of Section 15. 04 . 080 Kent Zoning Ordinance. The
PUD is also consistent with the East Hill Plan and the policies of
the proposed Housing Element Update.
I would respectfully request that the Examiner reconsider the
action of September 20 and, on the basis of the new information,
recommend approval of the PUD with appropriate conditions. If
additional information or clarification is required, I would be
happy to provide that in writing, or alternatively, at a public
hearing.
Sincerely,
FERGUSON & BURDELL
Iv- dw'r R. Zzc&�S�t
By:
Nadine M. Zackrisson
NMZ:rlm
i
6g LT3 - 1989
2 GF Y,xr7T
3
4
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
5 CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
6 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION )
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S ) NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
7 DENIAL OF DOVER PLACE, #SU-89-2 )
89-1
8
AND #PUD- )
) .
Cam-West Development, Inc. )
9 )
10 1. Appellant. Cam-West Development, Inc. , the applicant for
11 the PUD and the preliminary plat, and an aggrieved party under the
12 terms of the ordinance, files this request for reconsideration.
13 2 . Basis for Request. The Kent City Code provides that any
14 aggrieved person may request a reconsideration within 14 days of
15 the decision by the Hearing Examiner if either (a) a specific error
16 of fact, law, or judgment can be identified or (b) new evidence is
17 available which was not available at the time of the hearing.
18 3 . Grounds for Reconsideration.
19 a. New Evidence.
20 i) Parking Assessment Study. A parking assessment
21 study as required by Section 15.04. 080 6. b. has been prepared by
22 the Transpo Group and has been submitted to the City Planning
23 Department for review. The study evaluated three Planned Unit
24 Developments (PUDs) with similar lot sizes, values, and residential
25 uses. The average parking demand in these PUDs equals 2 .79 spaces
NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION - 1 FERGUSON R B
EXHIBIT A MOOLLL CENTER LL AVELLEE VU E
SOO- 108TH AVENUE N.E-
SUITE 2100
BELLEVUE.WA 98004
(206)4S3-1711
065AO041 10/4/89
1 per home. Dover Court has been designed to provide four off-street
2 parking spaces for each residence.
3 Dover Place: Total parking
4 Parking within garages: 2 spaces x 39 units = 78 spaces
5 Parking on driveways: 2 spaces x 39 units = 78 spaces
6 Guest spaces: North cul-de-sac: = 12 spaces
7
South cul-de-sac: = 4 spaces
TOTAL 172 spaces
8
9 This results in an average of 4.4 on-site parking spaces per unit,
10 significantly higher than the similar PUDs included in the parking
11 assessment study. This does not include the 32 spaces now
12 available on the street.
13 ii) Plan Revision. The project has been redesigned
14 to increase the street width from 22 feet to 28 feet. This
15 increase in street width will permit on-street parking without
16 interfering with or impeding emergency vehicles. The increased
17 street width will also provide an additional 32 parking spaces,
18 thus providing a total number of 204 parking spaces within the
19 Project. Four additional guest spaces are provided in the southern
20 cul-de-sac.
21 iii) Active Recreation Area. This issue was
22 addressed in the application material and in the staff report;
23 however, for clarification, a copy of the landscaping plan which
24 shows the area designated for active recreational uses is attached.
25 Ten percent of the site (33 , 105 square feet) is allocated for
active recreation, thus qualifying for the 4% density bonus as
FERGUSON G BURDELL
NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION - 2 KOLL CENTER BELLEVUE
SOO• 1OHTH AVENUE N.E.
SUITE 2100
BELLEVUE.WA 98004
(206)453.1 71 1
i
065AO041 10/4/89
1 provided in Section 15. 04. 080 D. 2 . The uses include a sport court
2 and active play areas for children. The staff report (September
3 6, 1989) discusses the active recreation area and clearly states
4 "A landscape plan indicates the location of a sport court and open
5 lawn area; " (p. 9) and "A sport court and open lawn area has been
6 proposed to serve the residents of the development. " (p. 18)
7 The sport court will be approximately 651x 1001 in
8 size, 'and the active recreation area is approximately 28, 000 square
9 feet in area. This provides adequate space for activities such as
10 volleyball, soccer and other informal games.
11 b. Errors of Law.
12 i) The Hearing Examiner erred in stating that
13 Section 3 . 1. 11 of the Subdivision Code requires one guest parking
- 14 space for each dwelling unit in a zero lot line development.
15 Section 3 . 1. 11 2) (a) (ii) provides standards for non-public streets
16 and requires guest parking at a rate of .5 guest parking spaces per
17 dwelling unit beyond the normal parking provided at the dwelling.
18 ii) The Hearing Examiner erred in asserting that
19 a determination as to whether the active recreation use of the
20 common open space will be available for use by the general public
21 is necessary to a decision on the PUD. Section 15. 04 . 080 C. 5.
22 requires that a minimum of 35% of the total site be allocated for
23 common open space. Common open space may provide for either active
24 or passive recreation. Active recreation areas are not mandatory
25 and may be provided at the discretion of the applicant if the
NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION - 3 FERGUSON CENTER
BELLE U
K OLL CENTER BELLEVUE
500- 108TH AVENUE N.E.
SUITE 2100
BELLEVUE.WA 98004
(206)453-1711
i
065AO041 10/4/89
i applicable density bonus is desired. Further, Section 15. 04 .080
2 C. 5. requires that open space within a PUD shall be available for
3 common use by the residents, tenants and/or the general public,
4 depending on the type of Project. Use of the common open areas by
5 the public is discretionary, not mandatory and is to be determined
6 by the nature and size of the project.
7 C. Errors of Judgment. The Examiner errs in concluding
8 that the PUD would not have a beneficial effect upon the community
9 and that it may be detrimental to existing surrounding land uses.
10 i) As demonstrated by the parking assessment
11 study, more than adequate vehicular parking is provided, both for
12 each unit, and for additional on-street parking which is available
13 for special events. The parking provided meets or exceeds the
14 requirements for single family dwellings (Section 15. 05 . 040A) and
15 for zero lot line development (Section 3 . 1.11 Subdivision Code) .
16 ii) The provision of open space for use by the
17 general public is not the criteria by which community benefit or
18 detriment is to be measured. There is no mandatory requirement
19 that a PUD provide either passive or active recreation for use by
20 the general public. The review criteria for residential PUDs
21 (15. 04 . 080 F) clearly states that (1) the proposed PUD shall have
22 a beneficial effect upon the community and the users of the
23 development which would not normally be achieved by traditional
24 lot-by-lot development and (2) shall not be detrimental to existing
25
NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION - 4 FERGUSON LL EEV U
K O LL CENTER
N ENTERR BEULL E
SOO• 108TH AVENUE N.E.
SUITE 2100
BELLEVUE.WA 98004
(206)4S3.171 1
065AO041 10/4/89
1 or potential surrounding land uses as defined by the Comprehensive
2 Plan.
3 The proposed PUD provides a significantly higher
4 level of design and amenities than standard single family
5 subdivisions of comparable value. The retention of trees and open
6 space is superior to that provided by traditional subdivision
7 design.
8 iii) Community benefit is demonstrated by the way
9 in which the PUD implements the following goals and policies of the
10 East Hill Plan.
11 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT:
12 Goal 1: Preservation and enhancement of the natural qualities that
make the East Hill area an attractive place in which to live.
13
Objective 2 : Maintain and restore the natural character of the
14 East Hill community through the retention and
introduction of native and ornamental plants in
15 existing and planned development.
16 Policy 1: Encourage the retention and reestablishment of
vegetation in the issuance of development permits
17 and in development actions of the City.
18 Policy 2 : Permit the preservation of significant existing
trees to satisfy a portion of required landscaping.
19
The flexible design standards allowed by the PUD ordinance
20
provides an opportunity and incentive for the permanent
21
preservation of trees and natural vegetation.
22
HOUSING ELEMENT:
23
Goal 2 : Development patterns that promote residential quality and
24 provide diverse housing opportunity.
25 Objective 1: Promote flexible residential development approaches
to:
NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION - 5 FERGUSON&BURDELL
KOLL CENTER BELLEVUE
SOO- 108TH AVENUE N.E.
SUITE 2100
BELLEVUE.WA 98004
(206)453.1711
065AO041 10/4/89
1 a) Provide a variety of housing types, densities
and prices.
2
iv) In July of 1988, the City Council adopted Resolution
3
1172 which in part directed the Planning Department to prepare an
4
update of the Housing Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
5
The Council also directed the Planning Department to prepare
6
revisions to the Planned Unit Development ordinance in order to
7
encourage and increase the applications for planned unit
8
developments in the city. The Council addressed the imbalance
9
between multi-family and single family housing in the city and the
10
lack of availability of housing options and choice for the
11
residents.
12
v) An update to the Housing Element of the City's
13
Comprehensive Plan was issued by the Planning Department in
14
January, 1989 . Applicable goals and policies are attached. Dover
15
Place is designed to be consistent with an to implement these goals
16
and policies. In particular:
17
Goal 2 : Objective 2 ; Policy 3 .
18 Objective 3 ; Policies 3 , 4 , 61 81 9.
19 Goal 3 : Objective 2 ; Policies 1, 4 .
Objective 3 ; Policy 3 .
20
Goal 4 : Objective 1; Policies 2 , 3 .
21 Objective 2 ; Policy 2 .
22 vi) Community benefit is also demonstrated by the
23 fact that the developer must contribute a fair share of the costs
24 associated with off-site road improvements in order to mitigate
25 traffic impacts of the project. There is also a right-of-way
dedication to SR 515 along the eastern boundary of the property.
FERGUSON C.BURDELL
NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION - 6 KOLL CENTER BELLEVUE
SOO- 108TH AVENUE N.E.
SUITE 2100
BELLEVUE,WA 98004
(206)453-1 71 1
I
065AO041 10/4/89
1 vii) There is no evidence of any detrimental effect
2 on existing or potential surrounding land uses. The public
3 testimony in -opposition was principally concerned with impacts of
4 parking and traffic. Any potential detrimental effects have been
5 mitigated by the increased street width which provides additional
6 on-street parking and improved access for emergency vehicles. The
7 parking assessment study demonstrates that Dover Place provides
g more parking spaces per unit than ' other similar PUDs.
9 Participation in fair share costs of off-site traffic improvement
10 is required as mitigation under SEPA.
11 viii) There is no evidence that the PUD will be
12 unattractive, or that adjacent residences will be adversely
13 impacted. Dover Place has been designed to provide a variety of
14 housing types and a 30 foot buffer of evergreens will be planted
15 between existing residences and the PUD.
16 ix) The issues of possible school overcrowding and
17 needs for park space are general concerns of the community. No
18 evidence was introduced to demonstrate adverse impacts created by
19 Dover Place. The Planning Department staff report states that the
20 City has no authority to impose school mitigation conditions.
21 4 . Relief Requested. The applicant requests that the
22 reconsideration be granted and the Hearing Examiner recommend to
23 the City Council approval of the PUD and preliminary plat with
24 conditions as stated on pages 10 and 11 of the Examiner's report
25 dated September 20, 1989 .
NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION - 7 FERGUSON 6 BUROELL
KOLL CENTER BELLEVUE
SOO• 108TN AVENUE N.E.
SUITE 2100
BELLEVUE.WA 98004
(206)453.1711
065AO041 10/4/89
1 DATED this day of 1989 .
2 FERGUSON & BURD-ELLL
4 Nadine Zackrisson
Attorneys for Applicant Cam-West
5 Development, Inc.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
I8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FERGUSON&BURDELL
NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION - 8 KOLL CENTER BELLEVUE
SOO. 108TH AVENUE N.E.
SUITE 2100
BELLEVUE.WA 98004
(206)453-1711
T-744 F.
i CT Lt=' ='i Lt'�:r� TO
FF'UI°l THE TF. ilti=F'il GP[u_IP
TiU.np.,r;ari;,n +ntl Tralh:GJ�,�22nn�
P L A N N ! N G JISIGi!
w
Tl to
Group
October 2, 1989 TG: 89369.00
Mr. Lrle Cimipbell, Presldetit
Cam-West Development, Inc.
P.O. Box 308
Kh'kland, WA 98083
SUEIJECT.. DOVER PUCE;PUD - PAMUNG ASSLSSMENT STUDY"
Dear Erie.
Per your request.M\NSPO has completed an assessuicnt of the parking needs for your
proposed Dover Place development consisting of 39 single-family detached residenci- A
summary of our assessment follows.
Both the Residential DevetoprTLent llurLc book. (1978, the Urban Land Institute), and
n,cvtsportatton and Lurid Development. (1988, Institute of Transportation Eni;lricer.;), sug-
f est a nitrilmum parking supply index of 2.0 spaces per single-farruly dcvelllrrl; unit. It }s
recorrrniended that this parking be provided off-street. As previously propa5cct, each re5t-
dential unit witl11r1 tlic Dover Place PUD is to have an attached two-car't nril;e, a5 well a",
driveway space capable of parking two-cars, for a total of four on-site Parking spaces Per
liouHehold. Additionally, 12 to 1S "visitor" type spaces are to be provided in tlic t2onulton,
cul-de-sac areas. 1t CVCry gtU'i1C yj)a( C 15 available for vehicle parking(, the proposed par'k-
mg upply wit] provide double the 1111niululn number of parkin}; SIMCCS strgg;rsied by the
above referenced publications.
Many people, however, lnay use their gut-age space as extra storage area rather tha11 for
parking vehicles. Unfortunately, very little empirical data have been publislie.ci which comet
be used as reference to develop an csuruate of the ava lability of gara9c *paec for parking; ir1
residential areas. Therefore, to confirm tire residential of the published parldri� supply
tndex to developments it, King County, the non-garaged parking; dcm;uid.a of three eatab-
11:Aied PUDs were observed. Each of the three PUD.-3 are strnilar to the proposed Dover
Place development in the followt rig respects: individual lot sires of roughly 4.500 to
5,000 square feet: the value and contemporary style of the hearts: and etch dcvclopineni
contains only single-family residences with attached two-car garages. The results of t11e
obscrvutlons are listed in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Observed Parking Demands for Single-Family Residential Developments) _
Parkod yohiclOs2_
Site No.of LOIS Olt Street On SlrGal 'I o;al
47 32 6 33
62 31 7 38
3 Q 54 5 59
Avoiage r- 3s 6 4;
1 Observations conducted on a typical weekday evening after 11:00 p.m.
Does not Include vehicles parkod in garages(each unit has a Iwo-car attached garage). —
EXHIBIT B
Tt�rTRANSP0 Grow.Inc 14716 9�I-Rcd RGad SuLPIOU Belle'.atr.N1:1Junyton93W Fn?•TGb•'i�.rJFif) iL
r7Jl l I tin I r},I r_•ri_I UI-tA'• I - -+ r. U-
Mr. Eric Campbell, Pfe'3tdCrlt Tf1B
October 2, 1989e,-� --P
Page 2
Gl-uu�)
With the observed averaged "non-gua-aged" Darling rate of 0.79 vehicles per recslde.nce and
each residence havtng; 2.0 garage spaces, the averaged parking demand inoludin� "garaged"
parking equals 2.79 spaces per home. This is still lesy thall the •1.0 spaces of ofi-street
parking proposed for each house at Dover Place, indicating that it sufficlent o(i•-street
parking supply will be available for the "average parkhlg condition," It 15 Important to ante
that in the above parking observation of the established PUDs, on-strcct parldrig (lid occur.
However, In no case was the occurrence of on-strett parking due to unavailability of oft-
:street parking at any one huusehold.
On occasions of extreme parking dernand (e.g.. a neighborhood garage sale or a large pri-
vate party such as a wedding reception), it is likely that 1-lie "visitor" ;paces will not provide
axi adequate supply to handle the demand associated with an"event" at even one residence.
To safely accommodate these occasional"peak" demand periods, it is our reconrrncndation
that ssulilcicnt strcct width bt provided to allow on-street parking to occur without crcatiiig
an Impediment to emergency vehicle access. in all three of the above observed 1'UDs, the
street width was 28 feet. This is the current King County standard for residential subdivi-
sions and provides both adequate parking supply and 3 afe vehicle access.
Eric, it is our understanding that you are revising your proposal to incorporate both a 28
foot street width (previous width was 22 feet). as well as providing a total (if' IG "visitor"
Spaces. Our professional assessment indicates that an ample supply of off-strcct parking
will be available at Dover Place by providing individual two-car garuges with two addttion;J
driveway spaces per household. The 28-foot wide roadway will provide enough oar-street
p.u'lctstg supply to aeeonunodate any peak parking dernand3 wlttlout creating sevl rr acec55-
related safety hazards. Thus. the proposed 15 spaces for visitor parking appears
unnecessary.
Submittal of thls letter to the. City of Kent should fulfill the requh'ernerit for supplying; a
parking needy assessment. if city stair should (Itsagree with our aatics:.rn(:nt, please- li;tvc
them contact uir- d.lrtctly so that we can discuss our results.
Sincerely,
17e TRANS POGc' yL /
, Trc
Edley. Y.Tr,uisportation Lnglneer
RDG/ndl
�fc' o POSAt �� A qousiI )& i , sv tr CAN ATE' rZ?oRfi
s located on the Valley Floor. (I
glow and moderate income housing i I.
These areas are earmarked for City BlocitGisnnotu only fthese eareas I
infrastructure improvements. However, areas
which are in need of upgraded infrastructure. For example,
In working to preserve
that have been annexed into the City do not always have existing
lace
i
and/or adequate infrastructure n P .ods the City should
and protect these existing neighborho ,
identify such deficiencies and establish a program of correction. I
while the City provides for adequate public r
c sevices to existing l
neighborhoods,
it should also insure the protection of existing
residential neighborhoods from incompatible uses and of er
r ou
intrusions. This can .be accomplished through the use o open
space buffers, landscaping, fencing,
ber g, density gradations,
priate means.
intensity gradation, and other appro
ere
GOAL 2 : Guide new residential development into
and ein aas h manner
e
needed services and
ne facilitwith ies aresting res av idential neighborhoods.
which is comp
Objective 1: Encourage new �esidential
close vtooptransportation
suitable areas of the Valle Floor,
corridors.
Goal 2 , Objective 1 applies solely to the Valley
(Editor' s Note:
Floor. )
policy l: Designate suitable areas for future
residential development.
policy 2 : Expand opportunities for multifamily
commerci
development
or etransportationacorridors,nand
centers, j
major commuter transit routes.
Pol 3 ; Retain agricultural and rural residential
opportunities.
Provide for obile
Poles— manufacturedmhousing. parks and
poles 5: Encourage upper-story residential uses in
commercial and office buildings.
nw on the
ast
ObjeeH : Permit enecessary residential facilitiespandtservicesEare
and west
available.
Polic 1: Protect existing single-family neighborhoods
from adverse impacts of new development.
22
' i
Policy 2 : Designate suitable areas for future
residential development.
Policy 3 : Encourage development of new single-family
housing, by creating neighborhood
environments attractive to single-family
builders and homeowners.
Policy 4 : Utilize regulatory measures, such as zoning,
to restrict and discourage development which
contributes to urban sprawl.
Policy 5: Limit opportunities for multifamily.
development.
Policy 6 : Limit expansion of multifamily development in
rural residential areas.
Objective 3 : Guide new residential growth so that it occurs
in a responsible manner, consistent with neighborhood
objectives.
Policy 1: Limit opportunities for high-density
multifamily development, where appropriate.
Policy 2 : Provide opportunities for low-or medium- i
density multifamily development in nodes and
near commercial centers.
Policy 3 : Encourage infill development of areas already
served by utilities and transportation
systems, to achieve maximum efficiency in the
provision of services and preservation of
natural features.
Policy 4 , For undeveloped areas, encourage densities
which promote efficiency in providing needed
utilities and services.
Policy 5: Provide for increased single-family
residential densities as a transition between
more intensive and less intensive residential
areas.
PolicV 6: Require developments to provide for all
necessary on-site improvements, as well as
their fair share of off-site improvements
needed as a result of the development.
Policy 7 : Through enhanced development standards and
other mechanisms, improve the appearance and
23
"fit" of multifamily developments within the
community.
�olicy 8 . Encourage the use of clustering, zero lot
line, planned unit development and other site
planning techniques to improve the quality of
developments.
Policy 9: Ensure adequate buffering between new
developments where buffering is needed to
mitigate an adverse impact of the new
development.
Policy 1 Promote annexation as a means of guiding
development which may impact existing
residential areas.
RATIONALE FOR GOAL 2
Kent is an urban area. The large amount of
industrial/commercial/ office development within the City, which
coexists with the residential development here, has forever
changed the rural character that once was. Although the
opportunities for large-lot, pastoral development should be
protected where feasible, the city's population will presumably
continue to grow and housing will be required for new residents.
By Resolution 1123 , Kent ' s City Council evidenced a desire to
achieve reductions in the density of multifamily housing
developments within the City. Through the Housing Study
authorization, the Planning Department was charged with the task
of determining areas appropriate for density reductions, for
potential new multifamily areas, or for density increases. Using F
input from the September 1988 public meeting and the meetings of
the Housing Advisory Committee, an overall strategy for locating
residential density was established: "Limit new opportunities
for high density multifamily development. Provide opportunities
for low- or medium-density multifamily development in nodes or
near commercial centers. Protect and expand existing single-
family neighborhoods. "
Efficient use of city services--including utilities and
transportation systems--is reinforced through careful density
planning. By concentrating multifamily development in centers,
advantage can be taken of the economies of scale. By limiting
densities on the urban fringe and encouraging infill development,
continued urban sprawl can be slowed. A gradual integration of
densities--from highest to lowest--creates a smooth transition in
order to protect all housing types.
Higher density developments have typically suffered from
r' "intensity" problems. Unattractive features of such development
could be mitigated through enhanced development standards or
24
alternative site planning techniques, thereby improving the "fit"
of such developments within the community.
of primary concern is the protection of existing residential
neighborhoods. The East and West Hill planning areas are
primarily single-family neighborhoods with fairly limited access
to public transportation and the community services located in
the central business district. For this reason, multifamily
development is less efficiently located on the plateaus unless it
is close to commercial centers. Multifamily development may also
be perceived as intrusive to the existing single-family
developments on the hills.
The Valley Floor, on the other hand, is closer to city services,
Park and Ride and other METRO service, and potential commuter
rail. Siting of multifamily in this area may offer improved
residential opportunities for Kent residents. Existing single-
family residential neighborhoods on the Valley Floor should,
however, receive protection from any adverse impacts due to such
development.
Whenever necessary, new developments (both single- and
multifamily) should be asked to contribute to their "fair share"
of the community improvements necessary to maintain the quality
of life for all Kent residents.
GOAL 3 : Assure an adequate and balanced supply of housing units
offering a diversity of size, densities, age, style and cost.
Oblective 1: Encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of
existing housing units.
Policy 1: Sponsor a housing rehabilitation program.
Policy 2 : Provide information on home maintenance and
rehabilitation to homeowners.
Policy 3 : Maintain a strong code enforcement program.
Policy 4 : Support legislation and programs which
provide incentives for maintaining homes in
good condition.
Oblective 2: Provide for a mixed residential community with
i
a balance of housing types.
Policy 1: support Planned Unit Developments (P.U.D.$) t
where densities and dwelling types are mixed.
25
Policy 2 : Provide for manufactured housing and for
mobile home parks.
Policy 3 : Encourage mixed use zoning which allows
residential uses to be incorporated into
commercial and office developments.
Policy 4 : Encourage creative approaches to housing
design and development.
Objective 3 : Increase the supply and affordability of
housing for low- and moderate-income households.
Policy 1: Review current regulations (e.g. zoning,
building, fire codes) to insure that the
associated increased development costs are
minimized.
Policy 2 : Determine what incentives could be provided
to encourage new construction of units.
Policy 3 . Provide for increased single-family
residential densities in appropriate areas as
a means of controlling costs and providing
✓ opportunities for single-family home
ownership.
Policy 4 : Promote affordable housing design _
competitions to demonstrate efficient
planning and construction techniques that can
be replicated by other developments.
RATIONALE FOR GOAL THREE
Citizens and Council members have expressed the desire for Kent
to be a mixed residential community with a balance of housing
types. Recent city estimates (1988) show that 34% of total
dwelling units are single-family, 60% are multifamily, and 6% are
mobile homes. This perceived imbalance has become an increasing
concern of Kent citizens.
Housing affordability has also become an increasingly important
issue due to major changes in the housing market throughout the
United States and the Kent area. The last decade brought sharp
increases in housing costs: construction costs, land prices, and
costs for new residential roads and utilities, as well as the
price of existing housing, rose simultaneously. Interest rates
for construction financing and homeowner mortgages, while not as
high as the peaks of the 1970s, remain at historically high i
levels.
26
1
; 1
In 1979 the rate of homeownership in the United States fell for
the first time since the early 1960s. The rate of homeownership
continues to fall, especially among young adult households. The
rising cost of housing has the greatest impact on affordability
for low and moderate income persons, who find both rents and
first home purchases more expensive.
Of increasing importance to the citizens of Kent is the
preservation, maintenance and rehabilitation of existing single-
family neighborhoods and housing units. Existing housing is
typically some of the more affordable housing and can be used to
meet the needs of those families or individuals with lower and
moderate incomes. Home repair programs and other resources can
be focused on developed areas of the city where existing housing
is affordable but in disrepair.
i -
Creative approaches to housing can foster both diversity and
affordability. An example is Kent' s existing Planned Unit
Development Ordinance which allows residential developments to
receive a density bonus by creating a variety of housing types, I
thus a range of housing costs. i .
Modern manufactured housing has been shown to be cost-effective
and affordable. Its successful use has been demonstrated in a
King County-sponsored demonstration project in Federal Way. These
types of homes can be designed to blend in well with site-built
homes.
Mixed-use zoning allows residential uses to be incorporated into
commercial and office developments, providing housing for those
who wish to live close to work and shopping opportunities. It
helps to provide a stronger pedestrian focus, and reduces the
pressure to develop needed housing farther out from the city in
an urban sprawl pattern. This may appeal to a number of groups
such as professionals, single and divorced persons, "empty-
nesters, " and elderly persons with limited mobility.
Creative approaches to housing design and development may include
incentives to promote the infilling of underdeveloped
neighborhoods. Infill development helps to reduce public
facilities costs by lessening the need to extend public
facilities ; it also helps reduce urban sprawl. Some single-family
neighborhoods may be strengthened by adding viable new housing to
existing housing stock.
An additional measure encouraging the construction of single-
family housing is reducing minimum lot sizes in appropriate
areas. For example, a smaller single-family lot size might be
used adjacent to multi-family development. This would help to
provide density degradation between more intensive residential '
zones and less intensive ones.
27
Design and construction innovations can have a significant impact
on housing costs. Affordable housing demonstration projects,
including design competitions, can provide an excellent
opportunity to discover and promote new solutions to making
affordable housing available for all .
GOAL 4 : Assure environmental quality in residential areas.
objective 1: Preserve and maintain as much of the natural
environment as possible.
Policy 1: Prohibit residential development in areas
unsuitable for development, such as' steep
slopes and wetlands.
i
i
Policy 2 : Require site design to conserve natural
features, such as streams, steep slopes,
trees, and wetlands.
Policy 3 : utilize regulatory measures to control the
removal of major trees on developed as well
as on undeveloped property.
.. Objective 2 : Provide open green areas in the City' s
residential neighborhoods.
policy 1: Require contiguous open green area in new
multifamily developments.
Policy 2 : Require contiguous open green area in new
single-family subdivisions.
Objective 3 : Protect sensitive areas, including significant
woodlands, wetlands, meadows, wildlife habitat, and
waterways, from the adverse impacts of residential
development.
Policy 1: IIndate the Hazard Area Development
Limitations Map to include additional
sensitive areas.
Policy 2 : Prioritize sensitive areas as to their
constraints on development, their safety and
welfare functions and the environmental
health benefits they provide.
Policy 3 : Study alternative means to prohibit or
restrict residential development in sensitive
areas, including the purchase or transfer of
development rights.
28
------------
>ro
�:�r F l v I I try .Ir."l:r --f('•n"i. T> .' r$
IfE a}•'/ / W �''�1"{." S a yl S i Y S-'! I •.• ' ...
t4
1 F� +) C_—_-� / � i r � '� % • ale. �
ty`„ ` � 1_, A ♦1fa r ! r._� T� �E�"`'tryi� � �. t
F. '�' i l y '' 5 /• �I-, gym: /'-;
sr„
N I— Y a rol.T$Y'+ swat p/r/, t✓'� 1 4 KYr' \ t 4 i
' ---� o � � ..,.•.. ( � - r iP�< G+ as. E�+h 1;y..�\r1 � XJr�9(th�F> Iw'y.Tt Y/3. .� �._ w:
.�•1 i ma 1 �.9'�„a >r�?. :1• f� /"e iw' zl. < �'i c 1.�.r / 'ts n
,
4. 11 / p Y 'I
i
JMW
K
SR
re
' �7T-'+ems_". I I .'•C '` ��_ = S, I o.. N fi - ... ..
in 5:11
t ♦ a *. .a• :15 +'O u R m.3 o a y
'j, M1if
S; S�J+tr W.�*a • s
=o�Hsi
�:?�°; b fief �ORR t�� c �i:ia x ss, m ,..•^ / ,
z @ Q i
(D ^'''''!♦ nR r.•w �,+ Zylyii v�{j [iiL1s� s - ^i•'� a1� -
:at L =� h:E "j IA P .'7 mV'2' T@�
'...[.fi t. ±{ / 1. tea>i� F�r;(sts�' "� 0�444GGG,.nz` li ;F:iaa}i- F
.. � s ••�� R Z �� IP „w� �J' t 3 tLi- = i � }i �I •• _ _.1 -
y [' � : .�. :.L'
�i fA 7
' PRELIMINARY PLAT OF � —
I. i 's•i Conceptuai PUD-Plan t1 DOVER PLACE y ,�__—<..<..._.....
I
P .
9
i
t
\ j l
77,
' i
>
C}
@_a L
P
V
_ ° a
r
so Z O
y
En
e (On-
:tea
g NR nm
},.•..:; ,.moo '"0. °•°.o+ 11
" Y•2�: � fP
rj
Transportation and Traffic Engineering
PLANNING DESIGN J
OCT - '" :) ► The
:i Trans o
Group
October 2,'1989 TG: 89369.00
Mr. Eric Campbell, President
Cam-West Development, Inc.
P.O. Box 308
Kirkland,WA 98083
SUBJECT. DOVER PLACE PUD - PARKING ASSESSMENT STUDY
Dear Eric,
Per your request.TRANSPO has completed an assessment of the parking needs for your
proposed Dover Place development consisting of 39 single-family detached residences. A
summary of our assessment follows.
Both the Residential Development Handbook, (1978, the Urban Land Institute), and
Transportation and Land Development, (1988, Institute of Transportation Engineers), sug-
gest a minimum parking supply index of 2.0 spaces per single-family dwelling unit. It is
recommended that this parking be provided off-street. As previously proposed, each resi-
dential unit within the Dover Place PUD is to have an attached two-car garage, as well as
driveway space capable of parking two-cars, for a total of four on-site parking spaces per
household. Additionally, 12 to 15 'wLsitor' type spaces are to be provided in the common,
cul-de-sac areas. If every garage space is available for vehicle parking, the proposed park-
ing supply will provide double the minimum number of parking spaces suggested by the
above referenced publications.
Many people, however, may use their garage space as extra storage area rather than for
parking vehicles. Unfortunately, very little empirical data have been published which could
be used as reference to develop an estimate of the availability of garage space for parking in
residential areas. Therefore, to confirm the applicability of the published parking supply
Index to developments in King County, the non-garaged parking demands of three estab-
lished PUDs were observed. Each of the three PUDs are similar to the proposed Dover
Place development in the following respects: individual lot sizes of roughly 4,500 to
5,000 square feet; the value and contemporary style of the homes; and each development
contains only single-family residences with attached two-car garages. The results of the
observations are listed in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Observed Parking Demands for Single-Family Residential Developmentsi
Parked Vehicles2
Site No.of Lots Off Street On Street Total
1 47 32 6 38
2 62 31 7 38
3 63 54 5 59
Average 57 39 6 45
1 Observations conducted on a typical weekday evening after 11.00 p.m.
2 Does not include vehicles parked in garages(each unit has a two-car attached garage).
The TRANSPO Group,Inc. 14715 Bel-Red Road,Suite 100 Bellevue,Washington 98007 FAX:2061747-3688 2061641-3881
Mr. Eric Campbell, President me
October 2, 1989 .4 OCT Transpo
w Page 2
_. Group
t u 1
With the observed averaged "non-garaged" parking rate of 0.79 vehicles per residence and
each residence having 2.0 garage spaces, the averaged parking demand including"garaged"
parking equals 2.79 spaces per home. This is still less than the 4.0 spaces of off-street
parking proposed for each house at Dover Place, indicating that a sufficient off-street
parking supply will be available for the "average parking condition." It is important to note
that in the above parking observation of the established PUDs, on-street parking did occur.
However, in no case was the occurrence of on-street parking due to unavailability of off-
street parking at any one household.
On occasions of extreme parking demand (e.g., a neighborhood garage sale or a large pri-
vate party such'as a wedding reception), it is likely that the "visitor" spaces will not provide
an adequate supply to handle the demand associated with an"event" at even one residence.
To safely accommodate these occasional "peak" demand periods, it is our recommendation
that sufficient street width be provided to allow on-street parking to occur without creating
an impediment to emergency vehicle access. In all three of the above observed PUDs, the
street width was 28 feet. This is the current King County standard for residential subdivi-
sions and provides both adequate parking supply and safe vehicle access.
Eric, it is our understanding that you are revising your proposal to incorporate both a 28
foot street width (previous width was 22 feet), as well as providing a total of 15 'Visitor"
spaces. Our professional assessment indicates that an ample supply of off-street parking
will be available at Dover Place by providing individual two-car garages with two additional
driveway spaces per household. The 28-foot wide roadway will provide enough on-street
parking supply to accommodate any peak parking demands without creating severe access-
related safety hazards. Thus, the proposed 15 spaces for visitor parking appears
unnecessary.
Submittal of this letter to the City of Kent should fulfill the requirement for supplying a
parking needs assessment. If city staff should disagree with our assessment, please have
them contact me directly so that we can discuss our results.
Sincerely,
The TRANSPO Gr9'p, Inc
Rory D. Qrindley, P.E.
Transportation Engineer
RDG/ndl
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT
FILE NO: DOVER PLACE #SU-89-2 AND #PUD-89-1
APPLICANT: CAMWEST DEVELOPMENT, INC.
REQUEST: A request for a preliminary plat approval with a Planned
Unit Development (PUD) for 39 residential lots and
associated open space.
LOCATION: The property is located north of the 103rd Avenue SE and
SE 228th Street intersection, abutting a portion of the
west side of 104th Avenue SE.
APPLICATION FILED: 6/5/89
DEC. OF NONSIGNIFIANCE: 6/15/89
MEETING DATE: 9/6/89
RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: 9/20/89
RECOMMENDATION: DENIED
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy McClung, Planning Department
Carol Proud, Planning Department
Stephen Clifton, Planning Department
Mike Evans, Fire Department
Gary Gill, Public Works Department
Ed White, Public Works Department
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Eric Campbell, CamWest Development
Rory Grundley, Traffic Consultant
John Newell, Engineering Consultant
Public Testimony
Betty Hoff
Rudy Hoff
Dennis D'Eath
Irene Boufferd
Richard French
Ismael Melendez
Richard Phillips
Roger Record
Paul Kiehn
Curt Betchley
Lucille Lemon
James Orr
Rudy Dodd
Steve Feller
John O'Rourke
1
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Dover Place _
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
WRITTEN TESTIMONY: Petition in Opposition
INTRODUCTION
After due consideration of all the evidence presented at public hearing
on the date indicated above, and following an unaccompanied personal
inspection of the subject property and surrounding area by the Hearing
Examiner at a time prior to the public hearing, the following findings,
conclusions and recommendation are entered by the Hearing Examiner on
this application.
FINDINGS
1. Both the City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map and the East Hill
Comprehensive Plan Map designate the site as Single-family
Residential. The East Hill Map indicates a preferred density
of 4 - 6 units per acre. The subject property is zoned R1-9 . 6,
Single-family Residential, 9, 600 square foot minimum lot size.
The Planned Unit Development Ordinance, Section 15. 04 . 080,
allows for certain density bonuses if certain conditions are
met.
2 . The subject property is 7. 6 acres in size. The present zoning
allows for 34 . 48 single-family homes. The applicant proposes
to construct 39 single-family homes based on density bonuses
requested in this application. This would result in a density
of 5 units per acre with an average lot size of 4, 770 square
feet.
3 . Land use surrounding the site includes the Briar Lane single-
family subdivision immediately to the south, some rural single-
family residential development to the north, an apartment
complex to the northeast on 104th Avenue SE and single-family
residential development immediately to the east across 104th
Avenue SE.
4 . No unusual environmental conditions or features exist on the
site. A tract of 2 .85 acres (equal to 36.6 percent of the site)
is proposed by the applicant as open space. This open space is
proposed to include areas of natural vegetation (49, 658 square
feet) , formal landscaping and about 33,105 square feet of an
unspecified active recreational facility. The applicant
proposes a 32-foot wide landscape buffer around the perimeter
of the site.
2
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1 -
5. An existing eight-inch water main is located adjacent to the
site and is available to serve the site. An existing eight inch
sanitary sewer main is located at the southwest corner of the
property and is available to serve the site.
6 . A tentative plat meeting was held on June 1, 1989 . Several
concerns were raised by City staff at that meeting. The notes
of this meeting enumerated concerns intended to be "the
conditions and restrictions for the proposed Dover Place
preliminary plat and PUD" . These conditions and restrictions
included:
112 . Designate the type of active open space that is
proposed for the project;
4 . Note on the plat that tract B is for open space and
will not be subdivided in the future; and
6 . Include a copy of the proposed homeowners (sic)
covenants, conditions and restrictions with the
plat/PUD application. "
These three conditions and restrictions have not been complied
with as of the date of the hearing on this application.
7 . An "Environmental Review Report - Decision Document" prepared
by the City Planning Department on June 13, 1989 notes that "to
determine required parking areas, a parking needs assessment
must be provided and approved by the Planning Director and
Hearing Examiner" . A parking needs
s required
by Section 15. 04 . 080 C (5) (b) of the Kent Zoning Code
A study
has not been done.
8 . A final Mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance was issued
June 14 , 1989 with conditions related to storm water drainage
detention, biofiltration and traffic impacts. No appeal was
filed to challenge these conditions within the 15 days allowed
for appeals.
9 . The City Fire Department indicated on July 19th in written
comment on the application that "access and parking problems
associated with this development create a serious concern about
our ability to deliver an adequate level of service to this
development" . Since that time, the applicant has submitted two
letters (dated August lith and August 30th) to respond to
concerns of the Fire Department. These letters contain specific
standards to deal with the concerns raised.
3
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1 -
10. Numerous members of the public testified at the public hearing
in opposition to the proposed project. A Petition in opposition
to the project singed by 56 people was also presented at the
hearing. The concerns raised included:
a. lack of off-street parking for visitors;
b. restrictions on fire and police access if on-street parking
occurs (which appears likely) ;
C. traffic overload on SE 228th Street from additional
vehicles travelling to and from the proposed development;
d. risks to children from increased traffic moving at rapid
speed;
e. overcrowding at neighborhood schools;
f. restrictions on access for garbage and recycling trucks if
on-street parking occurs;
g. need for playgrounds for the increased number of children
associated with this proposed development as well as those
children already in the area;
h. too dense of development if lot sizes are permitted that
are smaller than the current zoning;
i. enforcement of conditions, covenants, and restrictions as
to parking will be difficult;
j . other PUDs in other jurisdictions are not attractive;
k. there often are more than two cars per family and the
proposed development has no parking for them.
11. The findings of the City Planning Department regarding PUD
review criteria 2 , 3 , 41 and 5 set forth on pages 19 and 20 of the
Staff Report dated August 29, 1989 are incorporated herein by
reference as if set forth in full.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The applicant has applied for both a PUD permit approval and
approval of a preliminary plat. Section 15.04 . 080 E (6) of the
4
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
.� Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1 -
Kent Zoning Code authorizes consolidation of the PUD review
process with other land use permit processes required by other
sections of the code. If the other land use review requires
City Council approval, a PUD permit shall not be deemed approved
until the City Council has approved the related land use permit.
In this matter, both the preliminary plat decision and the PUD
decision of the Hearing Examiner are recommendations to the City
Council. Consolidation of preliminary plat review with PUD
review is appropriate in this matter. The purpose of Hearing
Examiner review is examine available information, conduct a
public hearing, prepare a record of the proceedings and enter
findings and conclusions based upon that record together with
a recommendation to the City Council. Both the PUD decision and
the preliminary plat decision must be further acted on by the
City Council before the review process on this consolidated
application is complete.
2 . The purpose of the subdivision regulations, which includes the
requirement for preliminary plat approval, is to:
Provide rules, regulations, requirements, and standards for subdividing land in the City
of Kent, insuring that the highest feasible quality in subdivision wilt be attained; that
the public health, safety, general welfare, and aesthetics of the City of Kent shall be
promoted and protected; that orderly growth, development, and the conservation, protection
and proper use of land shalt be insured; that proper provisions for all public facilities
.. . shall be made; that maximum advantage of site characteristics shalt be taken into
consideration; that conformance with provisions set forth in the City of Kent Zoning
Code and Kent Comprehensive Plan shalt be insured.
Section 2 . 3 . 3 of the Kent Subdivision Code sets forth the
particular requirements for an application for preliminary plat
approval. The application for the Dover Place proposal is in
compliance with the application requirements of this section.
However, conditions on approval of the preliminary plat element
of this consolidated application as specified below are
necessary to assure that this proposal will comply with the
purposes of the Kent Subdivision Code. The conditions are as
follows:
a. approval of a PUD permit that allows for the density
proposed in the preliminary plat application;
b. Prior to recordation of the final plat:
1. Design private streets to meet City standards
regarding pavement structure, cement concrete curb
and sidewalks, street lighting, drainage system,
5
Hearing Examiner Recommendation _.
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1 -
street name signs and other items consistent with good
street construction practices as determined by the
city;
2 . Deed a 20-foot right of way along 104th Avenue SE to
City for street purposes;
3 . Design on-site storm water detention and water release
at a non-erosive point. Extend storm drain facilities
to adjacent property lines with necessary easements
as required by the City;
4 . Provide public water systems to meet fire flow and
domestic flow requirements with minimum size line of
six-inch diameter. Extend main to service adjacent
properties as determined necessary by the City;
5. Provide public gravity sewer service to all lots and
extend to adjacent property lines as determined
necessary by the City;
6. No vehicle access to the proposed development from
104th Avenue SE shall be allowed.
3 . The intent of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) is to "create
a process to promote diversity and creativity in site design,
and protect and enhance natural and community features. "
Section 15.04 . 080 of the Kent Zoning Code sets forth the
permitted uses, development standards, density bonus standards,
application process, review criteria and time limits for PUDs.
The Hearing Examiner is authorized by Section 15. 04 . 080 F to
grant, deny or condition an application based on the following
review criteria:
1. Residential Planned Unit Development Criteria
a. The proposed PUD project shall have a beneficial effect upon the community and users
of the development which would not normally be achieved by traditional lot-by-lot development and shall
not be detrimental to existing or potential surrounding land uses as defined by the Comprehensive Plan.
b. Unusual environmental features of the site shall be preserved, maintained and
incorporated into the design to benefit the development and the community.
c. The proposed PUD project shall provide areas of openness by using techniques such as
clustering, separation of building groups, and use of well-designed open space and/or landscaping.
d. The proposed PUD project shall promote variety and innovation in site and building
design. Buildings in groups shall be related by common materials and roof styles, but contrast shall be
provided throughout the site by the use of varied materials, architectural detailing, building scale and
orientation.
e. Building design shall be based on a unified design concept, particularly when
construction will be in phases.
6
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Dover Place _
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1 -
The concept of a "Planned Unit Development" or "PUD" has its
roots in cluster zoning, floating zones and special permit
procedures. Section 11. 09 of Anderson's American Law Of Zoninq
defines a PUD as "an area of land to be developed as a single
entity for a number of dwelling units, the development plan for
which does not correspond to the regulations established in any
one residential district created under the provisions of a
municipal Zoning Ordinance. "
Section 15. 02 . 332 of the Kent Zoning Code broadens this
definition by stating that departures from conventional
development standards must be "in the interest of achieving
superior site development, creating open space and encouraging
imaginative design by permitting design flexibility. "
The concept of a PUD may be implemented by designating certain
tracts of land for PUD development or by requiring special
review and approval for deviations from the underlying zoning.
This application falls under the latter approach. The
Washington Supreme Court has recognized this approach to a PUD
"in order to provide a more desirable living environment than
would be possible through a strict application of zoning
ordinance requirements. " Olympia v. Palzer, 107 Wn.2nd 22S
(1986) , citing several cases.
The City of Kent PUD ordinance requires greater scrutiny of a
proposed development when it is submitted as a PUD. Specific
studies and commitments to restrictions are required under the
PUD ordinance that would not be required under the underlying
zoning ordinance. An overriding criteria is that the proposed
PUD development must "achieve superior site development" , "have
a beneficial effect under the community" and "not be detrimental
to existing or potential surrounding land uses. " See Sections
15. 02 . 332 , 15. 04 . 080 F(1) of Kent Zoning Code. A PUD proposal
should not be allowed solely for the purpose of obtaining
deviations from the underlying zoning. There must be beneficial
impacts associated with the proposed development.
The Hearing Examiner concludes that there are no unusual
environmental features of the site, that the proposed PUD would
provide areas of openess, that the proposed PUD would promote
variety and innovation in site design and that the building
design would be based on a unified design concept.
However, based on review criteria (Section 15. 04.080 F (1) ) , and
the Findings set forth above, the Hearing Examiner concludes
that the PUD as proposed would not have a beneficial effect upon
7
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1 -
the community and may be detrimental to existing surrounding
land uses. The reasons for this conclusion are detailed below.
a. There will not be adequate vehicular parking areas.
The existing zoning for the site is R1 9.6. This was
established in July 1987 after annexation. The average lot
size proposed in the PUD is 4,770 square feet. The
increased density achieved through PUD bonus points means
an increased number of vehicles entering and leaving
through the one access point of 103rd Avenue SE. It also
means an increased number of vehicles parking within the
site. The primary concern raised at the public hearing
related to inadequate off-street parking within the PUD.
According to testimony given by City staff, on-street
parking would restrict the entry of emergency vehicles such
as fire, police, and ambulance. No clearance would be
possible for fire trucks if both sides of a street were
parked on. It is also possible that lack of parking within
the site would mean "spill over" parking onto
103rd Avenue SE.
While the applicant meets the parking requirements of the
underlying zoning and has proposed twelve additional spaces
within the north cul-de-sac, there is no evidence to
support a conclusion that this parking would be adequate
to meet the needs of the residents and visitors to the
site. The PUD development standards found in Section
15. 04 . 080 c of the Kent Zoning Code require that "adequate
vehicular parking areas shall be provided" . Further, the
ordinance requires that "the required number of parking
spaces . . . shall be approved by the Hearing Examiner
based upon a parking need assessment study submitted by the
applicant and approved by the Planning Director" . This
approach to parking requirements is unique to the PUD
ordinance. Other code provisions would allow a precise
determination of parking requirements from the code itself.
For example, Section 15. 05. 040 A requires two parking
spaces per single-family dwelling. Section 3 . 1. 11 of the
Subdivision code requires one guest parking space for each
dwelling unit in a zero lot line development. The PUD
ordinance requires that a determination of adequate
vehicular parking areas be made based on a parking
assessment study. The burden of proof is upon the
applicant to show that adequate space will be provided
based upon the study.
8
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1 -
The study could examine typical vehicle ownership and use
patterns for the expected residents at the site as well as
typical parking patterns in similar subdivisions or PUDs.
The study has not been performed. It may be found that
adequate vehicular parking does exist with the current
configuration. On the other hand, there may be a need for
additional areas to be designated for parking.
A parking assessment study must be performed and a
determination of whether adequate vehicular areas exist
must be made before the PUD can be approved. It is the
applicant' s responsibility to submit this study. This
could be submitted as new evidence upon motion for
reconsideration if the applicant so desires. This motion
must be made within 14 days of the date of this decision.
b. The open space element would not benefit the existing
surrounding land uses as now proposed.
Section 15. 04 . 080 C (5) of the Kent Zoning Code states that
"open space within a PUD shall be available for common use
by the residents, tenants, and/or the general public,
depending on the type of project" . In addition, the
applicant has requested a discretionary four percent
density bonus based on a ten percent set aside for "active
recreation areas" . Section 15.04 .080 D (2) of the Kent
Zoning Code states that "only that percentage of space
contained within accessory structures that is directly used
for active recreation uses" can be counted toward that ten
percent.
The applicant was notified in the tentative plat meeting
on June 1st that the type of active open space should be
designated. That has not been done. Without a
determination of what type of recreational facility might
be constructed for active recreation, it is not possible
to determine if the active recreation use of the common
open space will be available for use by the general public.
If it is, there undoubtedly would be benefits to the
surrounding area. If not, the surrounding community may
be burdened by increased activity at the recreation site.
The review criteria of Section 15. 04 . 080 of the Kent Zoning
Code require that a finding be made that the proposed PUD
will not be detrimental to surrounding land uses. This
determination cannot be made without evidence as to what
type of activity will occur at the active recreation site
9
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1 - -
within the PUD. The applicant may also desire to submit
this as new evidence upon a motion for reconsideration.
4 . If a PUD is approved on reconsideration or appeal, it is the
conclusion of the Hearing Examiner that at least the following
conditions should be applied:
a. a notation shall be placed on the final subdivision plat
which clearly identifies the total dimension of Tract B and
that it be retained as permanent open space and not be
further subdivided;
b. the open space active recreation area shall be constructed
and operable by the time 50 percent of the homes are
completed within the PUD;
C. the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions for the project
must include:
1. a maintenance agreement to permanently maintain the
open space active recreation area;
2 . a maintenance agreement for all private streets;
3 . restrictions that require the proposed native
vegetation to permanently remain;
4 . a requirement that a mailer be sent each June and
January to all residences with a reminder that no
parking is allowed on the streets due to fire hazards;
5. a stipulation that the conditions, covenants and
restrictions containing provisions required by the
City of Kent cannot be amended or nullified by a vote
of any organized home owners ' association;
6. language identical to that of Exhibit 3 - attached to
a letter dated August 30th from Eric Campbell to Lt.
Mike Evans - regarding conditions related to
standards, prohibitions, enforcement, penalties and
impound of vehicles within the PUD.
d. No construction practices shall take place within the areas
designated to be retained in native vegetation.
10
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1 _
e. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a
recorded copy of the final version of the Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions for approval of language
related to the above conditions prior to issuance of any
building permits for the site.
DECISION
The consolidated application for approval of a preliminary plat and PUD
application is DENIED. Two elements essential to the Hearing
Examiner's ability to render a decision in the PUD review process have
not been submitted into evidence for review and action. Both a parking
assessment study and a designation of the type of open space active
recreational use are critical to a determination of whether the
proposed PUD can be approved under the review criteria set forth in
Section 15. 04 . 080 F of the Kent Zoning Ordinance. The applicant may
desire to submit this evidence upon motion for reconsideration. If the
application is eventually approved, the conditions specified in the
Conclusions of the Hearing Examiner should be applied to assure the
proposal is consistent with city ordinances.
Dated this 20th day of September, 1989 .
THEODORE PAUL HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
APPEALS FROM HEARING EXAMINER DECISIONS.
Request for Reconsideration
Any aggrieved person may request a reconsideration within 14 days of
of the decision by the Hearing Examiner if either (a) a specific error
of fact, law, or judgment can be identified or (b) new evidence is
available which was not available at the time of the hearing.
Reconsideration requests should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner,
220 Fourth Avenue S. , Kent, WA 98032. Reconsiderations are answered
in writing by the Hearing Examiner.
-- 11
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1 -
Notice of Right to Appeal
The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written appeal
to the Council is filed by a party within 14 days of the decision.
The appeal must be filed with the City Clerk. Usually, new information
cannot be raised on appeal. All relevant information and arguments
should be presented at the public hearing before the City Council .
A recommendation by the Hearing Examiner to the City Council can also
be appealed. A recommendation is sent to the City Council for a final
decision; however, a public hearing is not held unless an appeal is
filed.
12
CITY OF KENT
planning.
S E 2 1 9 S T 7 H 1--D
l�
'n ■ — v~i 5 E V _
1 O ?LOTH
W �. ■�mamitesr ST `-t
•• F3
d
m ■•
■ m■. c _�' 222ND ST OL 222ND
1 ST 515
w
■ w = N W
< n W w
\ d
/ a
1 `^ •' SE 22a7H — 57 .. 4
SE 224TH O -•
■ I E3 I SOP PE W 'S SL `
1 ���■1� 04.P 51M N n <224TH P
■ < ■ SE 22 m
S ST < E STH
2251H d =uw
■ �_ SITE sE P` _1 _� _>\ ,SE 226TH �' ^'(
+ 5T
■ �' ■ � � Z ww =W O
<� SE e� ^
al 1000 S 228TH .. 227TH ST o> r
1 ST SE 228TH ST< SE 228TH
ST
■
■ 1 W ■
vi ■ ■SE 229 T)i y4' L0 SE 1 N
' , 29THf
W 1 �n PL Qom' I'll ST ST >
1 y ,)�, � SE 230 H
ST
■ �' 1 S 7315T SE MST ax SE O Ob{� �QyS SE 231ST PARK
1 , Pvt ST wlm 230TH� { �SCH
( ) ST =N ELE
■ ST <■o PL �� Se 232ND ST ow
S 232ND 1 S 232ND >
•� 1SE 232ND 5T W SE ^< E 232N
ST ,■ ST l SE 232No PL 0 232ND
■ ST
< PL
q o■ 9' , 233RD pE I,Ip1�
w ■ ■ nr�m 00 g•E m =
1 � {
■ < 454, = STH�S JOD�Q r
■1
O
■ w ■O
_ m s b SE 236TH ST AVE
m j1�5 2367H J`�g10 SE
ST
1 w I WISE 236TH PL m N
irk_ m■ > o SE 237TH S7 > W
N ■ o E 238TH In
n ■ _ W (Pv,) SE 239TH S
MI
OtS238TH L. O `.a < ti w ST Jt<t�.239t PL
240' ST
APPLICATION Name Dover Place LEGEND
Number #SU-89-2 Dale September 6, 1929 application site
RegueSt PrPliminary Plat zoning boundary
-•—� city limits
VICINITY MAP
SCALE = r = IDDD
.CITY. OF KENT
planning..
20 �`\ a . ,\ -t
16
is ` ` SA0
1\4 \LJ'�\ 23 I
1 � 1 I
I I
\N6.tr
\ 24
13 \ 1 0 \
\ 2 2527
10
1,2
3 32
8 II I OFcN �) , ' .
1 Q I I b3 '
<33.7C=�
34 \
\ I �
ii I \ 1. I \2 tY 1°wm.,, 38
.1 9io-r 37 .'
yoa.r, 3Lo
t Hyer
a �P 4 �l \ Sk F`\
atl•N'N W I i » is,
t i I mr\ \t ..
f I xo
�.6 N I I 24
v S.E. 223th Street
APPLICATION Name Dover Place LEGEND t
Number 111-81-1 Date September 6, 1989 application site
zoning houndary
RegneSt Preliminary Plat city limits
SITE PLAN
SCALE = No scale
CITY OF KENT
planning.
C� rt
1 _ - F3
• \\ Ji ,wad;, i 1 it `
_ . � � , �� �a?�',,- •� r u. ;. � emu' { _ ��,". � .,.
.; Joy �;j... �\\�� �� Yp4`�v.�� rt �, '' - �Iv� �• ` L
z o . n
Ll
yg5 4:. .
\
1
MRG
APPLICATION Name Dover Place LEGEND
Number #SU-89-2 Date September 6. 1989 °•: application site
Request Preliminary Plat zoning boundary
�■�■■ City limits
TOPOGRAPHY/ZONING MAP
SCALE = r = 400
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES
~~ September 6, 1989
The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to order
by the presiding ' officer, Ted Hunter, Hearing Examiner, on
Wednesday, September 61 1989 at 7 :00 P.M. in the Kent City Hall,
Council Chambers.
Mr. Hunter 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 and
agendas were available by the door. Mr. Hunter briefly described
the sequence and procedure of the hearing. Each person presenting
testimony was sworn in by Mr. Hunter prior to giving testimony.
DOVER PLACE
Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development
#SU-89-2 AND #PUD-89-1
A request by CamWest Development, Inc. , PO Box 308, Kirkland, WA
98083-0308, for preliminary subdivision approval in conjunction
with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 39-lot residential
subdivision with associated open space. The property is located
north of the intersection of 103rd Avenue SE and SE 228th Street
and abuts a portion of the west side of 104th Avenue SE and is 7 . 6
acres in size.
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT
Ted Hunter: Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth and the whole
truth in this matter?
Carol Proud: I do.
Hunter: Please proceed.
Proud: For the record. . . for the record my name is Carol Proud and
I represent the Kent Planning Department. I would like to begin
the hearing by noting a correction to the staff report. . .on page
20, Item 7 , where they discuss City staff recommendation, it should
read the City staff recommends approval of the proposed 39-lot
subdivision and planned unit development subject to the following
conditions. . . it says 17 .
Can everybody hear me o.k? Right, that should say 39. O.K. For
tonight' s presentation I will give a brief overview of the proposal
including a video of the site and discuss the proposal in light of
the Kent Subdivision Code. I will then turn the hearing over. . .or
the presentation over to Stephen Clifton who will discuss the
1
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
proposal in light of the city's Comprehensive Plan and the Planned
Unit Development Ordinance.
The proposal is to provide. . .subdivide a 7.6 acre site into 39
residential lots and a separate tract for open space. The size of
the proposed lots will vary between 4 ,500 and 5, 000 square feet.
The tract of open space, as proposed, will total 2 . 5 acres or 36. 6
percent of the site. The tract will include areas of natural
vegetation, formal landscaping and approximately 33, 000 square feet
of active recreational area. A minimum 30 feet wide landscape
buffer will be provided around the perimeter of the site.
Approximately 1, 200 linear feet of private roadway terminating at
two separate cul-de-sacs will be constructed for the project. A
parking area for 12 vehicles is proposed at the center of the
northern cul-de-sac approximately here. The resulting planned unit
development will provide for 39 single-family houses at an overall
density of five units per acre. As you can see the property has
an 1-shape configuration and is located north of the intersection
of 103rd Avenue SE, just approximately here. And, southeast 228th
and abuts a portion of the west side of 104th Avenue SE. I would
like to apologize for our maps, they don't include. . .they were made
before the subdivision to the south and the resultant roads were
in, so you can't see that there is in fact 228th Street extends to
the west from 104th and meanders down to 98th Avenue S.
The subject property is located at the northeast corner of the R1-
9 . 6, Single Family Residential , zoning district that extends west
to 98th Avenue S and south to approximately 203rd Street.
Land use in the area is best described as transitional. Some rural
single family residential development is located north and west of
the subject property. The area east of 104th Avenue SE is all King
County and is more densely development with single-family
residences that are on smaller lots and part of larger
subdivisions.
Directly south of the site is the Brier Lane Subdivision. An
apartment complex with related parking areas is located northeast
of the site along this curve here further north on 104th Avenue
SE. Now I have a brief video this site. And I apologize to the
public, we only have this smaller tv set here, this is primarily
for the view of the Hearing Examiner so I 'm sure most of you live
out there and are pretty familiar with the site anyway.
(Video shown Tape 1-217-290. )
2
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
A brief history of the site. The site is located at the northern
boundary of the recent 142-acre East Hill Well Annexation Area I
which was incorporated into the City in 1987. Annexation of the
area occurred as a result of local residents needing to obtain
water from the City. After much deliberation by the City Council
and the community, the annexed area. . .the annexation area was
predominantly zoned R1-9 . 6, Single Family Residential. Review of
City and County maps indicate that quite a bit of subdivision
activity has occurred in the area prior to annexation. Most of the
subdivision activity has occurred directly east of the site at
104th Avenue SE and south of the subject property. . . in through
here. . .the Brier Lane subdivision as well as other plats in the
vicinity developed in King County prior to annexation. King County
permits a lot averaging system that allows for a variety of lot
sizes. For this reason, some of the lots may be less than the
7, 200 square foot minimum required under the City of Kent
standards.
The proposed plat is in general conformance with the regulations
of the Subdivision Code. The private road system will be developed
to Code standards including curbs and sidewalks and except for the
width of the pavement which will be less than the required 26 feet,
the proposed 22 feet is consistent with the standards specified in
the PUD Ordinance. Because of safety concerns with regard to fire
vehicle access, no on-street parking will be permitted in the
subdivision. Each lot must provide on-site parking for a minimum
of two vehicles as specified in the Kent Zoning Code. All proposed
sewers, water mains and other utilities will comply with applicable
City requirements.
The configuration of proposed Lot 36 which is where the existing
house and barn is located must be redesigned to accommodate access
from the private road and not 104th Avenue SE. This is at the
request of the Washington State Department of Transportation as
well as the Public Works Department requirements. Because of a
required easement to widen 104th Avenue SE, approximately 660
square feet will be removed from the proposed tract of open space
which is located here. . .and around. Preliminary review indicates
that the size of that main tract will be 35. 1 percent which meets
the minimum requirement for a PUD. The exact dimensions must be
specified on the final plat. The proposed PUD, in effect, is a
binding site plan and no lot will be permitted to be sold
separately from the resultant subdivision. Language to this effect
must be included in the covenants, conditions and restrictions for
3
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
the PUD. Also the proposed plat must receive approval and recorded
with King County Department of Records prior to any construction
activities on the site. I will now turn the podium over to Stephen
Clifton who will discuss the project in light of the City' s
Comprehensive Plan and the PUD Ordinance.
Hunter: Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth
in the testimony you're about to give?
Stephen Clifton: I do. My name is Stephen Clifton, I 'm with the
-Cent Planning Department and I 'm here to present the Planned Unit
Development portion of this project. Before I start, on August 14 ,
we did receive a petition from neighbors which live within the
vicinity of the site and I would like to present that to you at
this time. All signatures are opposing the PUD.
Hunter: We' ll receive that. I believe there is a copy already in
the file. This has a different notation on the top--it has an
address, so we' ll receive it as Exhibit I.
Clifton: O.K. During my presentation I will be discussing
primarily three aspects of a planned unit development. First, I
will be talking about the PUD and the analysis under the
Comprehensive and East Hill Plans and the elements of those Plans
and how the PUD relates to those elements. I next will be
discussing the PUD density bonus system and how the applicant's
achieve an increase in units and following that I will discuss the
criteria which is used by the Hearing Examiner to evaluate the PUD
proposal.
The Comprehensive Plan Map designates the subject property as SF,
Single Family. Under the Housing Element of the Comprehensive
Plan, Policy 8 , it states that, "To encourage the use of
clustering, zero lot line, planned unit developments and other site
planning techniques to improve the quality of the developments. "
Our finding is that a revised planned unit development ordinance
became effective in October of 1988 and using regulations of the
existing PUD Ordinance, the proposed plan contains 35 percent of
the site for common open space of which ten percent is dedicated
for passive use, ten percent for active recreation and 15 percent
is preserved for native vegetation. Under standard R1-9 . 6 zoning,
common open space and requiring areas for active and passive open
space is not a requirement. Also, under R1-9 . 6 zoning if you were
to achieve or figure out a way to get 39 homes on 9.6 zoning it
would also require that also one additional acreage be obtained to
4 M.
Hearing Examiner Minutes
w September 61 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #kSU-89-2/PUD-89-1
create the same amount of homes that are being created on this site
here.
Goal 3 is to assure an adequate supply of housing units offering
a diversity of size, densities, age, style and costs. The proposed
project will provide 39 additional single-family homes for the
City of Kent and currently there's a two to one proportion in favor
of multifamily versus single-family and it is the City's intent to
try to balance out this perceived imbalance and we've had a lot of .
citizen concern with trying to increase the amount of single-
family homes which are being developed in Kent because multifamily
out numbers single-family currently two to one. T
he size of the
homes will also add to the mix of housing types within the
community.
Under the Circulation Element, the Overall Goal is to establish a
balanced, safe and efficient transportation system for all modes
of travel . The PUD allows applicants to modify pavement widths of
the two-way street upon review and approval of the Kent Fire Chief
and the Traffic Engineer. The proposed width of the road in
this. . . in for this PUD development is 22 feet. The applicants ' are
able to reduce it to 22 feet by not allowing on-street parking.
The Kent Fire Department does have concern regarding the access to
the homes and the applicant has held several meetings with
representatives of the Fire Department and Z would like to submit
a letter which was sent to the Lt. Mike Evans of the Fire
Department in which the Fire Department and the applicants
negotiated terms for making sure the site will be safe.
Hunter: Letter dated August 30 . Exhibit 2--3?
Clifton: Under the Land Use Plan, the map designates the subject
property as SF6, Single-Family or 4 to 6 units per acre. This
designation represents the highest single-family residential
density. The minimum lot sizes of the underlying zoning do not
apply in a PUD. Thus, allowing lots to be less than the 9, 600
square foot size. The overall density of the development is
approximately 5 units per acre as mentioned earlier which falls
within the SF6 density designation.
For the Planned Unit Bonus Density standards, a planned unit
development, the density of residential development for PUD' S is
based on the gross density of the underlying zoning district. The
Hearing Examiner may recommend a dwelling unit density up to 20
percent greater than permitted by the underlying zone upon findings
5
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
and conclusions that the amenities or design features which promote
the purpose of this section are provided. Density Bonus Standards
have been met, include: 1) open space--four percent density bonus
can be authorized if at least ten percent of the site is
concentrated for passive use. This would include area around the
perimeter between the lots and the property lines as well as the
corners of the sites. The Kent Planning Department felt it
necessary to assure that Tract B be retained as open space thus the
following condition should be applied to the final subdivision:
The final subdivision linen shall bear a notation stating that
Tract B which is that area surrounding the perimeter of the lots
between the lots and the property line, be retained as permanent
open space and shall not be further subdivided. Open space along
the southern property line consists mainly of tall grasses and
weeds and the landscape plan for Dover Place shows that the
applicant proposes to plant conifers or evergreen trees along
this. . .the southern strip and also along the western strip along
104th, thus creating an evergreen screen between the development
and the homes to the south and 104th Avenue to the west.
The second Bonus Density Standard is for active recreation area.
A four percent density bonus can also be authorized if at least
ten percent of the site is utilized for active recreational
purposes. This includes, but is not limited to, jogging, walking,
pools, play areas--children play areas and according to the site
plan, ten percent or nearly three-quarters of an acre has been
designated for active recreation. You can see that in the center
of the site and that 's approximately around 3, 000 square feet.
Incidentally the area surrounding or between the property line as
outlined in green is all the open space they are proposing for the
site. To ensure that the residents moving into the earlier
constructed homes have this open space for their uses, the
following conditions should be applied. The Planning Department
felt that the active open recreation area should be constructed and
useable upon completion of 50 percent of the homes within the
planned unit development. In addition to that, lawn area should
be planted using typical lawn planting methods. This would be
seed, sod, five-way top soil and irrigation to ensure that the
active open space does remain green. The active open recreation
area should also be permanently maintained by the Home Owner's
Association and a maintenance agreement to this affect should be
included in the conditions, covenants and restrictions for the
project.
6
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
The third Bonus Density Standard the applicants' were able to
achieve is a four percent bonus density which can be authorized if
at least 15 percent of the native vegetation on the site is left
undisturbed in large open areas. This would also include the areas
between the property and the parcels and would also include the
corners and primarily along the western side of the property,
northern and northeast corner. There's significant stands of trees
which the applicant proposes to retain and those will be located
within that 30-foot buffer. To assure that this native vegetation
is left undisturbed during construction and primarily retained as
native vegetation, the Planning Department felt it necessary to
apply two additional conditions and the first would be that no
construction practices of any kind take place within the area
designated to be retained as native vegetation. This includes such
things as vehicular moving, material storage, etc. The conditions,
covenants and restrictions for the proposed project shall require
that the proposed native vegetation areas be designated as
permanent and left as native vegetation and the Planning Department
also felt it necessary to place in the CCR's that no voting
majority of any organized Home Owner's Association be able to
compromise or nullify the conditions of the PUD should it be
approved.
An additional Density Bonus Standard would be the use of a Project
Planning Management Team which would include architects, landscape
architects, engineers. . . it has been found that through the use of
teams like this, developments typically turn out to be of higher
quality.
The underlying zoning for the subject property allows 34 .48 units.
The applicants ' have fulfilled four of seven requirements;
therefore, 14 percent density bonus can be granted. This increase
would allow an additional 4 . 84 units or approximately 5 units
resulting in the development potential of 39 units. In addition
to the Density Bonus Standards, the Hearing Examiner also
determines whether to grant, deny or question an application for
a planned unit development based on several criteria.
The first would be that the proposed PUD shall have a beneficial
effect upon the community and users of the development which would
not normally be achieved by traditional lot-by-lot development and
shall not be detrimental to existing or potential surrounding land
uses as defined by the Comprehensive Plan. Under standard R1-9. 6
zoning, common open space and required areas for active and passive
recreation is not a requirement as mentioned earlier. A sports
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
court and open lawn area has been proposed to serve the residents
of the development. This would be located in the center of the
site. Standard subdivision regulations also do not require this
type of amenity.
The second criteria would be unusual environmental features of the
site will be preserved, maintained and incorporated into the design
and benefit the development and the community. No real unusual
environmental features exist on this site. The site is covered in
some areas along the west and the north of the site with conifers
and the remainder of the site is primarily grasses and sage. The
areas designated to be retained as native vegetation includes the
area around the perimeter between the proposed lots and property
lines. As mentioned above, in a typical subdivision application
of 9 . 6 zoning percentage requirements for retaining natural
vegetation do not exist. Using a typical 9 ,600 square foot lot
layout a higher percentage of trees may be removed than the
proposed PUD application.
The third criteria is that the proposed PUD shall not. . .shall
promote variety and innovation in site and building design.
Buildings in groups shall be related by common materials and roof
styles but contrast shall be provided throughout the site by the
use of architectural detailing, building scale and orientation.
As mentioned previously, the proposed project will provide 39
additional homes. The sizes of these homes ranges anywhere from
1, 222 square feet to approximately 910 square feet. These homes
will be one and two stories in height and the applicant has stated
that as many as five different housing plans will be constructed
within the development. A few of these plans can be seen on the
walls over here if anyone would care to take a look at those after
the meeting.
The fourth criteria is that building design be based on the unified
design concept particularly when construction would be in phases.
The applicant claims that all homes are proposed as single-family
structures each with two car garages. Building plans submitted
indicates different square footages but overall similarity in style
does exist. The applicant also has proposed that these homes will
be built one right after the other and starting on one of the ends
of the site and moving back.
Upon review of the merits of this request and the Code criteria
for granting a PUD and preliminary subdivision, the City staff
recommends approval of the proposed 17 . . . .39-lot subdivision
8
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
subject to the conditions listed on pages 20 through 22 of the
staff report. Any questions.
Hunter: Yeah, a couple of questions on the density bonus aspect
dealing with the open. . .active open space. What's the nature of
the sports park. . . is that something open to the general public use,
you'd think typically, or would it be only for residents in this
development?
Clifton: The open space as proposed has been proposed for people
living in the subdivision. If the applicant is willing to open
that up to the surrounding area, that has not been determined at
this time.
Hunter: There' s no parking provided. . .extra parking spaces for
that. . .
Clifton: Correct.
Hunter: The design team, bonus aspect, where's it indicated. Is
in the report, whose on the teams, on the site plan, we have one
required from four different professional areas apparently? If you
are not familiar with that we can ask the applicant.
Clifton: Right. Well, the names can be found on the site plans
themselves, the engineering firm, the architectural firm. The
landscape plans which were done by Cliff Woolworth and Associates,
which is a landscape architectural firm.
Hunter: And has there been a parking assessment study submitted
to the Planning Department by the applicant?
Clifton: Through SEPA review, the applicant has alternatives to
conduct surveys or, I believe, submit fees for future projects and
our traffic engineers are here tonight who can answer that question
if you would like them to.
Hunter: O.K. Very good. Thank you, Steve. . . .Stephen. O.K.
We ' ll turn now to the applicant. If there's someone here
representing the applicant, and is there just one from the
applicant that will make a presentation, you, sir?
Voice: Actually, I have my traffic engineer and my engineer who
will also be making short comments upon parts of the staff report.
__ 9
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place 4SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
Hunter: O.K. , fine. Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth and
the whole truth in the testimony you're about to give?
Eric Campbell: I do.
Hunter: Thank you. Begin by stating your name.
Campbell: For the record, I 'm Eric Campbell with CamWest
Developments. I would first like to start off. . .I 'm going to turn
it over to our traffic engineer, Rory Grundley from the Transpo
Group. He' ll address any traffic concerns in regards to Dover
Place.
Hunter: Sir, if you would raise your right hand. Do you swear,
affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth in the testimony
you're about to give?
Rory Grundley: I do. My name is Rory Grundley. I 'm a licensed
professional engineer employed with the firm Transpo Group in
Bellevue, Washington. My address 14715 Bel-Red Road, Suite 100,
Bellevue 98007 .
Hunter: Spell your last name, please?
Grundley: G-R-U-N-D-L-E-Y. I would like to submit to the record
my professional resume and that of my firm.
Hunter: Marked as Exhibit 4 .
Grundley: We were hired by the applicant to review the off-site
traffic impacts of the proposed development. Done this according
to both local and national standards for reviewing traffic impacts.
The first step of this process was to conduct the traffic
generation of a proposed site, given the 39 proposed houses that
is estimated to generate 390 daily trips on an average week day.
Of those 390 trips, 39 of those would occur during the peak hour.
Excuse me. Of those 39 peak hour trips, 25 would be in-bound to
the development and 14 would be out.
Based on traffic patterns observed in the area, we've assigned
these trips to the roadway system. Essentially this assignment
and distribution pattern routed 50 percent of the proposed
development trips north on 104th Avenue, 15 percent to the south
and 35 percent west on 228th, out towards 104th and then down
towards 240th. Existing p.m. peak hour counts also conducted at
10
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
the intersections of 228th and 104th Avenue SE as well as the
intersection of 103rd and 228th. Counts were conducted during
middle of August this year.
As you can see from the figure, assigning the 39 trips throughout
the roadway shows that seven of them will be turning north on
Benson Road, two of them will be outbound turning south; the
opposing movements, twelve will be coming southbound on Benson
turning onto 228th and four will be coming northbound out
towards. . .on 228th towards 104th Avenue; five will be turning left
from the development while nine will be turning in. Again, this
is during the peak hour which typically occurs between 5 and 6 p.m.
During the morning peak hours, the movements will in essence be
reversed; however, the traffic volumes will somewhat lower than the
39 trips.
Superimposing the project traffic trips onto the existing counts
there were conducted shows these turning movements. These turning
movements again are just taken on one day and so they can reflect
somewhere in the neighborhood of a ten percent variation just in
daily traffic. However, for general purposes it's typically
accepted that through the methods of analysis that the analysis
results are fairly accurate through this methodology. Conducting
a level of service analysis which considers such things as roadway
geometry, traffic flow conditions, traffic volumes, lane widths,
etc. , the congestion levels can be rated. Congestion levels range
from level of service A which is very good and indicate very little
delay to level of service E which indicates that the intersections
are approaching capacity and level of service F which generally
indicates the intersection is operating above capacity or
experiences extreme delay.
Conducting a level of service analysis reduced to intersection with
the project traffic added results in the level of service A for the
project driveway access at 103rd and level of service D at the
228th and 104th Avenue. Generally, the accepted levels within the
City of Kent are level of service D, excuse me, level of service
E and F with anything level of service D or above being acceptable.
For an unsignalized intersection, level of service D as that
occurred at 104th and 228th, is generally considered very good
during peak hour conditions. Those levels of service, that is
level of service D is only representative of the side street
traffic. The through traffic on 104th is still at level of service
A conditions.
"" 11
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7: 00 pm -
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
Based on these analyses we find that there is really no significant
adverse impacts to surrounding off-site roadway system. The 39
trips during the peak hour results in just over one vehicle every
two minutes occurring on the roadway system. These results are in
line with those found by the city of Kent during their review and
as outlined in the Determination of Nonsignificance. Addressing
the three concerns that the City imposed for mitigation upon the
development, the City required that the developers shall conduct
a traffic study to identify the off-site traffic impacts to the
City of Kent road network. In lieu of this study, the developer
shall execute an environmental mitigation agreement for future
contribution to the South 224/228th Corridor Improvement Project
with this contribution estimated to equal $41, 964. This is
actually calculated by the 39 trips times $1,076 for each p.m. peak
hour trip.
As our study shows there' s really no significant level of service
threshold that would require such contribution. However, in light
of the impending traffic conditions out there we feel that this
requirement is reasonable to expect developers to fund future
roadway improvements. However, the percentage of traffic that
would actually be using such 224th or 228th corridor improvement
would in essence only be the 50 percent that deflected to the north
and the 35 percent to the south. The 224th/228th corridor project,
in essence, just allows for future planning of some type of
east/west corridor somewhere in the range of neighborhood 224th and
228th to carry traffic both from the East Hill and down to 167 and
back up across the West Hill. With that in light, only the 50
percent that' s directed towards the north and the 35 percent that
may be going down 240th would be using that corridor; therefore,
the total is only 85 percent of the 39 trips assigned to the
roadway system. That 85 percent equals 33 peak hour trips at
$1, 076 per peak hour trip, the contribution would, in essence, then
total $35, 508. The funding strategy of this type of future
improvement would need to be negotiated between the developer and
the City. Typically, these types of operations are some type of
encumbrance attached to the actual lots sales and titles themselves
for the future improvements. That or the lump sum could be made
in advance.
The City also required that the developer execute an agreement with
the City for future financial participation and construction of a
traffic signal at the intersection of 228th and SR 515 (104th
Avenue/Benson Road) whichever you would like to refer to it as,
when, if, the signal warrants are met and the signal determined as
12
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
necessary by the City' s traffic division. We feel this is a
reasonable request but it should be noted that the existing traffic
volumes on 228th Street are far below what would be required for
this intersection to met National signal warrant standards. Even
the traffic forecast for the year 2010 which were developed as part
of the EIS for the 515 widening, they do not show sufficient
volumes on 228th to warrant the signal installation.
The developer is also required to dedicate a portion of right of
way along the frontage of 104th to DOT for future roadway
improvements along 515. The City, excuse me, DOT policy to date
has been to establish 100 total width right of way along their
state highways. Presently, the right-of-way width totals 60 feet,
30 feet on either side of the centerline. This would, therefore,
require an additional 20 feet dedication to the DOT.
We've briefly looked at varying access alternatives to the
development other than the 103rd Avenue access. However, we found
that the 103rd Avenue access is probably the best viable location.
Based on our analysis and review and conversations with
Mr. Richard Arst of the Land Development Unit of DOT, we've
basically come to the following conclusions. That DOT would not
like to have any additional access points located along SR 515.
The more numerous the access points along a major arterial, the
farther reduced the carrying capacity of that roadway becomes.
Additional, additional access points along 515 will create
additional hazards by increasing the number of intersection
conflict points. Should access be required to 104th directly from
the project site, it should be located somewhere at least 250 feet
north of the 228th intersection and preferably with. . .as an
intersection it should be located something in the neighborhood of
500 feet. This would put it in the location that is less than 250
feet south of the 226th Street intersection that tees off to the
east. Therefore, the DOT would require that the project access be
aligned with the 226th Street access so as to not create an off-
set intersection. However, to align that intersection is not
within the property rights of the development and, therefore, it's
really not a viable location.
Additionally, moving the access farther to the north, really
hinders the available intersections site distance coming around
the reverse corner of, I 'm sure all the surrounding residents are
aware of. The DOT is, at this point, just gearing up for
construction to widen 104th Avenue or SR 515 to a five-lane cross-
section and straightening out these curves slightly is. . . includes
13
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place 4SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
as part of the project and that will help the site distance along
these intersection. Along. . .through the s-curve. However, an
intersection site distance along there would drastically be
impeded.
Additionally 103rd Avenue has already been platted and constructed
as part of the Brier Lane development with the intent of providing
future access to this parcel. Therefore, we come to the conclusion
that the 103rd access would not create any significant adverse
impacts and, therefore, should be the preferred access alternative.
I would like to submit also for the record a letter of today's date
addressed to Mr. Eric Campbell that in essence summarizes the
conclusions of our report.
Hunter: O.K. Exhibit 5.
Grundley: That will conclude my presentation unless you have any
questions.
Hunter: No, no questions. Thank you very much. Further testimony
from applicant?
Campbell: Yes, from my own testimony. Basically, . . .
Hunter: You want to restate your name?
Campbell: O.K. Name' s Eric Campbell. I 'm with CamWest
Developments, Inc. O.K. Dover Place has been a combination of
efforts between CamWest Development, Inc. , City of Kent and
numerous other agencies and firms to create a development that not
only meets the minimum requirements of the Planned Unit Development
but exceeds them with site design and layout. Dover Place should
be approved for the following reasons: Firstly, Dover Place meets
the goals, objectives and policies set forth by the City of Kent.
Second, Dover Place by being a Planned Unit Development has a
beneficial affect upon the community and the users of the developer
which would not normally be achieved by traditional lot-by-lot
development. Thirdly, Dover Place promotes variety and innovation
in site and building design. And, lastly, Dover Place is within
a density allotment as stated by the Comprehensive Plan for the
area.
The first reason that Dover Place should be approved is that Dover
Place meets the goals, objectives and policies set forth by the
City of Kent and stated in the Comprehensive Plan. Throughout the
14
Hearing Examiner Minutes
w September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
last year the City of Kent through the directive of the Council has
encouraged Planned Unit Developments within its boundaries. The
reasons why the City of Kent has set forth this request are
numerous. One of the most significant reasons is the City's desire
to create an opportunity for more single-family development and to
balance a growing multifamily units in the City of Kent. This PUD
serves as a mechanism to bolster single-family housing stock as
well as enhancement in the community of Kent. As first stated by
the City of Kent, it' s expression for a Planned Unit Development
was by passing the Resolution 1172 on" July 5, 1988. Resolution
1172 passed by the City Council specifically asked the Planning
Department to conduct a study and update the Housing Element of the
City Comprehensive Plan. Part C of Section 2 of the Resolution
specifically requested the study to explore ways to encourage new
single-family residential development and to maintain existing
neighborhoods. Further, Section 4 of Resolution 1172 asked the
Planning Department to present to the Council revisions of the
Planned Unit Development ordinance in order to encourage and
increase the applications of planned unit developments. This
Resolution demonstrates the desire of the Council and the Mayor in
increasing the opportunity for single-family development within the
City of Kent and especially a Planned Unit Development. Dover
Place is a result of this policy put forth by the City of Kent.
The Planned Unit Development is reaffirmed by the Comprehensive
Plan for the City of Kent which encourages Planned Unit Development
and innovative site planning that is permitted by the PUD that a
traditional subdivision does not allow.
The Comprehensive Plan first states this in the overall goal as I
quote, the overall goal for the Housing Element for the
Comprehensive Plan is: "Assure a decent home and a suitable living
environment for families desiring to live in Kent. " Specifically,
Policy 8 states: "Encourage the use of clustering, zero lot line,
planned unit development and other site planning techniques to
improve the quality of developments. "
Dover Place follows this policy exactly by using Planned Unit
Development Ordinance #2802 passed by the City on September 6,
1988. The important aspect of this policy is the word "Quality"
and that is what Dover Place provides. Not only for it's potential
users but for the community of Kent. Quality is the use of open
space, preservation of native vegetation and thoughtful design that
benefits the public. Dover Place uses all these elements to create
a living environment that will set the standard of how innovative
design can maximize neighborhood appeal.
15
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
Goal 3 of the Comprehensive Plan in the Housing Element states:
"Assure adequate and balanced supply of housing units offering a
diversity of size, density, age, style and cost. " Policy 4 of this
Goal states: "Encourage creative approaches to housing design and
development. " Dover place not only adds to the greatly needed
single-family residences in the City of Kent but also does a
creative approach through the PUD process. The PUD offers
amenities not usually found in traditional approach towards
development. These amenities not only enhance the development but
also increase the value of the neighborhood.
In the Comprehensive Plan, Goal 4 of the Housing Element also
states: "Assure environmental quality in residential developments. "
Objective 1 of this Goal is: Preserve and maintain as much of the
natural environment as possible, " and Objective 2 is "Provide open
green areas in the City's residential neighborhoods. " The goal and
its objectives clearly state a growing trend in trying to plan with
environment physically and socially. The importance of trying to
preserve as many natural features as possible and also creating an
environment that is conducive to the community. Dover Place by
being a planned unit development allows this goal and objectives
to be met. Dover Place by having 35 percent open space fulfills
both objectives. Of the. . . it provides, Dover Place, 15 percent
retention of native vegetation area and also ten percent of the
site to active recreation area. To underscore this fact, numerous
local governments are trying to protect and enhance as many of
these features as possible as evidenced by King County's open space
bond issue, the City of Kent' s high priority of creating as many
park areas as possible.
The second reason why Dover Place should be approved is by Dover
Place being a planned unit development has beneficial effect on
the community and users of the development which would not normally
be achieved by traditional lot-by-lot development. The reasons why
Dover Place has a beneficial effect are first, the buffer around
Dover Place. The buffer around Dover Place is a unique feature
that is rarely seen in single-family development. The buffer is
multipurpose in its function. Not only does it serve as a green
belt for the proposed homes in Dover Place but also minimizes the
impact of Dover Place on surrounding neighbors. A typical
subdivision could create a situation where there is as little as
eight feet separating a home and the backyard of a neighboring
yard. But Dover Place by providing a buffer of 30 feet for the
southern boundary of the property, the neighbors of Brier Lane
16
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
receive a permanent green belt that numerous homeowners throughout
the region are paying a premium to obtain. Also to combine with
this buffer Dover Place shall have evergreen screen along the
southern boundary of the property. This decision was made from
input I gained by concerned citizens that attended an informational
meeting on June 29, 1989 .
There is no part of the planned unit development ordinance that
mandates this type of land plan design. This is simply good
planning that not only benefits the homeowners of Dover Place but
also the surrounding community.
The second benefit of the PUD is that Dover Place not only benefits
the potential homeowners of the site but the community of Kent
because over the 35 percent of the site is retained as open space.
This is significant when compared to the traditional lot-by-lot
development that usually provides no open space whatsoever. This
35 percent open space shows how the planned unit development
adheres to the policy set forth by the city in assuring an
environmental quality in residential development.
The third benefit of Dover Place is that Dover Place provides an
active recreation area. The active area will serve as a visual,
social point for the development. The active recreation space
serves as an opportunity for the potential homeowners to gather
for social and recreational activities. This is especially
important fact in considering children, the necessity to provide
them of opportunity to play in an area that is safe from traffic.
In the proposal for the Housing Element update prepared by the Kent
Planning Department in January of 1989, report states, and I quote:
"Open green area also increases the quality of life for City
residents. " The open space provides recreational opportunities,
a meeting place for the neighborhood and natural vegetative buffer
which filters air and water impurities and provides visual
character.
The fourth benefit of the PUD is the retention of native
vegetation. Fifteen percent of the site is retained for native
vegetation. Not only does this benefit Dover Place but the City
of Kent as a whole. There is a larger amount of trees retained in
a planned unit development than a typical subdivision. This is
significant because of the importance that has been placed in
preserving as many trees as possible. In the proposal for the
Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan the proposal states, and
I quote: "The value of trees in residential development has been
"` 17
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
continually stressed by Kent residents. " Trees provide visual
barriers, stabilize the soil and guard against soil erosion,
monitoring flooding, and increase human comfort through service as
windbreaks. Trees moderate temperature, providing shade and canopy
against rain and reduced noise levels, glare and reflection. So
simply put, saving as many trees as possible is an important goal
for the benefit of the citizens of Kent. Dover Place helps Kent
meet this goal.
The third reason why Dover Place should be approved is that Dover
Place promotes a variety and innovation of site and building
design. As numerous reasons have already been discussed. Dover
Place is innovative in site and building design. By providing open
space throughout the development, Dover Place will create a park
like atmosphere that benefits the potential homeowners in the
community together. The land layout demonstrates how the active
open space is designed so it is the focal point of the development.
By blending the remaining open space through the development, Dover
Place serves as a model of how a planned unit development should
be designed.
And the fourth reason why Dover Place should be approved is that
Dover Place is within the density allotment stated by the
Comprehensive Plan for the area. The Comprehensive Plan states
that the area should be zoned for 4-6 units per acre. Dover Place
is only five units per acre. Also, Dover Place is only single-
family homes which is so greatly demanded within the City of Kent.
Dover Place is also based upon R1-9 . 6 zoning. It is through the
density bonuses that were awarded to Dover Place that the
additional 4 . 53 units were gained.
In conclusion, Dover Place is able to fill the needs set forth by
the City of Kent. First by Dover Place being a planned unit
development that Resolution 1172 specifically asked the Kent
Planning Department to encourage. Secondly, the City of Kent' s
Comprehensive Plan' s Overall Goal is to assure decent homes and
suitable living environment for families seeking to live in Kent.
Dover Place fulfills this by not only providing 39 new single-
family homes but also in a quality development. Thirdly, the
Comprehensive Plan encourages the use of planned unit development
and encourages creative approaches to housing design. This
describes Dover Place perfectly. And lastly, the goal of the City
of Kent is to assure environmental quality of residential areas.
The goals obtain by Dover Place by providing 15 percent of
retention of the site' s native vegetation and a ten percent active
18 ""
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
recreation area. Dover Place is unique in that it enables not only
potential homeowners the benefit but also the community by
providing retention of 35 percent open space. The long term
benefit of Dover Place is significant and that is what we concur
with the Planning Department's recommendation for approval of Dover
Place. Do you have any questions?
Hunter: Are you in concurrence with all of the conditions also
recommended?
Campbell: I 've just got a couple of issues that I want to bring
up. I 'm going to have my engineer, John Newell, bring those up.
Hunter: O.K. Thank you.
Campbell : O.K. Thank you.
Hunter: Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and the whole
truth in the testimony you are about to give?
John Newell : I do. My name is John Newell, I represent John R.
Newell Inc. , P.S. , we are civil engineers, PO Box 396, Renton, WA
98056. I only have a couple of items to bring up. One of them I
will address to the staff. I think there is a statement on page
3 that reads, the proposed PUD is in effect a binding site plan and
no lot will be permitted to be sold separately from the resultant
subdivision. I would like to ask some clarification because it
seems to me that we are doing the PUD in a plat. I 'm sorry. . . It's
on page 3 and the proposed. . .
Hunter: I understood the question. Let me do it this way, the
question can be directed up here and then I will collect them and
then we will ask staff at the appropriate time. You're seeking
clarification of the statement on page 3, it says the proposed PUD
is in effect a binding site plan, and no lot will be permitted to
be sold separately from the resultant subdivision.
Newell : Correct.
Hunter: And we will ask for clarification of what the City staff
meant by that.
Newell : The other question I have is how to provide biofiltration
in treatment of the storm drainage runoff. The site, it would seem
to me, that we would be tearing into the 30-foot buffer around
19
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
there to provide such a. . .such a system. I would like to have the
staff consider and the Examiner consider, perhaps, the deletion of
that requirement of biofiltration treatment of the storm water
runoff. We have acquired easements which we can pipe directly to
an existing system and we analyze the downstream capability of that
system.
Hunter: And the reason that you would ask for a deletion of that
requirement?
Newell: The reason I would ask for the deletion of the requirement
is because we would have to construct that, in my estimation, in
the buffered area and since it would be an easement to the City,
we would probably be prevented from planting back in the ditch line
except grasses and I think that would be a detriment to this
development to do such.
Hunter: Let me understand what you mean by that, what you are
saying is that you can't touch the vegetation?
Newell: No, I 'm saying we' ll construct a ditch and typically a
biofiltration trench is a very broad, flat ditch.
Hunter: O.K. , understood so far.
Newell: O.K. , and we plant grasses back in that which we would
probably not want to plant trees.
Hunter: I 'm with you still .
Newell: So, that takes away from the screening effect of a
buffered area to the neighbors.
Hunter: I see, so you are indicating there might be removal of
trees and replaced by grasses.
Newell: Certainly, we will have to remove trees, the trench will
be 10 to 15 feet wide. And I would like to have some consideration
of that design element. And that's, really, I have to offer at
this time.
Hunter: O.K. , and you' re ref erring. . .and that condition is the one
that is noted on page 22 or which one are you. . .
Newell: I believe so.
20
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
Hunter: On-site storm detention is required and water released
off-site.
Newell: There' s another one that speaks specifically to
biofiltration. Page 15.
Hunter: I see City staffs recommendation, page 20 through 23 .
Oh, I see, you are referring to a condition that was applied at the
time of SEPA review, sir?
Newell: Yes, yes.
Hunter: O.K. , we are not hear to revisit those. We appreciate
your input. O.K. , is. . .Stephen or Carol did you want to
clarify. . .Carol, clarify the gentleman 's question about that
statement on page 3 . Do you want to give a little bit about what
that meant?
Proud: Again, my name is Carol Proud. I 'm with the Kent Planning
Department. I think the purpose of this statement is just simply
that no individual lot of this subdivision can be sold separate
from the conditions, covenants and restrictions for the plat as a
total . So, therefore, say homeowner x twenty years from now
doesn't want to buy into the CCR's for the project and wants to go
their separate way that, in fact, that lot is a part of the PUD and
they can 't do so. O.K. And with regard to the condition for
biofiltration, that is, in fact, a condition through the SEPA
review process and there' s no appeal and that condition is imposed
and there isn't really any way around that at this point in time
and I would recommend that the applicant and his engineers work
with staff to try to accommodate the biofiltration swale and the
required landscaping. Also, the City Engineer is with us tonight
and if you have any further questions on how that would work or
questions relating specifically to Engineering concerns he's here
this evening.
Hunter: Very good. Thank you very much. Is there someone here
from the City regarding traffic concerns--traffic engineer? Yes,
I wonder if we might have you step forward. Do you swear, affirm
to tell the truth and the whole truth in the testimony you are
about to give?
Ed White: I do.
w 21
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 61 1989 7 : 00 pm W.
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
Hunter: You're Mr. Ed White?
White: White. Yes, I am, Ed White, Assistant Traffic Engineer.
Hunter: Just for my information, you heard the testimony from Mr.
Grundley regarding traffic impacts and the studies they have
conducted for the applicant?
White: Yes, I have.
Hunter: O.K. , are you in agreement basically with that study or
is it too early to tell or what are your thoughts on that?
White: Well, I was not furnished a copy or staff was not furnished
a copy of the report, so I would like to kind of defer any comments
until we've had an opportunity to review thoroughly and determine
exactly where his numbers came. It does sound very familiar to me
in that the numbers that they were basically using in terms of the
trips generated and the assessment fee come from a similar report
that I made for the development but I would like to defer until I
had an opportunity to see their report before I make any comments.
Hunter: So, their report was submitted just today, I guess, it' s
date September 6 and you have not had an opportunity to review it.
White: That is correct.
Hunter: And your testimony about your own studies is that they
appear to be consistent but you can't tell until you review the
report.
White: Correct. Yes, in terms of the trip generation and the
assessment fees, those are consistent with the staff
recommendations.
Hunter: Thank you very much.
White: Um hum.
Hunter: O.K. , we' ll turn now to public testimony on the project.
A few additional people have signed up, we have approximately 20
people signed up to testify. I would like to indicate before we
begin this segment of the hearing that I have reviewed the petition
that was submitted basically in opposition, I think, to the
currently proposed PUD in it' s present form and there are four
22
Hearing Examiner Minutes
W September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
reasons on the petition. Just to let you know that I have reviewed
it, it' s part of the file even before it was submitted tonight, so
I 'm generally familiar with the objections relating to the density,
single-family residence density, the substandard roads. . .I 'm
quoting from the petition. . .lack of on-street parking, concerns
about the parking aspect, emergency vehicle access, the single
entrance and exit on SE 228th, concerns about traffic problems and
finally, that the proposal with it's limited access and immediate
proximity to the only major north/south traffic route on the East
Hill is potential for extreme danger in emergency situations.
Those are the four reasons that I am sort of paraphrasing and
quoting from just to let you know that I 've seen that and what we
are interested in hearing are your explanation of other items that
should be considered by me before I make a recommendation. So, I
will begin in the order that you signed up and, again, if you have
questions of City staff, direct them to me, and we'll collect them
and at an appropriate time we ' ll ask the appropriate City staff
person to respond. If there 's items that you want clarified,
similarly the same. . .ask them of me and we'll collect them and then
take a break to get a City staff person up to respond. What we are
most interested in is testimony relevant to the planned unit
development criteria. It' s in the Zoning Code in the preliminary
plat criteria in the Subdivision Code, but we are hear to listen
to your concerns. So, with that, Betty Hoff is the first on the
list? Would you like to step forward, we'll swear each of you in
and take your testimony. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
and the whole truth in the testimony you're about to give.
Betty Hoff: I do.
Hunter: Please proceed.
Hoff: I am Betty Hoff. I am resident of Brier Lane, subdivision
south of the recommended PUD and a mother and a member of PTA. I
am bringing my concerns for the opposition of the PUD and I have
spoke today with the Kent Public School 's District which also has
gone on record as saying that they are opposing this. . .the
development. . .and a letter has been written to Mr. Harris that I
will share a copy of today that goes into much detail and I will
share that with you if you would like when I 'm done reading off it.
Our children and the children of PUD would be going to East Hill
elementary. This is within walking distance of the school, so all
the children in the PUD would have to come through our development,
down 100th to East Hill elementary. It would be nice if I had a
City map but I don't.
23
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
Hunter: I understand the situation. I 've viewed the site as well
as viewing the video tape and the testimony tonight. The letter
you are referring is it dated June 20, 1989?
Hoff: Right.
Hunter: That is a part of the record. It' s a one, two, three page
letter. . .
Hoff: Right.
Hunter: I have reviewed that and I see the points being made. If
you want to highlight certain points out of that, that' s fine.
Hoff: Part of that was the projected enrollment for East Hill is
being 625. As of today, that' s several more, as it states in the
paper, on an article written today in the Kent paper, East Hill is
well over it' s enrollment projections as well as all the other
schools on the hill and at this point, says in the paper, that we
have an increase of 794 students or will have by October 1 and that
is the capacity of the three new schools which have yet even been
finished. So, as of this point, there' s 88 portable buildings
being used on our school system. My child is not even at school
yet because our school is still under renovation. In the letter
it recommends that there be a delay of this development and all
others that contribute to the overcrowding until adequate classroom
facilities are approved and constructed or contribution by the
developer to the school system to off-set the cost of providing
temporary facilities for students generated by this development and
at, they have broken it down, it would cost approximately $600 per
single-family unit that they would be asking for from the
developer.
The next issue that it seeks. . . it talks about is safety and
transportation of these children and that is my mine concern
because right now my children are being driven to school because
of the safety issues on 100th. One Hundredth is not a safe street
for our children to be walking on. There's no sidewalks and
towards 100th and James, 240th Street, there was just recently put
up the crosswalk which we asked about for over a year ago. We
still have not received the lighting situation that was proposed
to us over a year ago that would be built when Fred Meyer' s was
built on that corner and we don't understand the delays. We have
brought our concerns, the PTA last year gave our concerns to the
24
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
City of Kent stating that we wish sidewalks be in place and there
aren't any at this point. We also would recommend bussing but we
have not seen that. The development shows no place that there
would even be a place for a bus to pull in and get through the
development. And, I spoke with them today and they said that a
substandard street with a width of 22 feet would impede the
operation of handicapped business and this street width would only
be acceptable with recorded covenants denying any on-street
parking. Well, supposedly that's in place as a homeowner, I know
that's not going to be the case. Some visitor is going to come in
and block the pathway, if not a homeowner themselves much less the
mailman, the garbage man, the UPS truck and anyone else who pulls
in there. So, in essence, our handicapped busses will not be able
to pull into this place to pick up any handicapped children.
The school system has also said they want full sidewalks, both
sides of the streets, so children won't have to crossing back and
forth across the streets in order to get from one side to the
other. That 's also a problem further down in our development.
The situation as you come out of Dover Place and onto our
_. development is a steep hill and cars can gain several miles per
hour just going through that hill so that by the time these
children are at the bottom of the hill, the cars are also traveling
at excess of 45 miles per hour without a problem. I get that from
information last fall when we had the Police Department out in the
development radar gunning traffic through there and I asked for a
report of that and it said. . . I was told that most cars reach 35
miles per hour before ever coming out of their driveway. So, we
get an awful lot of fast traffic through it and we have brought our
concerns up to the City. I myself has talked to the City over an
accident that happened in the area and was asked what we could do
and how many children needed to be hurt before we needed. . .before
the City would do anything and I was told 12 children. Seriously,
I wish now that I had the name of the person who told me that. I
guess I can't emphasize the safety of my children. That in essence
is the School Board's stand on this. They wish that they could be
here tonight but because of a prior commitment were unable to. Our
PTA, our Principal of East Hill also wished she could be here to
give her input because she too is opposed to any more children
coming into the East Hill school system until they are equipped to
handle it.
And my other standpoint, I guess, is just as a parent and a mother
of all of the kids on the streets out there, I. . .our children are
not safe to cross the streets now. And I can't imagine these
25
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
children being put on our streets. If they are planning on putting
a street light on the corner of 240. . .or Benson and 228th, that
street light is going to generate more traffic off of Benson
through our development to short cut onto 240th. That's a problem
now and I can only see it getting worse. My other concern is for
the safety of the individuals in the homes of the development. I
can't see on-street parking. . .no on-street parking as being
legitimate. . . it will not work. And, I have no facts to back it up
but it just a gut reaction. We have had homes injured. . .damaged
by cars traveling at more speeds than they should be coming through
the development and other people out here, I 'm sure, will address
that and from experience, I know, that when I have to leave the
development and come up to the intersection of Benson and 228th to
make a left-hand turn at 4 : 00 in the afternoon, I have sat there
for ten minutes without a problem. At 4 : 00, that's not even peak.
Hunter• O.K.
Hoff: O.K.
Hunter: Thank you very much for your testimony. Rudy Hoff? Do
you swear, affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth in the
testimony you' re about to give?
Rudy Hoff: I do. I 'm Rudy Hoff and I reside at 10023 SE 229th
Place in Brier Lane. I have some photographs that I would like to
present you. I guess I should let my wife do it. But they are
photographs of the hill on 228th/229th. This is a hill, a severely
steep hill, that cars pick up speed on that they are proposing to
put an extra 390 cars a day through.
Hunter: Would you like to submit these as an exhibit then, that
we have in the file. O.K. Three, four and five photographs which
show the hill on 228th. O.K. Exhibit 6 .
Hoff: That hill wasn't addressed by the traffic planner. There' s
also, as you notice on those photographs, blind spots.
Hunter: Do you have any thoughts about what could be done. . .speed
bumps help out on that kind of situation or what can you do. Let
me. . . let me. You have to wait, we have do this orderly.
Hoff: I ' ll concur with my neighbors.
26
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
Hunter: I heard a response. O.K. , any further concerns that you
would like to address?
Hoff: Yes. The sports court and recreation area. There is no
provision for maintenance of that. Also, nothing was said about
garbage pick-up, how do garbage trucks get in and out, the school
buses, and the moving vans. Someone that parks on the street, do
they have to tow a car before they collect garbage. O.K. and I
have something to read here from the Kent Planning Agency staff
report on 'this development #SU-89-2/PUD-89-11 according to comment
received during the PUD review, the Kent Fire Department feels that
the access and parking problems which might be associated with the
development creates serious concerns about the department's ability
to deliver an adequate level of service to this development. So
the Fire Department is saying here that they can't guarantee
reasonably the safety of residents of this development.
Hunter: You were quoting from the staff report?
Hoff: Yes, I am.
Hunter: O.K. , fine I just wanted to know which document. . .yes, the
staff report for this evening' s hearing.
Hoff: And this concern is not addressed in this report other than
to say that there be no parking on the streets. It doesn't say
anything about enforcement of that. It is an unenforceable law.
I would like to contrast that response to the responses given in
another planning report for Canterbury Development #SU-89-3 ,
September 61 1989 . It lists several objectives of the Kent
Planning Department with this development. Objective 3 on page 8,
coordinate with King County, the Kent School District and the state
to develop and implement the community program to assure the safety
of students traveling between home and school. That is not
addressed in this PUD. On page 9 , the goal and objective support
the city' s efforts to accommodate Kent's school district
transportation needs and schools have requested that the developer
of the Canterbury plat consider providing school bus waiting areas
and/or pull-offs to serve the children from the subdivision. This
would protect students and others from in the area from possible
bus/automobile conflicts. That is not addressed. Goal 3 ,
establish and maintain the highest feasible level of service for
East Hill. The overall goal as stated in the Canterbury report,
establish a planned and coordinated system of public facilities and
services for East Hill that protects the health, safety and welfare
27
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7: 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
of the community. That can't be done with this narrow street.
Would you like this for evidence.
Hunter: I 'm familiar. . .you quoted from the staff report this
evening and the Canterbury staff report, I believe, was heard
earlier today. So I do have those. Thank you very much for
bringing your concerns forward. Dennis D'Eath? Do you swear,
affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth in the testimony
you're about to give?
D'Eath• I do.
Hunter: And, if you please, spell your last name and give your
address. Our clerk here is trying to keep up with all the
testimony.
Dennis D'Eath: Dennis D'Eath. D- ' -E-A-T-H. I live at 10220 SE
228th Street. With all these number of people, in coming up to
speak, I know I have something here that they don't have. So maybe
I 'd better address that and maybe only that because of the numbers.
Although I do have one or two comments on what was said. I think
it would have been fairer to have had a local traffic expert study
the traffic patterns and not one associated with the developer who
comes from Bellevue. Because, obviously, peak traffic is not at
6: 00 in the evening on the East Hill, it' s ranging from 4 to 5: 30;
6: 00 is relatively clear. I ' ll remind some of our people here that
two streets don't comprise a neighborhood; they represent two
streets. The City of Kent has a high priority to provide park
areas. We here this described as a park-like structure. I fail
to see the park-like--it would be great if the City of Kent was
really, really sincere that they would acquire all of this land and
make a park for the existing tenants in that area because their
kids have no where to go; only play on the street that is a short-
cut to Ms. Freddies and James (104th) intersection. O.K. , let me,
let me do this. I had no experience of PUD's before I heard about
it at the presentation that was made here about a month ago. I was
told, oh, yeah, that' s a nice PUD out at Issaquah and I didn't feel
like going out to Issaquah not knowing exactly where it was; I had
inquired where and, oh it' s right off the freeway, you know, sort
of thing. But, I do have a relative of mine who works in real
estate in Portland or outside of Portland. Now, they say if you
don't observe history you don't repeat it. And, let me show you
what I have here and I can it leave it with you. What I did, I
went done there and I saw three PUD's. The City of Gresham is
about 71, 000 people in that city and it is abutted with the Town
28
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
of Troutdale which has about 71000. So the people of Troutdale
they rent the capability of the Council people, like the planners
and the rest of the things. So the planners that they get have
experience in Gresham which they apply to the little town of
Troutdale. I saw the first PUD that Gresham ever built. And it
was built with homes on 4 , 500 to 5, 000 square feet. It was built
on, what they term, substandard streets which are 30 feet wide and
I have pictures which I hope you would like to see but. . .this was
developed incidentally in 1972 , our history. History of PUD's.
Hunter: Well, sir, I can indicate that as an exhibit. I do want
to caution just from a relevant standpoint. I think the PUD
question is very appropriate. Different jurisdictions will have
different standards. We 're trying to reference the standards your
City Council has adopted.
D'Eath: Basically, this was like the one being proposed for here.
A small, substandard streets, small lots. The condition of that
after seventeen years where the CCR's, the CCR' s, said oh, you
can't do this, you can't do that; for instance, no trailer, camper
pickup or coach shall be parked or within sight, in actual fact.
But, if you look at the pictures, you' ll see. I mean this is for
your edification. There has never been another substandard street
PUD built in Gresham or in Troutdale. In fact, the experience with
this one was so bad that the City of Troutdale with there first one
over reacted, they made full-sized streets to them, like 40-foot
streets, 40-foot paved that is; not only that, they had no on-
street parking, they provided parking slabs in the front of each
house and they increased their required lot size for that PUD.
But, it was a big PUD, I mean, it wasn't 30 houses it was more like
300 houses. It was a big one. Then they went to their second one
which came up in 1983 and that was six years ago. They had dropped
back, they said they are going to keep the full-sized streets,
we' re going to have on-street parking and we're going to have lot
sizes of 4 , 500 to 5, 000 square feet. Which they did, on the back
of each one of these sections, I have given you a plat map to show
the relationship of the with the surrounds and this one sits right
in the middle of two other larger lots, larger home sites. But you
can see the difference in the area and the atmosphere here. I
would not be adverse, and I understand the City of Kent planners
are talking now about having a R1-5. 0 zoning for the City of Kent.
I wouldn't be adverse to living in this one, to be honest with you
but I sure would be adverse to living in this first one. Their
homes set on the market. When they come up for sale, they set on
the market from seven to twelve months and when these people go
29
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7: 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
into a realtor and say I want to sell my home, the realtor says,
Why me, God? Direct quote. So, I ' ll leave this with you and it's
very obvious, the three different. . . I would like to get it back in
time for the appeal.
Hunter: O.K. , would you like to have this just for reference or
do you want to submit it as an exhibit.
D'Eath: I took the photographs, you' ll see me in one of the
photographs. So, just to show I was there this weekend and the
photographs were taken like at 10: 30/11: 00 on a Sunday.
Hunter: O.K. , well, I can. . .we can introduce it as an exhibit and
we will enter it as evidence relevant to what PUD' s look like in
other areas. All right, sir, thank you for coming. Next would be
Irene Bouffard? Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth and the
whole truth in the testimony you' re about to give?
Irene Bouffard: I do.
Hunter: If you will please state your name and spell your last
name, please.
Bouffard: My name is Irene Bouffard. B-0-U-F-F-A-R-D. For me and
my family the major issue against this particular development is
the effect it will have on our quality of life. First of all
expecting an additional 78 more cars, that's 39 families, that' s
just not 39 people moving in, using one small access as their sole
entry into the development will cause a severe congestion problem
in our neighborhood. One home has already had a car run into the
front of it. Adding that many more cars will be very dangerous to
all the children we have living in Brier Lane. Secondly, the lack
of ample visitor parking and the lack of concern by the commission
about it. There is to be no parking on the street at any time.
How can the developers expect 39 families to have only 12 visitors
in their complex at one time. Are they assuming that the overflow
will park in Brier Lane and walk in. I doubt if that will be the
norm. Most people want to walk as little distance as possible when
it comes to parking their car and if they do use our streets for
guest parking this overflow will definitely congest our
neighborhood. Even the Kent Fire Department is very concerned
about it. Their suggestion is to install sprinklers in the units.
This may help in case of a fire, but what about the person who may
a victim of a heart attack or choking where seconds count.
Sprinklers won't save their lives. All it will take is one car
30
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
parked on the street one time for a tragedy to occur. I speak from
the experience of living in a PUD, no amount of CCR's will make
everyone obey the rules all the time. And the by-yearly letter of
reminding that no parking is allowed on the street at any time,
that's once every two years, not twice a year which is more
appropriate. How many times has the thought. . .I 'm just running in
for a minute. . . it's happened to all of us. . .we'll just run in for
a minute. My other major concern is the already overcrowded
situation in the area schools. The superintendent of Kent's school
district stated in his letter that they do not have room for the
children that will be generated by this development. This directly
affects the quality of education my three children will get for
years to come. My son's sixth grade class will have 41 kids in it
when they start tomorrow. This is unacceptable. How far will it
go before the City of Kent realizes that real limits have to be set
on growth. When schools can't keep other than other services must
be suffering also. Crime will increase and instead of a beautiful
city that we now have, things will start to deteriorate. It
happens quickly. When we moved to the area we choose Kent as the
place we wanted our children to grow up. Brier Lane for it' s
peacefulness. We did not choose to live with overcrowding,
traffic, speeding cars, noise and overburden teachers.
Hunter: Thank you. Koorosh Kharrazi? O.K. Thank you, sir.
Ismael Melendez?
Ismael Melendez: O.K. I live at 10004 SE 229th, my house is the
last house on the right when you go through the development, all
the way to the left.
Hunter: I ' ll swear you in. Do you swear and affirm to tell the
truth and the whole truth in the testimony you're about to give?
Melendez : Yes, I do.
Hunter: Please state your name.
Melendez : My name is Ismael Melendez. I live at 10004 SE 229th
Place. Last house on the right, by the stop sign. I 've lived in
the house three years now and I 've seen increase in traffic go up
and down 100th Avenue and some people think it's a raceway. I 've
seen kids walk down that Avenue, I 've seen them come around
the. . .go through the development like a bat out of hell. My
primary concern is the safety. I lived where. . .I grew up in New
York City where we had substantially wider streets. I lived on a
31
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 61 1989 7: 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
streets that' s about the width from here to that partition right
there and we had a (unclear) building that I lived in. If you want
chaos, have two or three fire trucks parked out in front of your
place of residence and see if you don't have problems getting
people in and out of places. You know, we hear of all the benefits
we've been hearing about how Dover Place is going to give us
benefits. I haven't seen any benefits, all I 've seen is major
inconveniences, major congestion. You know, if they want, they
glorify the open space park. I have an open space, it's called my
back yard and that' s where my children can play. If they can't
play out. . .and I don't have any children. . .I 'm concerned because
I 've seen people walk down the streets and these cars just go
shooting by our neighbor. You know, if I sound angry, it' s not my
intent because all I hear from the developers is that they are
meeting the goals and objectives of the City of Kent. We are the
City of Kent. We put these people up in their jobs and if they are
not meeting our objectives and goals, then they should be changed
as well. I think, as far as this buffer line is concerned, that
Mr. Campbell has addressed to the trees up on Benson Road, what
good are those buffer trees are going to be when they expand the
road to five lanes and the traffic continues to come down through
there. Ms. Bouffard who just addressed the fact that, yes, we have
a lot of cars. Twelve cars are not going to park in the 39
development off the street. They are going to park out down Brier
Lane and someone' s going to get seriously hurt. That ' s about all
I have to say at this point. Thank you.
Hunter: Thank you, sir. Richard French? Do you swear and affirm
to tell the truth and the whole truth in the testimony you' re about
to give?
Richard French: I do. My name is Richard French. I live at 22823
103rd Avenue SE in the Brier Lane neighborhood. I don't have a
prepared statement to make. But, I 've lived in Brier Lane
neighborhood for about two years now and I know what the area there
is like. It' s a nice neighborhood, it has character and quality
with the exception of 228th Street which is a fairly dangerous
thoroughfare. I think it's in the best interest of the City of
Kent to protect the character and quality of the neighborhood. I
don't feel that putting in a high density PUD is advantageous
either to the City or to the existing neighborhood. I don't
understand why a high density neighborhood should go in there, it
seems to me that the currently zoned 9, 600 square foot lots would
be the way to go as far as further development of the Brier Lane
area is concerned. These concerns and those already elaborated
32
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
on. . . for these reasons, I feel the PUD is an ill-conceived idea and
that it should be disapproved. Thank you.
Hunter: Thank you, sir. Kim Durnwirth? Thank you, sir. Richard
Phillips or Diane Phillips? Do you swear and affirm to tell the
truth and the whole truth in the testimony you're about to give?
Richard Phillips: I do. My name is Richard Phillips. I live at
22829 103rd Avenue SE in Kent. Our primary concerns have been
addressed by most people here so far this evening. A big issue
with me is parking. My feeling that 12 parking spaces for 39 units
is insufficient especially given the fact that they cannot park on
the street. My feeling is that 228th and the cul-de-sac off of
103rd that exists right now will become the overflow parking for
that area. In addition to the issues brought up by the Fire
Department and emergency services people. Second issue that I
would like to bring up is the wild spaces and the open spaces. I
applaud the idea of a PUD that has a barrier around the outside of
the facility. My only problem is that in this we have not really
addressed with the city of Kent and the people who live in it have
_. not really addressed how to maintain and manage that facility. In
the past, in the open wild spaces that exist currently, especially
in the green belts in the area, grass clippings, paper, pop bottle
rockets and things of that nature tend to inhabit the area. Very
little of it is usable or remains green for very long. The
additional. . .one other thing that I would like to mention that has
been brought up quite a bit is the school district problems. I
don't think that we should increase the problems that the school
district is currently facing without providing them with funds to
meet those and finally, past experience with associations, i.e. ,
and this addressing the covenants, codes and restrictions. Past
experience with several of them has indicated that they have a lot
of problems funding such things as insurance for the open areas and
the active areas, the do need to be insured; there' s quite a bit
of liability especially with an area that is developed. It tends
a lot of times to become a juvenile hazard; kids get hurt, people
get sued including the Board of Directors of the area and the
homeowners as well. Basically, I 'm not in opposition to PUD' s but
I think we need to plan them out a little bit better and I think
we need to understand a lot more before we go off and develop them.
Thank you.
Hunter: Thank you. Roger--Diane Phillips, did you want to speak.
Roger Records? Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth and the
whole truth in the testimony you're about to give?
33
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm _.
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
Roger Records: I do. I 'm here as a frustrated. . .
Hunter: Please state your name.
Records: Oh, excuse me. My fault. Roger Records. I live at
10844 SE 228th in Park Orchard. I live across the street
from. . .across the Benson from the proposed development and I 'm here
as a frustrated resident of East Hill of Kent. I have one plus.
I 'm happy to say that I 'm not here tonight fighting an apartment
development. I commend the City of Kent for that improvement. I
share a number of the concerns that other people who have been at
this podium have shared. I would like to emphasize one that has
not been emphasized. I am not a traffic engineering person, but
I am the victim of severe traffic on Benson Highway. I can tell
you that one reason why that might be too many cars coming out of
228th and trying to turn on to the Benson is because it is
virtually impossible to do that in any kind of a time frame when
you are in rush hour. We in Park Orchard frequently drive over to
240th so we can get out on the Benson at the stop light. If you
are going to Renton, that 's four blocks the wrong direction simply
to be able to get out on to the Benson, even making a right-hand
turn. The S-curve is the worse place on the Benson. The. . .I
presume it was just for space restriction but that was shown nicely
on the graphic that the traffic engineer put up here but it' s right
adjacent and I speak as one whose wife and daughter was rear-ended
at the intersection of 228th and Benson trying to make a left-hand
turn onto our street and I would suggest that the reason they were
rear-ended was someone was somewhat distracted coming around the
S-curve plowed into my wife and daughter, destroyed our car,
fortunately they were not severely injured. I guess it' s from that
bias I speak here in frustration that I see a high density
environment suggested here. I would plead for the Planning
Commission to stick to the low value of four houses per acre;
restrict that to 30 houses instead of 39 . I think that would
be. . . if the developer wants innovative housing available in that
area, we already have lots of crowded housing in that area; why not
build some that have a little space around the house. I think the
9, 600 square feet lot certainly would represent a much more
attractive home site and it would be innovative for the East Hill
of Kent. I 'm very concerned about the issue raised about our
schools. I served on the school levy committee last year and have
listened to the frustration of our school directors trying to build
schools as far as people move in and I suggest that the City of
Kent has a major responsibility of trying to help them out and I
34
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
would just plead for you to listen to the people in our community
and listen to the people who are responsible for our school, help
preserve the quality of life that we have here in Kent.
Hunter: Thank you, sir. James Egelston? O.K. Paul Kiehn, I
believe it is, or Kline. . .we' ll find out. Do you swear and affirm
to tell the truth and the whole truth in the testimony you're about
to give?
Paul Kiehn: Yes, I do. My name is Paul Kiehn. K-I-E-H-N. I live
at 10015 SE 229th Place. I guess my primary purpose in speaking
is to kind of underscore a little bit some of the concerns about
traffic that have already been expressed. But, a mention has
already been made about a house that was run into and that was my
house. And, I would like to enter into the record as some evidence
some pictures.
Hunter: Three photos that show a partially destroyed garage.
We' ll admit these as Exhibit 7 , I believe it is.
Kiehn: Now, I live at the top of the hill. There' s a, basically
has been described as a dipped point through the neighborhood and
cars reach a very high rate of speed there. Apparently what
happened was a vehicle going to fast could not negotiate the curve,
ran over my cherry tree and drug several large rocks into the
garage, they knocked off a corner of the foundation, took out a
center support and end up, the car ended up completely in the back
of the garage against a. . . it's about a four-foot high retaining
wall which I am thankful was there, it basically stopped their
momentum. I think, you know, some of the studies that have been
presented here by the professional traffic engineer are very good
and it' s nice to know that we have level of service numbers that
are within the constraints of the Kent City Codes. But, I think,
speaking for the people that live in the development reality is a
little bit different story. Density of traffic on 228th and 229th
is heavy in my opinion (2-566) (2-000) for a residential
neighborhood. It may not be for downtown Kent but as far as a
residence there's too many cars and they are going to fast. I
think there' s a legitimate traffic and safety concern. I think the
other concerns mentioned about the fire access, the narrow streets,
schools, you know we have a school board basically against this
development. And, I would just like to underscore that, you know,
there' s a price to be paid for these planned unit developments.
I think they are. . .the concept for a planner may be great and the
concept for a developer, you know, he might think it's a great idea
35
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7: 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
too, but the fact of the matter is that those folks are not going
to be living in the neighborhood. They are not going to be buying
those places and they are not going to be subjected to the impact
and that' s about all I have to say.
Hunter: Thank you very much. Curt Betchley? Do you swear and
affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth in the testimony
you're about to give?
Curt Betchley: I do. I 'm Curt Betchley. I live at 10213 SE 228th
Street and I share a lot of the concerns that have already been
voiced this evening. I have a three-year-old daughter and a two-
month-old son and I am concerned about their safety and what the
school situation will be in a few years. I would like to address
the quality of this development. The Council said that one of its
goals was to maintain existing neighborhoods in its study of
housing in Kent. And we have a very nice neighborhood there and
I 've lived there for five years. I 've lived in Kent for eight
years and was one of the first houses in Brier Lane. I watched the
neighborhood grow and know many of my neighbors for a long period
of time and unfortunately I work quite a bit at Boeing and my wife
knows a lot more of the neighbors than I do. It' s a very good
community, there's a feeling of neighborhood there and the logical
extension of that neighborhood is across the street into this area
being proposed for Dover Place. To say that Dover Place is going
to benefit the neighborhood that exists, or that its going to
benefit the City of Kent is I think in error. There are a lot of
costs associated with this. I do not view this as a quality
development. The parks that are there are for the development.
Basically, you are putting in a high density development with just
barely sufficient amenities for the people in that development and
they are expecting the existing neighborhood to take up the slack.
The amenities, in my opinion, are not well thought out, my
experience with common property is that if it's everybody's
responsibility, it' s nobodies responsibility. I also happen to be
a member of a condominium association where I own a small unit,
where I originally lived and in that association there are
mandatory dues for maintenance every month. And those dues are
assessed and I think a similar situation ought to be in place for
Dover Place otherwise the green belts and natural areas will
deteriorate. You are putting in a housing development which is
very small , you are putting in. . .and it's only 39 units and it' s
crammed in at high density. The affect of this is to basically
have an isolated neighborhood next to an existing neighborhood.
The only purpose I can see for the green belt is to actually try
36
Hearing Examiner Minutes
- September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
to make that isolation, to try to separate the Dover Place
neighborhood from the existing Brier Lane neighborhood where, in
fact, the beneficial development for that area would be to extend
the Brier Lane development--type--at 9. 6 rating into that area.
The trees, the buffer zone, is basically to block out a quality,
what I think will become an obnoxious neighborhood. The tendency
will be to have a juxtaposition of such different styles to
eventually have those units in there become rental units and have
nonresidents owners in there renting those houses with the
consequence lack of maintenance. And this certainly is going to
impact the quality of life that presently exists in the Brier Lane
neighborhood. Thank you.
Hunter: Thank you, sir. Lucille Lemon. . .Lucille Lemon?
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth in
the testimony you're about to give?
Lucille Lemon: I do. My name is Lucille Lemon. I have one
question that I would like to start out with. I would like to know
where 's the demand for these types of homes. Who is demanding
-- them? Is it the people or is it the developers? An example I
would like to give is a little place called Strawberry Lane, it
consists of three homes. Strawberry Lane is next to the elementary
school, I don't know if you are aware of that area, it ' s on 240th
and 100th. The lot sizes on Strawberry Lane are 7, 200 feet. The
proposed homes in Dover Place are 4 , 500. You take those homes and
you take the yards completely aware. Whose going to live there?
I don't want to live in a place like that. We went to the Planning
Commission office approximately one week ago and asked the
addresses of the homes that they show as an example. We were given
an address in Renton and an address in Federal Way. Renton is
under construction right now, we viewed both places. We did not
take a measuring tape with us, there is approximately five feet
between home which is the minimum required. There is absolutely
no back yard. The only exception to these homes, I must admit, is
that they were very beautiful homes but are we going to have those
types of homes or the homes on Strawberry Lane? These homes in
Strawberry Lane have been built approximately three years on 5, 000
square foot lots, they have street parking. I asked if there were
any in the area, 5, 000 square foot lots that do not have street
parking, there are none that we could view. I have a fear that
these homes are going to turn into rentals which means you are
going to have two or three families living in one home. Whose
going to buy a home for their family that has no yard. I didn't
know it was everyone' s goal to own a home with no yard for their
~ 37
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
kids to play in. Well, we' ll compensate that we'll create an open
space, they can go there and have picnics there, that will turn
into a hangout for teenagers, it' ll become a popular areas for
Valley Kee which is down the street, the projects. I 'm sure you
are all aware of Valley Kee. Valley Kee has no "yards" it's all
open space. My son was threatened in Valley Kee delivering papers,
the police have recommended that adults do not go into that area.
This is what can happen to our neighborhood. Another issue I would
like to address is parking. I didn't know they were going to be
restrictions on this development that only adults could live there.
If it' s going to be for families, I myself have three children; two
of which are teenagers. Now, right now, we have two cars in
approximately two to three years we will have four cars. I have
a two-car garage, we do not park our cars in the garage because we
use for storage which is what most people do; lawn equipment and
anything else you don't have room for in your home. These homes
that are being proposed you could not build a storage shed in the
back yard because there' s not enough room. The only available
parking will be in the driveway. Now, what do you do when you have
more than two cars, you have twelve spaces allotted, where do the
visitors park? Unless no one has friends, is that going to be
another restriction? For anyone that moves into this development,
no children, no friends, no more than two people per home. It' s
not meant to be sarcastic, I 'm trying to be realistic here. I
don't see where no street parking is going to work. It' s not
really a family home there and it' s not really apartments. I see
this as a mixture of two, kind of an experiment. You have a
parking lot in the middle of homes, that's what apartments do.
Another concern I have is there' s no access road other than through
our development. Our children walk to school, the elementary
school right now on 100th Avenue. They are walking on the streets.
I see the city opening itself up for lawsuits when one of those
children get hit because of the increased traffic from this
development. I think that' s a serious matter this City should take
into consideration. The way the homes are going to be situated,
the lot size, it' s nice to see pictures of what they plan on
developing there. I don't think they are going to fit into our
neighborhood. If you look around our neighborhood, there's a lot
of space between each home. I don't see where this development is
going to improve our neighborhood. Whoever owns that land,
purchased that land as an investment, we also purchased our home
as an investment, not to decrease the value of it but to increase
it. No one in this world is looking to go down, we're all looking
to go up. I don't think we need to cut our lot sizes by more than
38
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
one-half. That' s all I have to say, unless you have any questions
of me?
Hunter: Thank you very much for your testimony. John Lemon was
next on the list to testify. No testimony? And then Jim Orr?
Sir, we' ll give you a change to enter those after we. . . Mr. Orr
is the last one signed up. If there are others who wish to testify
we' ll get to them after Mr. Orr. Do you swear and are aboutrm to ell
the truth and the whole truth in the testimony y
to
give?
James Orr: I do. My name is James Orr. I reside at 24909 114th
Avenue SE. I 'm quite a ways away from this proposed project but
I have my own views on it. I think this would be an ideal place
for a PUD as long as the minimum lot size was 91600; maybe the
maximum of 12 , 0oo--great way to go. As far as on-street parking;
Kent Shires has. . is not supposed to have on-street parking; so is
Walnut Park. We live next door to Walnut Park. Before the complex
was finished I drove in there and the only way I was able
d a b o get
back out was to back out 100 feet and I 'm not to g
There' s no way you can turn around in one of these 22 foot wide
streets. If you need an emergency vehicle in there, forget it,
they' re going to have to pack 'em out on a stretcher. Again, we
hear about they want to save the trees. Now, they are just saying
they are going to have to wipe out the trees--sounds like LeBlanc
all over. East Hill elementary school across from the Post Office
there' s 180 units and those units are just now starting to be
occupied and those kids are going to go to East Hill elementary
school. Across from the Canterbury development there' s
approximately 300 new units being built; those kids are going to
have to go to East Hill elementary school. Looks like there's
going to be a lot more portables. Looking in this sheet that the
proposed site, there' s 12 parking place. I think its up towards
the north. Now, if I want to visit somebody down here when I first
drive in, and there' s two people home and like the woman says maybe-
they don't have kids, so I wouldn't go see them unless they didn't
have kids; if both people are home and I pull up here and it's a
rainy day and I lucky enough to get in to one of these twelve
spaces, I only have about 600 feet to walk back in the rain. And,
if it happens to be on Christmas, I 'm not going to be able to see
my friends because those 12 spaces are going to be gone. I just
don't think this is the way to go. We've been very active on the
East Hill trying to encourage some single family development.
Canterbury had no problem with 7 , 200 square foot lots where they're
at, they didn't come in here hollering for a rezone or a PUD,
_. 39
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm -.
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
they're more than happy to build 7,200 square foot lots. I don't
see that a PUD is anything more than apartments to me. It's the
same thing and this property is zoned 9, 600 square feet and I think
that' s what it should be left at 9, 600 square feet unless they want
to do a PUD with 12 , 000 max and 96 bottom. Thank you.
Hunter: Thank you, sir. other. . . is there other testimony or
evidence to present from the public. I see a hand back there--
you, sir, did you want to testify. Did you want to submit that
evidence we can take that now. You've been sworn in and this is
to supplement the evidence that you already gave. O.K. , these are
three pictures each indicating housing development called
Strawberry Lane, fine, we will admit these as Exhibit, and, I 'm
sorry, your name again is:
Rudy Dodd: Rudy Dodd.
Hunter: O.K. and in conjunction with Mr. Hoff Is testimony, Exhibit
#8 . Yes, sir, will you step to the podium, please. Do you swear
and affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth in the testimony
you're about to give?
Steve Feller: I do. My name is Steve Feller. F-E-L-L-E-R. I
live at 22912 101 Place SE. I didn't come prepared to speak
tonight. I very impressed, in fact, when some of my next-door
neighbors are so overwhelmingly prepared and they've addressed a
number of concerns in terms of housing values, traffic, schools
and so on. There are two areas I would like to comment on: One,
I will comment on the traffic. My wife and I go, sometimes on very
long walks in the evening, and on that hill it is not uncommon for
people to, as previously stated, to use it as a shortcut from James
to Benson and I have many times in the midst of an evening walk at
4 : 30 or 5, gone out cursing and hollering at people who are using
it as a thoroughfare; hollering that the speed limit is 25 and
finding that they are going much much faster than that. The other
area that I wanted to speak on and part of what (unclear) come up
here, is in reference to the lack of parking and to the street
width. Where I lived previously, we had, I lived there for eight
years, of those eight years I was on the architectural committee
for two years and I was Board president for three years. We had
only 22-foot wide streets and for our 40 units we had 22 parking
spaces and I can assure you that I would say fully half of the
balance of the units, all 22 spaces would be taken up and then
there would be people parked directly in front of their garages,
there was, in fact, no driveway whatsoever, wasn't an option.
40
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
There was a constant problem, thank heavens in eight years there
we never had a call for a fire department. Fortunately, the one
or two times we had a call for the ambulance they were able to make
it through, a fire truck would not have. We frequently had to have
the fire marshal out, he ticketed. We had the City police out,
they ticketed--it was a constant problem. We assessed fines, we,
in fact, had association fees; somebody suggested that as a
possible solution. It might help, I can assure you with all the
trouble you have in getting money from people and in all the steps
it takes to put an assessment against their homes so it cannot be
sold. In fact, you can try and take it from them. That's a lot
of work, a lot of hassle for the board members and it' s not a fun
job and it 's not a very good solution. It would perhaps help the
situation compared to no association fees; but, I don't think it' s
a solution. The, again, the 22-foot wide streets and some 22
parking spaces for 40 units never seemed to be sufficient. It was
a constant problem and their were moving vans, people could not get
through the day I moved. Our moving van was blocking the street
a substantial part of the day. And I would have to go down and
flag people and ask them to drive around and I believe that if
development is considered here and I think development here is
reasonable, I think it should be in line with reasonably sized
streets, reasonably sized lots and reasonably sized houses. Thank
you.
Hunter: Let me ask you about the parking situation. The applicant
tonight. . .and I don't mean to put you on the spot, but since you
testified about parking and have that experience, we have received
as Exhibit 3 , a proposal that there be conditions, covenants and
restrictions which include an impound of illegally parked vehicles.
Any experience with that, did you have similar CCR's.
Feller: My life. . .
Hunter: We've all had experience with that.
Feller: My life was threatened by angry towees, I guess is the
word, the ones whose cars were towed. My life was threatened with
guns because of that. Fortunately, I had in fact had to work for
a while to find a tow company who, the guy was willing to carry a
bigger gun than most of the homeowners had. The. . .I found myself
being awoke at 2 a.m. in the morning by people saying, hay, you
can't tow my car, everybody knows that' s my parking spot right in
front of my garage. We tried such things as issuing annual passes
to allocate the 22 units, excuse me, the 22 parking spaces, which
41
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
meant that some of us, since there were 40 units, clearly some of
us didn't get one. We tried regular ticketing by the City that
didn't seem to be a good solution in that the City simply couldn't
come through frequently enough. I think if they could have, it
would have been a solution. We tried getting the fire marshal out
there, that, again, he would leave notices but his notices, at
least where we were at, carried no weight behind them. We never
really did find a real good solution. The only times we got lucky
is that occasionally the people who refused to pay their
association dues were also the ones we had the parking problem with
and there were times when we were able to repossess their home and
kick them out and then turn around and sell the home. That's a
lengthy, time-consuming expensive process that ultimately led to
higher fees for everybody else in the community.
Hunter: Thank you very much for your testimony. Any further
input? Yes, sir. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth and
the whole truth in the testimony you're about to give?
John O'Rourke: I do. Let the record show that my name is
John O'Rourke, I 'm a lawyer, PO Box 98741 in Des Moines. I
represent Bill and Pat Norton. Ms. Norton is here with me tonight.
The Norton' s own the rectangle that would square off Dover Place
assuming it were a part of Dover Place which it isn't. And, we
have two questions that I want to address to the staff. The first
one is whether or not the State DOT acquisition along SE 104th
which will be widen as, I 'm sure, the staff is aware will affect
or impact the limitation of access along the highway from Dover
Place which is proposed as one of the conditions here tonight. The
second question refers to paragraph 7 at page 23 of the staff
report. That paragraphs recites essentially that sewers to be
installed in Dover Place shall be extended to adjacent properties
as deemed necessary by the City. Now I represent the owners of the
closest property to the proposed development and my question is:
what standards does the City have at this time by which my clients
can know whether or not they can get the benefit of such an
extension? If there are any by ordinance or resolution, I don't
know of them and I would like to have an answer especially to that
question. And that' s all that I have.
Hunter: O.K. Since those are related to conditions recommended
by the City staff, is there anyone here from City staff that can
respond to one or both. Mr. Gill and Mr. Clifton. Do you swear
or affirm to tell the truth, and the whole truth in the testimony
you're about to give?
42
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 61 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #Su-89-2/PUD-89-1
Gar_ y Gill: I do. My name is Gary Gill. I'm the City Engineer for
the City of Kent and as far as Mr. O'Rourke's question regarding
the access restriction from the DOT onto the Benson Highway. I
believe the question was more with respect to Dover Court or Dover
Place development. O.K. The. . .since the access will be restricted
and only be off 228th Street there will be no restrictions as far
as access onto the Benson Highway. However, we would have to look
at the future conditions of that access point with regard as to
whether or not a signal will be needed to provide safe ingress and
egress to the people that live in that neighborhood--both Brier
Lane and Dover Place.
Hunter: O.K. Fair enough.
Gill: As far as the sewer extensions are concerned,
onc ne ,cwhat wI would
e do is
we would look at, if I had known this question
have brought our Comprehensive Plan but what we would do is look
at the service area that in that general vicinity and if the sewer
extensions that are required to service the Dover property would
logically also service the Morgans. . . .Nortons, then this developer
i
would be required to make the extension which would also allow the
Nortons to get service in the future. It could be an extension of
the proposed 103rd Avenue with an easement through one of the lots
or, I 'm not familiar enough with the topography to tell you exactly
how the sewer extension would go but we would look at the different
alternatives and determine how adjacent properties could
a cess to
be served
and not be landlocked or not have an ability to g
ainpublic sewers in the future. So that would be addressed as part
of our detailed review of the utility and street improvements for
this project.
Hunter: Very good. I hope you find those responsive. These are
tangently related to what we are hearing tonight but since they are
part of the conditions the City staff did respond and urge you
ny
explore in more detail outside the
mon ofrompe fCity lstaff to clarify
larify
further public testimony. Any Y
anything raised at all?
voice: I have a question. It has to do with the traffic study
that was done. I am curious where they come up with a number of
39 . . .you know there are 39 units eakt it seems l
times Many have children,
ke a lot e
people would be traveling during p
two people working per houses or somet tin one
art ratheruthanstwoW
they came up with each house having j
43
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm _..
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
Hunter: You're raising a question about the traffic study that was
testified to earlier. O.K. we can ask the applicant to respond to
that. I first want to see if there's any further City testimony.
I think we had. . .yes, sir, please step forward. And do you swear,
affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth in the testimony
you're about to give.
Michael Evans: I do. My name is Michael Evans. I'm the Fire
Marshal for the City of Kent. First of all I would like to explain
some of the reasons and need for Fire Department access as it
relates to this particular project. The reason you provide Fire
Department access is to provide a means for the Fire Department to
administer and deliver services that it normally provides which
includes extinguishment of fire and other hazardous as well as
emergency medical services. And, I would like to continue by
saying that we cannot guarantee that that particular access will
always be there during an emergency. And some of their
requirements for that are included in Kent City Codes and includes
a 20 foot width. The reason for a 20 foot width is to provide
passage of a fire apparatus normally about 8 feet passed another
apparatus with an additional four feet provided for open
compartments, hoselines being used and so forth. So a total width
of 20 feet. It also includes turning radius for the largest piece
of apparatus. During an aid or emergency medical service
incidence, the largest people of apparatus may be sen to that
particular close So the need may be less than what is provided but
what we are looking for is a worse case scenario, maximum. . .minimum
20 foot width. Letters based on what you have from CamWest dated
8/30/89, it appears that the letter has addressed all areas of
concern that were previously identified for and towards fire
department access and as basically outlined it is acceptable;
however, we want to reserve the right for approve of the actual
wordage that may be contained in the CCR's.
Hunter: O.K. , thank you very much. And we had a question raised
about the parking. . . a little more City testimony. . .I'm sorry Carol
did you have some further comments to make.
Proud: The request was made by the City Engineer if it may be
possible or if you would consider having a recess while we divvied
up on who should answer what questions that were raised. A five
minute break or something to that affect. It's been about two and
a half hours.
44
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place 4SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
Hunter: O.K. , there are several questions that you see
outstanding. . .noted what those would be?
Proud: Yeah, yes, I do. Right, I have a long sheet and I 'm sure
the rest of us do to, so, and we want to take care to answer
everybody' s concerns.
Hunter: O.K. , very good. We give a five minute break and then
we' ll hear City staff respond to some of the concerns raised. A
recess for five minutes--reconvene at 9:27 . If you gave your
address at the time you testified you will be mailed a copy of
that. If you want to make absolutely certain there is a separate
sign-up sheet here at the front table here before you leave tonight
you will want to put your name and address in there once again so
you can receive a direct copy of the decision. We will now an
opportunity some of the concerns that were raised, city staff will
have some clarifications or comments on that and we also had one
question raised for the applicant on the traffic study and Ma'am
did you have one other question you wanted to raise. O.K. , I ' ll
ask that to when he comes up to do the traffic study; when it was
done and how the numbers were determined. Fine, o.k. , that will
be noted and will ask that of their representative. O.K. , Carol
Proud has some further clarifications, additions to her testimony.
Proud: To answer we sort of divided up some of the more pertinent
questions that you all brought up tonight and I want to say that
I really appreciate all your comments because a lot of these
questions and concerns that you brought up we hashed out ourselves
as well . With regard to the school department, the Planning
Department, the City in affect just sent me to a area-wide
conference regarding the mitigation of development impacts to
communities and the concerns that you expressed tonight are
concerns that are not only felt in Kent but county-wide. I work
and had been in contact with both Fred High and Donna Smith of the
school district and so I wanted to explain a little bit about how
their process works and where we are at in taking their concerns
into the overall scheme of things within the City of Kent as best
as I understand them. Basically, these letters are standard form
letters, every single development no matter how big or how small
gets this letter and I want to reiterate the final paragraph of
this letter which states, and this is from George Daniels,
Superintendent of Schools, please allow me to emphasize the
administration of the Kent School District is not, and he' s
underscored not, opposed to development of this type. We are
however determined that the safety, welfare and basic educational
45
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7: 00 pm -
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
needs of the children of Kent will not be ignored. And, if you
will note in the staff report on page 17 , we discussed that several
conditions of approval were suggested by the school district some
of which require contribution from the developer to off-set the
costs of providing facilities, urge the developer to create an area
that would be landscaped, equipment and dedicated as a children' s
play area, include bus turnouts and full sidewalks as safety
features and as much as possible the developer to our way of thing
has done that by providing passible play areas and sidewalks and
that sort. However, the City is unable to implement these
conditions without the legislative authority to do so, so the
comments are included in the staff report; included as a courtesy
to the school district to let them know that yes, we understand,
and we hear your plight but unfortunately the planning department
and the Hearing Examiner, and the City Council do not have the
legislative authority to assess these kinds of fees onto the
developer. If that's something the community would like to have
then it' s up to you address it to your appropriate Council person
to have such kinds of things incorporated in City Code but we are
not set up right now to address those in a real. . .you have to sort
of way of doing this. . .all we can do is kind of ask the developer
and say this is what the school district wants and hey guys, what
can you do to mitigate some of these and so various developers have
different responses to that sort of things so we are definitely
aware of the problem and are doing everything within our
legislative power to be able to deal with this situation. I also
would like to address the. . .somebody brought up the conditions and
the different comments brought up in the Canterbury Plat and that
was heard earlier today and I 'm also very familiar with that
particular plat and it' s sort of like comparing apples and oranges.
Yes, there are some certain things that Canterbury was addressed
because of future. . .the way 100th was going through and different
things kinds in that plat and we typically look at these things
individually based on the surrounding area, what' s there and so
what' s happening at this particular site is a little bit different
than what' s going on at Canterbury. So that's why we don't have
the same conditions in every single staff report.
I also wanted to address the concern about parks and this is
something that's brought up a lot. Brought up by our staff but
unfortunately, again, the Planning Department doesn't have the
legislative authority to mandate that developers put in parks for
the community at large and, again, if, in fact, the community is
concerned about this and a lot of people are, we all are, then it's
up to the community to go to the appropriate parks people, go to
46
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 61 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
your elected representatives to do something about that. But, in
the context of this, yes, we hear you but there's nothing that we
can do legislatively to address this situation right now. So, if
you want parks in East Hill you got to go to the appropriate people
to get them there and we're not them, the developer is not them and
we can't do anything about it at this point in time. Stephen
Clifton has some comments and then we' ll turn it over to Gary Gill .
Clifton: Stephen Clifton with the Kent Planning Department. My
comments are very brief. The first one would be the maintenance
of the open space. And, we did state in our staff report that the
active open recreation area be permanently maintained and that a
maintenance agreement be created as part of the conditions,
covenants and restrictions. That' s primarily with the active open
area or the small park that' s created within the development. We
would ask the developer how he or she or they propose to maintain
the surrounding or perimeter open space.
My second comment has to do with setbacks and comments made by
Ms. Lemon. And, she stated that in Federal Way the buildings were
u separated by only five feet. I would like to jurisdiction.point
Our standards
out that City
standards differ by jurisdiction by
for the PUD are no different than 7 , 200 square foot lots, 9, 600
square foot lots, 12 , 000 or 20, 000 square foot lots. Side yard
setbacks for all of those developments are five feet per lot or ten
feet between homes and that is applied to all lots which are
created in all those different zones. So it's no different than
what we are asking for in the PUD development. The rear yard
setbae front
ard
well ; 20 feetthe forsame and the fronthyard andy20 feetbfors e the same as
the rear yard.
One comment or one concern was the devaluation of surrounding to
the development and we might ask that the developers talk about
the cost of the homes. Now, in putting together this staff report
we did take field trips up to areas like Issaquah and we looked in
to homes very similar to this on the same size loth.s. Three
ere sellins
ago those homes were selling for $110, 000 ; today, Y
for $140 , 000 and I would also like to point that the cost of the
home we cannot legally tell a developer what price of home they are
going to be developing on a lot. Another comment was in regard to
rentals. No one can determine whether or not a home will become
a rental or not. At the community. . .at the community meeting this
was also brought up the fact that these might be rentals. One
woman at that meeting, as I recall because I was, stated that there
were rentals within the immediate neighborhood of that development.
47
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm -
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
You cannot determine whether a house is going to become a rental
want
or not that's up to the I And, that owner
all I have right r he/she onowheyThank
to rent their property. And,
you.
Hunter: Thank you.
Gill: Gary Gill, City Engineer. I will try to cover some of the
issues in a general fashion and then Ed White our Assistant
Transportation Engineer will probably get in to a little bit more
details on some of the programs that we have to address some of the
concerns that were raised. We too have some of the similar
concerns that some of the property owners raised at the meeting
here tonight and we are trying to address those in a variety of
ways. We are well area of the regional transportation problems
that we have in this South King County area and so those problems
are being addressed on a regional basis along with other adjacent
jurisdictions: Renton, Auburn, King County, State Department of
Transportation. And, it' s unfortunate that we as fall behind
as we are but we are trying to address the problems in as prudent
a fashion. . . .prudent way as possible. We have several planned
improvement projects of which some of them were already brought up
at the meeting tonight. As you are already aware S. 240th Street
is being widened to a five-lane arterial between 104th and 116th
and that project is currently under construction right now. The
County is planning to widen and improve 240th east of 116th as part
of their six-year transportation plan. I believe the first phase
of that is planned for 1990. The State Department of
Transportation is planning to widen the Benson Highway all the way
from the present city. . .north city limits up to 192nd Street in two
phases and the planning for the dates for construction are still
uncertain because of the State funding that is needed to provide
for the construction monies for those projects but the design is
almost complete for both phases of that widening project. The City
is also recognizing the need for new traffic corridors planning for
future needs and this includes the 228th Corridor, 277th and 196th
Corridors which are planned arterial improvements which the City
Council has placed at the very top of their priorities for target
issues for 89 and the years following. I would like to point out
that this particular property is part of a 660 acre annexation
which came into the City just a few years ago. Most of this area
was part of unincorporated King County and so we inherited a lot
of problems when we annexed this area and the residents are
correct, 100th Avenue is a very substandard roadway in need of
widening, curb and gutters, sidewalks. The actual plat of Brier
48
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
Lane was constructed as a County subdivision so we didn't have any
part in that other than providing utility service for the residents
in that neighborhood. The major differences that you see between
King County and Kent as far as their subdivision standards are very
minor. The. . .King County does allow for rolled curb and gutters
and City of Kent does not. We prefer to go with the standard
raised curb and gutters to prevent people from parking on the
sidewalks making the area inaccessible for pedestrian use. I would
like to point out that the. . .when you get into certain roadway
standards our minimum standard for residential access street in a
single-family neighborhood would be a cul-de-sac or deadend street
would be 28 feet from curb to curb. So, and there are no parking
restrictions placed on single-family residential neighborhoods so
you could have vehicles parked on both sides of the street which
could effectively limit the available driving lane to probably less
than 12 feet. Sixteen to twelve feet if you use up approximately
eight feet on each side of the street for parking you are left with
about 12 feet. We do see this in a lot of the neighborhoods in the
area. When you drive through Park orchard, you literally have to
weave through the parked cars on both sides of the streets and
there's usually about one lane available for people to drive in and
in that particular neighborhood there' s no sidewalks so it makes
it even more precarious for somebody to try to walk through. So,
I 'm not saying that, you know, we have all the answers we obviously
need to look at the present codes and if there are changes that are
needed then the Council has to. . .the Council is the one that
approves the ordinances which adopt the standards that the City
staff enforces here. As far as the pedestrian needs are, I ' ll let
Ed get in to a little bit more detail with that but our traffic
department is working with Kent School District to try and identify
the elementary schools and other schools and where their walking
routes are. . .where they will not provide bus services for different
single-family and multifamily neighborhoods. once we have an
accurate record of where those neighborhoods are located and the
routes the children use for walking to and from school, then we can
try to prioritize which roads need pedestrian improvements because
there's going to be dozens and dozens of projects that are needed
throughout the city. We are going to have to go in and try
prioritize those and then take that to the Council and try and get
monies to fund the construction of these project. But we are not
ignoring the problem, it is a very high priority from both the
Council and the City staff so we do recognize that 100th Avenue,
94th Avenue, 112th, and I think the list can go on and on and on,
are all substandard roads that are either were or previously or are
49
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
still in unincorporated King County and they are in very definite
need of being improved to meet any kind of current standards.
I believe there was a question raised about lights at the
intersection with the Fred Meyer store and I was a little unclear
as to what the problem was there one. . .
Hunter: There was a concern raised that additional lighting would
cause it to be even more heavily used by pedestrian and even
vehicles.
Gill : So this is more of the traffic signal rather than street
lighting.
Voice: (Unclear) principal of East Hill, spoke with her today and
she said that before Fred Meyers was constructed it was promised
to the School District that there would be lighting on 100th and
240th, on the crosswalk to 100th because it's totally pitch black
when you come around that corner and you cannot see the children
and there's multitudes of children from the apartment complexes
right down the corner, you cannot see them and the problem has gone
on now for a year-and-half without any. . .
Hunter: This is, I think, a very legitimate concern and one that
should be addressed. I think it' s outside the scope of what we're
hearing tonight.
Gill: Well, yeah, I just wanted it to be clear that it was street
lighting and traffic signal . So, I think, that what we will do is
we' ll look into that we made a note of it. Fred Meyer had numerous
conditions that were placed as part of that development project;
to widen the road, to put in signals, and we'll go back and look
at those and make sure that if that wasn't met that we'll take some
steps to get that taken care of.
Hunter: Gary, I wanted to ask you about the. . .you testified about
the parking situation. Normally a street is 28 feet wide and you
said that if it was parked on both sides, what is your estimate as
to what that would leave.
Gill : Well, a typical parallel parking space is about eight feet
in width so if you take 16 feet off of that that leaves you with
about 12 feet.
50
Hearing Examiner Minutes
_. September 6, 1989 7 : 00 Pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
Hunter: So that the concern raised tonight is parking on a 22
foot.
Gill: Right, and that was part of. . .
Hunter: And both sides of that. . . .
Gill: No room, exactly. Less than eight feet. And that was why
when the PUD and that' s why I get back to the ordinance and the
standards that were developed. When the Public Works Department
reviewed the alternatives for street improvements for planned unit
developments, we were given several different scenarios. If they
go. . .they' re allowed to go in with full width streets which provide
parking or. . .that' s why we stated if it was a 22 foot wide street
that' s the absolute minimum that would be acceptable for two lanes
of traffic and if that was the street section that was constructed
as part of the planned unit development then there should be
absolutely no parking allowed within that. Then you get to the
problem of enforcement and all the other concerns that the owners
or the people brought up tonight and I don't have any easy answers
to that. That' s obviously a serious problem that could result
there.
Hunter: O.K. Thank you very much, anything further?
Gill: I believe that Ed could answer a couple of questions
regarding some of the safety concerns and the speeding and
maybe. . .any. . .some other areas that I may not have touched on here
tonight.
Hunter: Ed White, further testimony or clarifications?
White: Again, Ed White, Assistant Transportation Engineer. I
wanted to touch on basically just two points. One in the peak hour
capacity concerns of the intersection of Benson and 228th and then
talk very briefly about a program that we have that is designed to
try and help local neighborhoods in terms of their speeding and
accident related problems. On the. . . in terms of determining a peak
hour. . . I know one of the citizens was concerned about possibly
someone going out around 6: 00 and doing a study. Normally, studies
are conducted within two time frames and a.m. peak that generally
go between. . . somewhere between 7 and 9 a.m. and an evening peak
somewhere between 4 and 6. Now the city normally will look at
those two time frames in terms of doing counts and we will either
count the entire two hour period or establish a peak hour within
51
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
that two hour period by going out and doing an automatic count
prior to any other analysis that we made need to determine actually
when that p.m. peak hour does occur. And I know that' s a common
practice of most agencies and consultants. And, so that, the
majority of the time when people are talking about P.M. peaks they
will be talking about in a general sense sometime between those
time periods but probably a specific hour within that time frame.
In terms of the capacity of the intersection because that's a State
route and because there is a lot of growth occurring in the area
along with construction not only on 240th and on Benson but
possibly a lot of private development that may be going on you are
probably looking at capacity or a level of service. . .probably E or
F. I know that will probably also vary based on the time of day
and day of week, month of the year and so on. It' s a problem that
both State and the City is aware of and that there will probably
be a signal at that intersection sometime in the near future. I
know a comment was made as to the fact that a traffic signal there
might encourage traffic to utilize that route. That isn't
necessarily so. Generally, people when they do use a route it is
because there are fewer constraints. A traffic signal tends to
stop more people on a route. I know it' s. . . it does not sound like
it does but we have studies that have identified increased delays
caused by traffic signals.
On the issue of traffic safety let me briefly just say we have what
we term "neighborhood traffic control program" that we basically
instituted about a year and a half ago that was designed to get the
neighborhoods involved in looking at and possibly finding ways of
curing high speed, erratic driving, just trying to bring the
general awareness of the neighborhood bring it up. . .make people
more informed in terms of the things that they can do and that
various jurisdictions cannot do. I will be going over to the
office and picking up the various literature that we have and I
will make that available after the hearing for anyone who wants to
give me their name and address and we can get them involved in that
program.
Hunter: O.K. Let me understand your testimony about the traffic
level E and F that was on what intersection were you. . .
White: Correct. That was at the intersection of Benson and 228th
which is the intersection that has been in question this evening.
Also 240th?
52
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
Hunter: Let me ask Mr. Grundley and you can stay right where you
are, the applicant' s consultant, on the question raised at what
time of day the peak hours were used. What date did you do you
the study and what did you use as your peak hours.
Grundley: The counts were conducted on August 16 and August 17 , the
actual peak hour time period was 4 : 30 to 5: 30 and 5: 00 and 6: 00
peak hour was four cars less just for an indication of variance.
The magnitude between the two hours. I referenced 5:00 to 6: 00
peak period just because that' s a general range as Ed has said
that's indicated by peak hour. . . (unclear) generation of a housing
development. However, the actual counts at the intersection were
from 4 : 30 to 5: 30 .
Hunter: O.K. , thank you, sir. Any further City response. Yes,
sir.
Evans: Mike Evans, Fire Marshal. A couple of comments. The no
parking restrictions and enforcement and penalties that are
associated and defined in that document presented by CamWest do
w present an enforcement problem which there are no clear and easy
solution too. However, based on those requirements, if I were to
apply those same requirements to the neighboring entry of 103rd
Place there would have to be yellow strip on the curb and either
signs or yellow marking in the pavement that says no parking fire
lane on one side. If I applied that throughout the City we would
be painting the City yellow and that' s not our intent. But based
on experience and a little bit about people, how this project would
look in the future we thought that our needs had been addressed
concerning Fire Department access.
Hunter: Your needs are addressed, the enforcement problems are
something that you don't have enforcement control as far as
ticketing of vehicles?
Evans: The Kent City Code does allow for the ticketing of vehicles
in an appropriately marked fire lane. Basically, the standards
that are displayed in that document are taken from those standards
and at that point, when marked as such, are enforceable for
impoundment or towing or a fine as defined in that particular
document.
Hunter: And that' s the yellow strip and the sign says, "by
order. . " .
53
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7: 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
Evans: And you see the sign in either a 12x18 sign or painted on
the pavement, allows for either.
Hunter: Thank you.
Evans: O.K.
Hunter: Any further clarification from City. Stephen Clifton?
Clifton: Stephen Clifton, Kent Planning Department. Although it
is stated in the staff report I would just like to make one
correction to my presentation. For those individuals who haven't
read the staff report because I understand that quite a few heads
turned when I discussed the square footages of the homes, I
mentioned that they were 1, 200 to 910 square feet; the correct is
that they are 1, 200 to 1, 910 square feet. Thank you.
Hunter: Any further testimony. Yes, sir.
Kiehn: My name is Paul Kiehn. I would like to add something to
my testimony. Betty Hoff had mentioned to me that I. . .guess in my
nervousness I kind of missed a key point and that was the time of
the day that accident occurred, that is the car running in to the
house was 3 : 00. I think that 's significant because that's about
the time the kids are getting out of school . The car crossed the
oncoming line, across the sidewalk and yard and the potential for,
I think, a tragedy is pretty obvious in that case. But, just
wanted to have that added to the record.
Hunter: Thank you very much. And thank you all very much for
attending and presenting testimony. I think it has been concisely
presented and clearly presented. Obviously there' s a full range
of issues to consider some of which are outside the scope of
authority as you heard the City respond and some of which are
within the scope of authority of the Hearing Examiner and Planning
Department. What the job is to do now is to consider all the
testimony and evidence submitted and to render a recommendation
within 14 days. Those of you that have signed up for a decision
will receive it directly in the mail, others can receive it by
contacting the Planning Department and getting a cop that way. So.
I thank you all for attending and presenting your testimony. It
will assist me in making a decision and we will have that within
14 days. Meeting adjourned.
54
KENT PLANNING AGENCY
STAFF REPORT
FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 61 1989
FILE NO: DOVER PLACE #SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
APPLICANT: Can West Development, Inc.
REQUEST: A request for preliminary subdivision approval
in conjunction with a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) for 39 residential lots and associated
open space. Subject to Kent Zoning Code,
section 15. 04 . 080 and to the Kent Subdivision
Code.
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVES: Stephen Clifton and Carol Proud
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Description of the Proposal
The proposal will subdivide a 7 . 6 acre site into 39
residential lots and a separate tract of associated open
space. The size of the proposed lots will vary between
4 , 500 and 5, 000 square feet. The tract of open space,
as proposed, will total 2 .85 acres or 36. 6 percent (36 . 6
percent) of the site. The tract will include areas of
natural vegetation, formal landscaping and approximately
33 , 105 square feet of active recreational area. A
minimum thirty-foot wide landscape buffer will be
provided around the perimeter of the site. Approximately
1200 linear feet of private roadway terminating at two
separate cul-de-sacs will be constructed. A parking area
for twelve vehicles is proposed at the center of the
northern cul-de-sac. The resulting Planned Unit
Development (PUD) will provide for 39 detached
single-family houses at a density of five units per acre.
B. Location
The subject property is located north of the intersection
of 103 Avenue SE and SE 228th Street and abuts a portion
of the west side of 104th Avenue SE.
1
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
C. Size of Property
The subject property is 7 . 6 acres in size.
D. zoning
The subject property is located at the northeast corner
of an R1-9 . 6, Single-family Residential, zoning district
that extends west to 98th Avenue S. and south to
approximately SE 232nd Street. Zoning further south
along the west side of 104th Avenue SE includes an MRG,
Garden Density Multifamily Residential, zoning district,
a small O, Professional and Office, zoning district. and
a CC, Community Commercial , zoning district which extends
to SE 240th Street.
As a Planned Unit Development, the size of proposed lots
may be less than both the required minimum lot size of
9 , 600 square feet and less than the minimum width
specified in the R1-9 . 6 , single-family, zoning district.
Thirty-five percent of the site must remain in open
space. All future development on the proposed lots are
subject to remaining single-family development standards;
yard setbacks, height, lot coverage and required parking.
The proposal is subject to the tree preservation
ordinance. All trees on the site having a caliper of
six inches or greater must be identified on either the
site plan or on a separate tree plan.
E. Subdivision Code
The purpose of the City of Kent Subdivision Code is to
provide rules, regulations, requirements, and standards
for subdividing land in the City of Kent, insuring that
the highest feasible quality in subdivision will be
attained; that the public health, safety, general
welfare, and aesthetics of the City of Kent shall be
promoted and protected; that orderly growth, development,
and the conservation, protection and proper use of land
shall be insured; that proper provisions for all public
facilities (including circulation, utilities, and
services) shall be made; that maximum advantage of site
characteristics shall be taken into consideration; that
conformance with provisions set forth in the City of Kent
Zoning Code and Kent Comprehensive Plan shall be insured.
2
Staff Report
Dover Place
— #SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
In addition to the standard subdivision of land as
outlined in the Subdivision Code, the City provides for
the subdivision of land under the Planned Unit
Development regulations of the Kent Zoning Code.
Planning Department Comment:
The proposed plat is in general conformance with the
regulations of the Subdivision Code. The private road
system will be developed to Code standards including
curbs and sidewalks except for the width of pavement
which will be less than the required • 26 feet. The
proposed 22 feet is consistent with the standards
specified in the PUD ordinance. Because of safety
concerns with regard to fire vehicle access, no on-street
parking will be permitted in the subdivision. Each lot
must provide on-site parking for a minimum of two
vehicles as specified in the Kent Zoning Code. All
proposed sewers, water mains, and other utilities will
comply with applicable City requirements.
The configuration for proposed lot 36 must be redesigned
to accommodate access from the private road and not 104th
Avenue SE per Washington State Department of
Transportation and the City Public Works Department
requirements. Because of a required easement to widen
104th Avenue SE, approximately 6, 660 square feet will be
removed from the proposed tract of open space.
Preliminary review indicates that the size of the
remaining tract will be 35. 1 percent, which meets the
minimum requirement for a PUD. The exact dimensions must
be specified on the final plat.
The proposed PUD in effect is a binding site plan and no
lot will be permitted to be sold separately from the
resultant' subdivision. Language to this effect must be
included in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
for the PUD. Also, the proposed plat must receive final
approval and be recorded with King County Department of
Records prior to any construction activities on the site.
F. Comprehensive Plan
The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive
Land Use Plan in 1969 . The goals, objectives and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan represent an
expression of community intentions and aspirations
3
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
concerning the future of Kent and the area within the
Sphere of Interest. The Comprehensive Plan is used by
the Mayor, City Counbil, City Administrator, Planning
Commission, Hearing Examiner and City departments to
guide growth, development, and spending decisions.
Residents, land developers, business representatives and
others may refer to the plan as a statement of the City' s
intentions concerning future development.
The City of Kent has also adopted a number of subarea
plans that address specific concerns of certain areas of
the City. Like the city-wide Plan, the subarea plans
serve as policy guides for future land use in the City
of Kent.
CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan Map designates the subject
property as SF - Single-family. Elements of the
Comprehensive Plan are addressed below followed by
Planning Department comments.
HOUSING ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: ASSURE A DECENT HOME AND SUITABLE LIVING
ENVIRONMENT FOR FAMILIES DESIRING TO LIVE IN KENT.
Policy 8 : Encourage the use of clustering, zero
lot line, planned unit development
and other site planning techniques
to improve the quality of
developments.
Planning Department Comment:
A revised Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance became
effective in October of 1988 . Using regulations of the
existing PUD ordinance, the proposed plan retains 35
percent of the site for common open space, of which 10
percent is dedicated to passive use, 10 percent for
active recreation, and 15 percent is preserved as native
vegetation. Under standard R1-9 . 6 zoning, common open
space and requiring areas for active and passive
recreation is not a requirement.
4
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
GOAL 2 :
Objective 3 •
Policy 6 : Require developments to provide for
all necessary on-site improvements,
as well as their fair share of off-
site improvements needed as a result
of the development.
Planning Department Comment:
As a condition of approval through SEPA, the developer
of the project will be required to enter into agreements
with the City of Kent to participate in future
construction of the 224th/228th Street corridor project
and a 228th Street and SR-515 signal project. The 228th
Street and SR-515 signal project would be installed if
warrants are met and determined necessary by the City' s
Traffic Division.
Proposed private streets within this development shall
be designed to meet City standards regarding pavement
structure, and shall have cement concrete curb, cement
concrete sidewalks, street lighting, drainage system,
street name signs and other appurtenances associated with
street construction projects.
GOAL 3 : Assure an adequate and balanced supply of
housing units offering a diversity of size, densities,
age, style and cost.
Objective 2 : Provide for a mixed residential
community with a balance of housing
types .
Planning Department Comment:
The proposed project will provide 39 additional
single-family homes for the City of Kent. One lot
(designated #36 on the site plan) has an existing home
scheduled for removal, locating a new home in its place.
Samples of floor plans submitted indicate homes ranging
in size from 1222 to 1910' square feet, for one-and two-
story homes respectively. These homes will add to the
existing single-family housing stock in Kent, helping to
balance multifamily and single-family units within the
5
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
City. The size of the homes will also add to the mix of
housing types within the community.
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISH A BALANCED, SAFE AND EFFICIENT
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR ALL MODES OF TRAVEL.
Planning Department Comment:
The PUD allows applicants to modify pavement widths of
a two-way street upon review and approval by the Kent
Fire Chief and the Traffic Engineer providing they are
sufficient to maintain emergency access and traffic
safety. To ensure that the roadway is kept in a suitable
condition, the following condition should be applied as
required by code:
A maintenance agreement for all. private
streets within the Planned Unit Development
shall be included in the Conditions, Covenants
and Restrictions for the project.
According to comments received during .the PUD review,
the Kent Fire Department feels the access and parking
problems which might be associated with the development,
creates serious concerns about the Department's ability
to deliver an adequate level of service to this
development. Although there are tentative conditions to
maintain access, the occupants must be aware that the
Department' s ability to deliver service will be severely
impaired if the conditions are not met continually.
According to the Kent Fire Department, the owner would
be well -advised to_ consider built in protection of
sprinkler systems.
EAST HILL LAND USE PLAN
The East Hill Plan Map designates the subject property
as SF-6 Single-family 4-6 units per acre. " Elements of
the East Hill Plan are addressed below and followed by
the Kent Planning Department finding.
6 _.
Staff Report
Dover Place
- #SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS
As mentioned above, the subject property has a land use
classification of SF-6, Single-family (four to six units
per acre) . This designation represents the highest
single-family residential density.
Planning Department Comment:
Minimum lot sizes of the underlying zone do not apply in
a PUD, thus allowing lots to be less than the 9 , 600
square foot size. The overall density of the
development is approximately five units per acre which
falls within the SF-6 density designation.
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT
GOAL 1: Adequate sewer service for existing development
and those areas adjacent to the collection system prior
to expanding the system.
GOAL 2 : A water system that will deliver cost
effective, dependable supply of high-quality water to
existing development and accommodate the incremental
increase to demand created by new development.
Planning Department Comment
The developer through SEPA review has been required to
provide storm drainage detention and biofiltration of
storm water runoff as well as analyzing the downstream
system to insure that adequate capacity exists. The
developers will also be required to provide a public
water system to meet fire flow and domestic demands as
well as providing for public gravity sewer service to
all lots.
G. Planned Unit Development
The intent of the Planned Unit Development is to create
a process to promote diversity and creativity in site
design, and protect and enhance natural and community
features. The process is provided to encourage unique
developments which may combine a mixture of residential,
commercial, and industrial uses. By using flexibility
in the application of development standards, this
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
process will promote developments that will benefit
citizens that live and work within the City of Kent.
According to the Density Bonus Standards for a Planned
Unit Development (Section 15. 04 . 080 D) , the density of
residential development for PUD's shall be based on the
gross density of the underlying zoning district: in
this case, 91600 square foot lots or 4 . 54 units per
acre. The Hearing Examiner may recommend a dwelling
unit density not more than twenty percent greater than
permitted by the underlying zone upon findings and
conclusions that the amenities or design features whiryh
promote the purposes of this section, as listed below,
are provided:
1) Open space: A four (4) percent density bonus may
be authorized if at least ten (10) percent of the
open space is in concentrated areas for passive
use. Open space shall include significant natural
features of the site, including but not limited to
fields, woodlands, watercourses, permanent and
seasonal wetlands. Excluded from the open space
definition are the areas within the building
footprints, land used for parking, vehicular
circulation, right-of-ways and areas used for any
kind of storage.
Planning Department Comment:
According to the site plan, ten (10) percent of the site
will be used for passive recreation. Areas of passive
use concentration include the corners of the project as
well as the perimeter areas between the lots and
property lines. To ensure that "Tract B" is retained as
open space, the following condition should be applied to
the final' subdivision:
A. The final subdivision linen shall bear a notation
stating that "Tract B" shall be retained as
permanent open space and shall not be further
subdivided.
Open space along the south property line consists
of mainly tall grasses and weeds. During the
community meeting for this - project, neighbors
adjacent to the south property line expressed
concerns regarding the visual impacts of new homes
8
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
located along the south property line. The
landscape plan for Dover Place indicates a screen
of evergreen conifers to be planted within the 30
foot open space along this southern edge.
Eventually an evergreen screen will visually break
up the facades of homes located along the southern
edge.
Additional landscaping is also proposed along the
south half of the eastern edge. Evergreen and
deciduous trees will help to provide a screen for
new residents from 104th Avenue SE.
2) Active Recreation Areas: A four (4) percent
density bonus may be authorized if at least ten
(10) percent of the site is utilized for active
recreational purposes, including but not limited to
jogging/walking trails, pools, children's play
areas, etc.
Only that percentage of space contained within
accessory structures that is directly used for
active recreation purposes can be included in the
ten (10) percent active recreation requirement.
Planning Department Comment:
According to the site plan, ten (10) percent of the site
(33 , 105 square feet) will be used for active recreation.
The area designated as active open space is located in
the center of the property between lots 27-30 and 31.
A landscape plan indicates the location of a sport court
and open lawn area. To ensure that residents moving
into the earlier constructed homes have this open space
for their use, the following conditions should be
applied:
A. The active open recreation area shall be
constructed and operable upon completion of 50
percent of the homes within the Planned Unit
Development.
B. Lawn areas shall be planted using typical lawn
planting techniques • (e.g. 4 inches 5-way topsoil,
seed or sod, irrigation system, etc. ) .
9
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
C. The active open recreation area shall be
permanently maintained by the home owners
association. A maintenance agreement to this effect
shall be included in the Conditions, Covenants and
Restrictions for the project.
3) Storm Water Drainage:- A two (2) percent density
bonus may be authorized if storm water drainage
control is accomplished using natural off-site
drainage features. Natural drainage features may
include . streams, creeks, ponds, etc.
Planning Department Comment:
Natural off-site drainage features used for storm water
drainage control have not been proposed for this site.
Therefore a two (2) percent density bonus can not be
granted for this project.
4) Native Vegetation: A four (4) percent density
bonus may be authorized if at least fifteen (15)
percent of the native vegetation on the site is
left undisturbed in large open areas.
Planning Department Comment:
According to the site plan, fifteen (15) percent of the
site (49 , 658 square feet) .will be retained as native
vegetation. The area designated to be retained as
native vegetation includes the area around the perimeter
between the proposed lots and property lines. A tree
plan showing the location of all trees on the site with
a caliper of six inches or greater has been submitted.
To ensure that the native vegetation is left undisturbed
during construction and permanently retained as native
vegetation, the following conditions should be applied:
A. No construction practices of any kind shall take
place within the area designated to be retained in
native vegetation. This excludes such activities
as: vehicle maneuvering, materials storage, etc.
B. The Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions for the
project shall require the proposed native
vegetation area to be designated as permanent and
be left as native vegetation. Further, no voting
10
Staff Report
Dover Place
# sU-89-2 and 4PUD-89-1
majority by any organized home owners association
shall compromise or nullify the conditions of this
PUD.
5) Parking Lot Size: A two (2) percent density bonus
may be authorized if off-street parking is grouped
in areas of sixteen (16) stalls or less. Parking
areas must be separated from other parking areas or
buildings by significant landscaping in excess of
Type V standards as provided in Section 15. 05. 070,
Kent City Code. At least fifty (50) percent
of
these parking areas must be designed as outlined
above to receive the density bonus.
Planning Department Comment:
Due to the type of development proposed (single-family) ,
off-street parking grouped as mentioned above can not be
achieved. This type of . off-street parking requirement
is typically used for mixed use, multifamily
or
commercial developments. Therefore a two (2) percent
density bonus can not be granted for this project.
6) Mixed Use Types: A two (2) percent density bonus
may be authorized if a development features a mix
of residential housing types. Single-family
residences, attached single units, condominiums,
apartments, and townhomes are examples of housing
types. The mix need not include some of every
type.
Planning Department Comment:
The proposed project shall consist of only one type
(single-family) of housing unit. A mix of housing types
is not proposed. Therefore a two (2) percent density
bonus can not be granted for this project.
7) Protect Planning/Management: A two (2) percent
density bonus may be granted if a
design/development team is used. Such a team would
include a mixture of architects, engineers,
landscape architects, and designers. A
design/development team is likely to produce a
professional development concept that would be
consistent with the purpose of the regulations.
11
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
Planning Department Comment:
A team of designers has been used by the applicant for
this project. These include architects, a landscape
architect, and engineers. Therefore a two (2) percent
density bonus may be granted for this project.
Density Bonus Determination:
The underlying zoning for the subject property allows
34 . 48 units. The applicants have fulfilled the
requirements of numbers 1, 2 , 4 , and 7 , therefore, a
fourteen percent (14 percent) density bonus may be
granted. This increase would allow an additional 4 . 84
units resulting in a development potential of 39 . 32
units or 39 total developable lots for a single-family
PUD.
II. HISTORY
A. Site History
The proposed 39-lot subdivision and Planned Unit
Development was reviewed by members of the Subdivision
Committee at a tentative plat meeting held on June 1,
1989 . All relevant comments and concerns discussed at
the meeting are included in the staff report.
B. Area History
The site is located at the northern boundary of the
recent 142 acre East Hill Well Annexation, Area I, which
was incorporated into the City in 1987 . Annexation of
the area occurred as a result of local residents needing
to obtain water services from the City. After much
deliberation by the City Council and community input,
the annexation area was predominantly zoned R1-9 . 6,
Single-family Residential .
Review of City and County maps indicate that a
considerable amount of subdivision activity has occurred
in the area prior to annexation. Most of the
subdivision activity has occurred directly east of 104th
Avenue SE and south of the subject property. The Brier
Lane Subdivision abuts the subject property to the
12
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
south. This subdivision as well as other plats within
the vicinity were developed in King County prior to
annexation. King County permits a lot averaging system
that allows for a variety of lot sizes. For this
reason, some lots may be less than the 7,200 minimum
required under City of Kent standards.
III. LAND USE
Land use in the area is best described as transitional. Some
rural single-family residential development is located north
and west of the subject property. The area east of 104th
Avenue SE (in King County) is more densely developed with
single-family residences on smaller lots that are part of
larger subdivisions. Directly south of the site is the
previously mentioned Brier Lane subdivision. An apartment
complex with related parking area is located northeast of the
site on 104th Avenue SE. Land uses further south on the west
side of 104th Avenue SE consists of a large apartment
complex, office and retail uses.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
A. Environmental Assessment
A final Mitigated Declaration of nonsignificance (#ENV-
89-33) was issued on June 14 , 1989 with the following
conditions:
1. Provide storm drainage detention and biofiltration
of the storm water runoff prior to it entering the
City- system.
2 . Analyze the downstream system to insure that
adequate capacity exists. If adequate capacity
does not exist, the developer shall make the
necessary improvements thereto subject to City
review and approval thereof.
3 . Discharge of runoff from the site* shall be at a
non-erosive point in the drainage system.
4 . The developer shall conduct a traffic study to
identify all traffic impacts upon the City of Kent
road network and traffic signal system. The study
13
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
shall• identify• . all intersections at level-of-
service "E" or "F" due to increased traffic volumes
from the development. These intersections are at
a threshold level for traffic mitigation.
The study shall then identify what improvements are
necessary to mitigate the development impacts
thereon. Upon agreement by the City with the
findings of the study and the mitigation measures
outlined in the study, implementation and/or
construction of said mitigation measures shall be
the conditional requirement of the issuance of the
respective development permits.
In lieu of conducting the above traffic study,
constructing and/or implementing the respective
mitigation measures hereby, the developer may agree
to the following conditions to mitigate the traffic
impacts resulting from the proposed addition.
A. The developer shall execute an environmental
mitigation agreement to financially
participate and pay a fair share of the costs
associated with the construction of the South
224th/228th Street corridor project. The
minimum benefit to the above development is
estimated at $41, 964 based on 39 PM peak hour
trips entering and leaving the site and the
capacity of the South 224th/228th Street
corridor.
The execution of this agreement will serve to
mitigate traffic impacts to the above
mentioned intersection and road system by
committing funding for the South 224th/228th
Street corridor, which will provide additional
capacity for traffic volumes within the area
of the above mentioned development.
5 . Execute a signal participation agreement for the
future construction of a traffic signal at the
intersection of SE 228th Street and SR-515 if
warrants are met and determined necessary by the
City' s Traffic Division.
14
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
6. Deed right-of-way to WSDOT for proposed
improvements to SR-515. Contact WSDOT for exact
right-of-way needs.
B. Significant Physical Features
1. Topography and Vegetation
A single-family residence and a large barnlike
structure are located on proposed lot 36 at the
southwest corner of the subject property. The
topography of the site is relatively level with a
moderate increase in elevation from west to east.
The site has a variety of native vegetation
consisting of a dense ground cover of grasses,
shrubs and stands of mature deciduous and evergreen
trees.
C. Significant Social Features
1. Street System
All of the proposed lots will have direct access to
103rd Avenue SE and SE 228th Street from the
proposed private road. No access will be permitted
for any lot from 104th Avenue SE. SE 228th Street
. at this location is classified as a local arterial
with a right-of-way width of fifty feet and forty
feet of actual pavement width. The average daily
traffic count on the street is 2000 vehicle trips
per day.
2 . Water System
An existing eight inch water main located in 103rd
Avenue SE at the southern property line is
available to serve the proposal. An existing eight
inch water main line located adjacent to the site
along 104th Avenue SE and can also serve the site.
3 . Sanitary Sewer System
An existing eight inch sanitary sewer main located
at the southwest • corner of the property is
available to serve the site.
15
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
4 . Storm Water System
The applicant will be required to provide on-site
storm water detention in accordance with the City
Drainage Code. Any natural drainage course across
the property should be maintained.
5 . LID' s
None at the present time.
v. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
The following departments and agencies were advised of this
application:
City Administrator City Attorney
Director of Public Works Chief of Police
Parks & Recreation Director Fire Chief
Building official City Clerk
In addition to the above, all persons owning property which
lies within 300 feet of the site were notified of the
application and of the public hearing.
Staff comments and concerns have been incorporated in the
staff report where applicable.
On August 11, 1989 the Fire Department received a letter from
the applicant regarding agreed upon conditions to minimize
any potential fire hazards in conjunction with the planned
unit development. These conditions are included with the
conditions of approval for the proposed PUD.
The Planning Department received a copy of a petition signed
by 49 local residents opposed to the project. The objections
relate to fire safety issues, limited access, increased
density, reduced street width and other concerns. The
original petition will be officially entered into the record
at the public hearing for the proposal.
On June 20 , 1989 the Planning Department received a letter
from the Superintendent of the Kent School District which
emphasized the critical shortage of classroom space for new
students. The School District is unable to build new schools
fast enough to accommodate the rapid growth that the Kent
16
Staff Report
Dover Place
WSU-89-2 and 4PUD-89-1
area is facing. The Superintendent stated in his letter, "In
short, we do not have room for the children that will be
generated by this development. "
Several conditions of approval were suggested by the School
District some .of which included; require a contribution from
the developer to the school district to offset the costs of
providing temporary facilities for students generated by
these developments ; urge the developer to create an area near
the center of the development that would be landscaped,
equipped, and dedicated as a children' s play area; include
bus turn-outs and full sidewalks as safety features for
children using school bus service. The City is unable to
implement these conditions without the legislative authority
to do so. The comments are included as a courtesy to the
School District.
VI. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
The Planning Department has reviewed this application in
relation to the Comprehensive Plan, present zoning, PUD
ordinance, Subdivision Code, land use, street system, flood
control problems and comments from other departments and
finds that:
A. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site
as SF, Single-family Residential .
B. The East Hill Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site
as SF, Single-family with a density of 4-6 units per
acre.
C. The site is presently zoned R1-9. 6, Single-family
Residential, 9600 square foot minimum lot size.
D. The Planned Unit Development ordinance provides for both
reduced lot size and lot width if 35 percent of the
entire site remains in open space and other bonuses are
granted.
E. The underlying zoning for the subject property allows
34 . 48 units. The applicants have fulfilled the
requirements of numbers 1, 21 4 , and 7 of the Density
Bonus Standards, therefore, a fourteen percent (14
percent) density bonus may be granted. This increase
17
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
would allow an additional 4 .84 units resulting in a
development potential - of 39 units.
F. The proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) and
subdivision will provide for 39 detached single-family
houses at a density of five units per acre which falls
within -the density specified for the SF-6,
Single-family, designation of the East Hill
Comprehensive Plan Map.
G. The proposed Planned Unit Development and subdivision
will have access to SE 228th Street via a -private road
and all improvements to the site will conform to. the
requirements of the Kent Subdivision Code and ' the
Planned Unit Development ordinance.
H. The Hearing Examiner shall determine whether to grant,
deny, or condition an application for a Planned Unit
Development based upon the following review criteria:
Residential Planned Unit Development Criteria:
1. The proposed PUD project shall have a beneficial
effect upon the community and users of the
development which would not normally be achieved by
traditional lot-by-lot development and. shall not be
detrimental to existing or potential surrounding
land uses as defined by the Comprehensive Plan.
Planning Department Finding
A 30-foot common open space buffer is proposed for the
perimeter of the site. This open space buffer is to
consist of existing vegetation, (including a number of
mature trees) , enhanced along the southern and eastern
boundaries by the proposed planting of evergreen
conifers. The inclusion of this buffer gives neighbors
an additional 30 feet of visual and physical privacy
than might be afforded by standard site development.
Under standard R1-9 . 6 zoning, common open space and
required areas for active and passive recreation is not
a requirement. A sport court and open lawn area has
been proposed to serve the residents of the development.
Standard subdivision regulations also do not require
this type of amenity.
18
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
2 . Unusual environmental features of the site shall be
preserved, maintained and incorporated into the
design to benefit the development and the
community.
Planning Department Finding
No unusual environmental features exist on this site.
However, according to the site plan, fifteen (15)
percent of the site (49 , 658 square feet) will be
retained as native vegetation as required by the PUD
ordinance. The area designated to be retained as native
vegetation includes the area around the perimeter
between proposed lots and property lines. A tree plan
showing locations of all trees on site with a caliper of
six inches or greater has been submitted.
Under a typical subdivision application, percentage
requirements for retaining natural vegetation do not
exist. Using a typical 9 , 600 square foot lot layout, a
higher percentage of trees may be removed than the
proposed PUD application.
3 . The proposed PUD project shall provide areas of
openness by using techniques such as clustering,
separation of building groups, and use of well
designed open space and/or landscaping.
Planning Department Finding
As previously mentioned, using regulations of the
existing PUD ordinance, the proposed plan will retain at
least 35 -percent of the site as common open space. 10
percent is dedicated to passive use, 10 percent for
active recreation, and 15 percent is preserved as native
vegetation.
Evergreen conifers are proposed along the south and east
open areas helping to screen adjacent developments to
the south, and 104th Avenue SE from the proposed
development.
4 . The proposed PUD project shall promote variety and
innovation in site and building design. Buildings
in groups shall be related by common materials and
roof styles, but contrast shall be provided
19
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
throughout the site by the use of varied materials,
architectural detailing, building scale and
orientation.
Planning Department Finding
As mentioned on page 5, the proposed project will
provide 39 additional single-family homes for the City
of Kent. Samples of floor plans submitted indicate
homes ranging in size from 1222 to 1910 square feet, for
one-and two-story homes respectively. These homes will
add to existing single-family housing stock of Kent, and
will also add to the mix of housing types within the
community.
Thus far, three different housing plans have been
submitted to, the Planning Department. One home is a one
level rambler style, while the other two are two-story
structures. The applicant has stated that as many as
five different housing plans will be constructed within
the development.
5 . Building design shall be based on a unified design
concept, particularly when construction will be in
phases.
Planning Department Finding
All homes are proposed as single-family structures, each
with a two-car garage. Buildings plans submitted
indicate different square footages, but overall,
similarity in style does exist.
VII. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of the merits of this request and the Code
criteria for granting a Planned Unit Development and a
Preliminary Subdivision, the City staff recommends APPROVAL
of the proposed seventeen lot subdivision subject to the
following conditions:
A. Conditions applicable to the Planned Unit Development:
1) The final subdivision plat shall bear a notation
clearly stating the total dimension of "Tract B"
including the percentage of open space; that the
20
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
tract shall be retained as permanent open space and
that the tract shall not be further subdivided.
2) The active open recreation area shall be
constructed and operable upon completion of 50
percent of the homes within the Planned Unit
Development.
3) Lawn areas shall be planted using typical lawn
planting techniques (e.g. 4 inches 5-way topsoil,
seed or sod, irrigation system, etc. ) .
4) The active open recreation area shall be
permanently maintained by the home owners
association. A maintenance agreement to this effect
shall be included in the Conditions, Covenants and
Restrictions for the project.
5) A maintenance agreement for all private streets
within the Planned Unit Development shall be
included in the Conditions, Covenants and
Restrictions for the project.
6) No construction practices of any kind shall take
place within the area designated to be retained in
native vegetation. This includes such items as:
vehicle maneuvering, materials storage, etc.
7) The Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions for the
project shall require the proposed native
vegetation area to be designated as permanent and
be left as native vegetation. Further, no voting
majority by any organized home owners association
shall compromise or nullify the conditions of this
PUD.
8) The development shall have yellow "NO PARKING"
painted on the private roadway at 50 foot
intervals.
9) In the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for
the development, it shall stipulate that on a bi-
yearly basis a mailer shall be sent to all
homeowners at DoverPlace
on reminding
street
eet e due that
parking is not per
to
potential fire hazard.
21
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
10) The developer shall install five signs that shall
read."NO PARKING ON THE STREET BY ORDER OF THE FIRE
MARSHALL" .
11) The applicant shall submit to the Planning
Department a recorded copy of the final version of
the _Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, which
include the aforementioned conditions of approval
for the Planned Unit Development prior to issuance
of any building permits for the site.
B. Prior to recordation of final plat:
1) Proposed private streets shall be designed to meet
City standards regarding pavement structure, and
shall have cement concrete curb, cement concrete
sidewalks, street lighting, drainage system, street
name signs and other appurtenances associated with
good street construction practices.
2) Deed 20 foot right of way along 104th Avenue SE to
City for street purposes.
3) Provide utility easement to City for the sewer,
water and storm drainage. Also provide easements
for each individual lot to said utility.
4) Provide copy of associated articles denoting the
provisions for maintenance and operation of the
private streets, sidewalks, street lights, street
name signs, open space, parks and facilities,
private drainage system, etc. to City for review
and approval. Said articles also shall reflect
each- rights of lot owners to utilize said street
and related facilities.
5) On-site storm detention is required and water
release off the site shall be at a non-erosive
point. Said system shall be designed to service
not just the development but the entire drainage
basin tributary. Extension of the storm drain
facilities to adjacent property lines may be
required along with granting the necessary
easements to the City.
6) Provide public water system to meet fire flow and
domestic flow requirements (minimum size line shall
22
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
be six-inch diameter) . The main shall be extended
to service adjacent properties as determined
necessary by the Public Works Department.
7) Provide public gravity sewer service to all lots.
Said sewers shall be extended to adjacent property
lines as determined necessary by the City.
8) Access to lot 36 shall be provided by the internal
private road rather than 104th Avenue S .
9) No direct vehicular access shall be allowed to the
proposed development from 104th Avenue SE.
These conditions will be in addition to the SEPA
conditions already imposed on the project.
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
August 29, 1989
23
CITY. OF. KENT
planning..
16 \ \
• T od.lr:.12
15
cam \ t
7t4 2\ 1
\ 1315xw r:'' \ (I I 24 \ 1 0 \
\\ t .2 \ \25 -rile
EU9
\ \ Y N
•\ 11\ \ S. ?
�_ \ 27TrL \b'
10
128 �� �\T'Iv r\\ 3\11 .32 I I
8 `\ If I 'P t\ \ 34
mil. J",a'l+ _ % •\
•i /7�/ � �J..+. IN•MJf J
)I �.rvr.n�a*•!-_- _ l PFIVi'TrF'�fbrU �� 1
Jl 1
r ....,.. •, �
1,2 t. 38 Sl...afi...
1„1 ♦ oto.l 7
6. \5 4 1 3
DI
'. �r..:��-v' N M•1!•!i W I I !1' 1f' �nv,uJ[flI +a' \ \ I
JA
I I 1 I '
i5 !.i IN II i z4 ll 1; �rL`
27 76 I
2J I I I � '\
v � 1
223th...Street_ a
APPLICATION Name Dover Place LEGEND
Number #SD-89-2 Dale September 6, 1989 application site
zoning boundary
Request preliminary Plat CIIy limns
SITE PLAN
SCALE
= No scale
.CITY_ Or. DENT
planning..
kk
rt
IS
CD
1 I.. , I.r'-�
1 P• 1'� : C
o
DER.J.
Ll
Gov: 7j
��� 1`I •
4 .
� n Q
MRG
AppLICATION Name Dover Place LEGEND
.Number #SU-89-2 Date September 6, 1989 = application, site
._. zoning boundary
Request Preliminary Plat -- city limits
TOPOGRAPHY/ZOIJING MAP
SGALE 111 = 4001
CITY OF. KENT
planning..
SE 1219TH
•• 770TH
W t. ..wM jsm ■ON Ir H ST rt
■ ■ w
�1 In W
In "
m ��
■ o,■ ■• o SE 222HO
. , 222ND ST ST Sl$
w
(
3 , \ < Y O W W
1 " / ti SE zzlTH ST �J t+d
■ I F3 I SOS SE P`O- W Oy SL `
' • . it�!. 06'r 225TH " In m224TH Q
■ < $. SE ST J
< a E STH w
rl ■� E 225t H Y _~."
r �F J\ SITE ,SE 226TH P` 6 ^>■
v ST
■ N ■ y ]: >W
2 W
1 1' SE �a
�.l S 228TH r 221TH ST�>
1 ST I SE 228TH ST< SE 228TH
ST w
■SE 229r /p "
■ " M 5W I-��yS29T% w
w I wl uwi PL Q\' ��J ST 1-• t
■i■■o1.1w < ■ (Pvt) iPvQ '^ > yt'r �\. SE 230 H
1 < r ST
■ F SE 7'tiST •= SE rJ6~ •t•It SE 231S7 W PELE
,o ARK
:j S 2315T Sr ,�I� 230TH\
1 ST =" ■SCH
°' ■ ST (Pvl) <■O PL. �0 sf 232HO ST ^>
■ S 232ND I S 232ND d ISE 232ND ST rWn SE •-< E 232H
ST •� ST _ ■ SE 232ND PL 232ND Id• ST
■ I `1 > PL - oy
" ■ ' o■ A SE 233RD P(• �N y4
■ e, e O
t
STH�1 I0�1� r
r n O
■ ■ w Si 236TH ST AVE
SE
I '� <.IS 736iH " 1�1�f �■1 fSt lr■ �:
■ (Pvl) I ST In
to
1 = o I" SE 236TH PL W
t ._r m■ > u SE 237TH ST < W
A >` = Q
ji ^�1 ,1■f�■ " (P"t) 07 SE 239TH S7
W z ( )
0i$238TH L. Wuxi;■ O" ..`✓ ,- w ST N
$ p m _
z
N� 5.239t PL ^ z m l : ol> -
240 ST 1
APPLICATION Name Dover Place F
D
Number #Su-89-2 -Date September 6, 1989 application site
zoning boundary
Request Pre] Jminary Plat city limits
VICINITY MAP
SCALE = it, = I000;1
1
z Kent City Council Meeting
111 1 Date November 21, 1989
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: GREEN RIVER CORRIDOR TRAIL
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization is requested to accept
complete the Green River Corridor Trail section adjacent an
Doren's Landing Park and to release retainage to Golf
Landscaping upon receipt of state release.
Conya $Addal costTott $15,89 .79
3 . EXHIBIT N/A
4 . RECOMMENDED B Parks Departmeaft
(Committee, aff, Examin6t', Commission, etc. )
i
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL ERS F.T. IMPACT: NO�_ YES
FISCAL PE
NOTE: Re ommended Not Recommended
6 . EXPENDI REQUIRED: N/A
SOURCE pf FUNDS: existing prolect,budaet
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTIO
Councilmember Aoveds C-""'"_ ��or [14��_secongiW_44
----to release the retainage as requested. Ae rno/�62
C'a.ro e-
DISCUSSION:
ACTION• 1
Council Agenda
Item No. 4B
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 21 , 1989
Category Other Business
r y..
L� 1. SUBJECT: SENIOR HOUSING BOND ISSUE ;-- N.-L
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Mayor's Assisted Housing Committee has
recommended that the City Council resubmit a $6.7 million
voter-approved bond measure on the February 6, 1990 ballot.
Proceeds from the bond would build a minimum of 92 units of
senior housing, which is estimated to meet approximately 25
percent of the identified need for low income senior housing in
Kent. `This proposed bond issue received a 68 percent approval
vote in the November 6 general election, but failed to validate
due to insufficient voter turnout+
3 . EXHI TS: Ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Navor's Assisted Housing Committee Planning
Committee ,8/15489) and Operations Committee (8/15/89)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED EISCAUPERSONNEL IMPACT: r'',, NO YES
CAL Re
1�
FIS PE ONNEL TE: commended,! Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITdRE REQUIRED: $6. 7 million
SOURCE O FUNDS: voter approved general obligations funds
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACT�I�ON:
Councilmember move4, seaands
to prove � Ordinance No. 3M5 directing the
Planning Department, Finance Department, City Attorney, and City
Clerk to resubmit a $6. 7 million voter-approved bond measure on
the February 6, ,(1990 ballot. + ii -t� sev Secc�nded" Mc.iic>�� ccFrr ec4
��� die (�Civ'•, �n� k}c_ e �; - � sct.�5s vie
ti
CA n vCu 1 -+ h e-
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4C
MARCHIONE,JOHN / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
------------------------------------------
5" -bject: SENIOR HOUSING BOND ISSUE FISCAL NOTE
W.„,aator: John MARCHIONE / KENT70/FN Dated: 11/16/89 at 1210.
THE IBC RECOMMENDS PLACING THE SENIOR HOUSING BOND ISSUE ON THE
SPRING BALLOT AS OPPOSED TO USING COUNCILMANIC DEBT. IT HAS BEEN
A GOAL OF THE IBC, THE COUNCIL, .AND THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO
LOWER THE CITY'S COUNCILMANIC DEBT. BY PLACING THE ISSUE ON THE
BALLOT, THE CITY ALLOWS THE CITIZENS TO DECIDE THIS IMPORTANT
ISSUE. THE 6. 7 MILLION DOLLAR ISSUE WILL COST TAX PAYERS ROUGHLY
$27 IN THE FIRST YEAR FOR A $100, 000 HOUSE, IF APPROVED WITH A 60
PERCENT "YES" VOTE AND ENOUGH VOTERS TO VALIDATE THE ELECTION.
VALIDATION SHOULD BE EASIER WITH APPROXIMATELY ONLY 1, 800 VOTES
NEEDED FOR VALIDATION AS OPPOSED TO 4 ,476 NEEDED IN THE NOVEMBER 7TH
ELECTION.
�c
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, providing for the submission to the
voters of the City at a special election to be
held therein on February 6, 1990 of a
proposition authorizing the City to incur
indebtedness by issuing its general obligation
bonds in a par amount not to exceed $6,700,000,
payable by annual property tax levies to be
made in excess of regular property tax levies,
for the purpose of paying all or a part of the
cost of providing housing and related
facilities for low-income senior citizens in
the City and to levy those excess property
taxes.
WHEREAS, there exists a severe shortage of safe, sanitary
and affordable housing and related facilities in the City of Kent,
Washington (the "City") , for low-income senior citizens; and
WHEREAS, to provide that housing and those related
facilities, it is deemed necessary and advisable that the City
issue its unlimited tax general obligation bonds in the principal
amount of not to exceed $6,700,000; and
WHEREAS, the Constitution and laws of the State of
Washington require that the question of whether or not the City
may issue unlimited tax general obligation bonds for that purpose
must be submitted to the qualified electors of the City for their
ratification or rejection; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Definitions. As used herein, the following
words shall have the following meanings:
"Bond" or "Bonds" means any or all of the general
obligation bonds of the City issued pursuant to this ordinance, or
any series of those bonds.
"City" means the City of Kent, Washington.
"Housing Law" means RCW 35.21.685, Chapter 35.82 RCW,
Chapter 35.83 RCW, RCW 36.39.060, as now exist or are hereafter
amended, and such other laws as now or hereafter authorize the
_» City to provide or to participate in the provision of funds for
capital expenditures for housing and related facilities for
Low-Income Senior Citizens.
"Legislative Authority" means the Mayor and City Council
of the City.
"Low-Income" means an income equal to or less than 80% of
the median income of persons in King County, or shall mean such
other income level as shall be set by subsequent ordinance of the
City.
"Project" means that project described in Section 3 of
this ordinance, as it may be amended by subsequent ordinance of
the City.
"Senior Citizens" means persons over the age of 62 years.
Section 2. Findings and Determinations. The City
Council finds that there exists a critical shortage of housing and
related facilities in the City for Low-Income Senior Citizens.
Existing sources of funds to make capital expenditures to provide
that housing and those related facilities, including funds from
the Housing Authority of King County, federal grants and housing
assistance programs, are insufficient to meet fully the existing
and projected needs for that housing and those related facilities.
Financial resources in an amount not exceeding
$6,700,000, to be used by the City, by the Kent Housing Authority
(in the event that it is subsequently empowered by the City to do
so) , by the Housing Authority of King County or by any other
public or private developer or owner of housing and related
facilities for Low-Income Senior Citizens, would make it possible
to provide 92 or more additional units of housing and related
facilities to serve Low-Income Senior Citizens within the City.
Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City
Council further finds that the public interest requires that the
City provide funds for the capital costs of acquiring and
constructing such housing and related facilities. That assistance
shall be provided in the manner hereinafter set forth and at the
- 2 -
time or times deemed most necessary and advisable by the
Legislative Authority of the City. The City Council further finds
and declares that the expenditure of public funds and the
acquisition of property or property rights necessary for the
design, development, acquisition, construction, rehabilitation and
equipping of housing and related facilities for Low-Income Senior
Citizens pursuant to this ordinance is for a public use and a
public and strictly municipal purpose.
Section 3. Description of Project. The City shall
itself plan, design, acquire land for, develop, construct,
rehabilitate, acquire and equip housing, together with related
facilities, for Low-Income Senior Citizens within the City. In
lieu of undertaking these activities itself, the City may aid and
cooperate with the Kent Housing Authority (in the event that it is
subsequently empowered by the City to do so) , the Housing
Authority of King County or any other public or private developer
or owner of housing and related facilities for Low-Income Senior
Citizens, to undertake these activities.
In the latter event, the expenditure of the proceeds of
the Bonds and the development, construction, rehabilitation,
acquisition, equipping and operation of the housing and related
facilities for Low-Income Senior Citizens shall be administered
pursuant to an agreement or agreements entered into pursuant to
the Housing Law to fund as necessary the capital costs of one or
more housing projects for Low-Income Senior Citizens within the
City. The Legislative Authority of the City must approve any
agreement or agreements, if any, by ordinance. If the Project is
undertaken by other than the City, such agreement or agreements
shall contain criteria for projects to be developed, constructed,
acquired, rehabilitated and equipped by the public or private
developer or owner. The agreement or agreements also shall
establish a procedure for City review of proposed projects in
accordance with such criteria and for disbursement of Bond
proceeds by the City Finance Director, and shall contain such
other provisions as the Legislative Authority of the City and the
public or private developer or owner agree are necessary and
appropriate to carry out the purposes of this ordinance.
3 -
Section 4. Authorization of Borrowinu. The City shall
borrow not to exceed $6,700,000 on the credit of the City and
issue and sell its general obligation bonds in that par amount for
" strictly municipal capital purposes, other than the replacement of
equipment, to provide the funds to provide housing and related
facilities for Low-Income Senior Citizens within the City through
the accomplishment of the Project. Costs of engineering,
planning, financial, legal and other services lawfully incurred
incident to the Project shall be appropriate capital costs to be
paid from the proceeds of the Bonds.
Section 5. Description of Bonds. The Bonds shall be
issued as a single issue, as a part of a combined issue with other
authorized bonds, or in more than one series. The Bonds shall be
fully registered; shall bear interest payable as permitted by law;
shall mature within twenty years from their date or within any
shorter period fixed by the City Council; shall be paid by annual
property tax levies sufficient in amount to pay both principal and
interest when due, which annual property tax levies shall be made
in excess of regular property tax levies without limitation as to
rate or amount but only in amounts sufficient to pay both
principal and interest when due; and shall be issued and sold in
the manner, at the times and in the amounts as shall be required
for the Project. The exact date, form, terms, option of prior
redemption, price, interest rate or rates and maturities of the
"~ Bonds shall be fixed hereafter by ordinance of the City Council.
Pending the issuance of the Bonds and receipt of their proceeds,
the City Council may authorize the issuance of short-term
obligations pursuant to Chapter 39.50 RCW, and the costs of those
short-term obligations shall be included in the cost of the
Project for which the Bonds are issued.
Section 6. Submission to Electors. The City Council
finds that an emergency exists which requires constructing the
facilities comprising the Project, and the Director of Records and
Elections of King County, Washington, is requested to concur in
that finding and to call and conduct a special election to be held
in the City on February 6, 1990 for the purpose of submitting to
the qualified electors of the City for their approval the question
of whether or not the City shall borrow not to exceed $6,700,000,
4 -
issue its general obligation bonds in that par amount for capital
purposes only, other than replacement of equipment, and levy
excess taxes necessary to redeem the Bonds as herein set forth. M
Section 7. Certification to Director of Records and
Elections. The City Clerk is directed to certify to the Director
of Records and Elections of King County, Washington, at least 45
days prior to the February 6, 1990 special election date a copy of
this ordinance and the proposition to be submitted at that special
election in the form of a ballot title as follows:
PROPOSITION
LOW-INCOME SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING BONDS - $6,700,000
Shall the City of Kent, Washington, borrow
$6,700,000 to pay costs of designing, acquiring,
developing, constructing, rehabilitating and equipping
low-income senior citizen housing and related facilities
in the City by selling general obligation bonds therefor
maturing within 20 years and levy annual excess property
taxes necessary to pay and retire the bonds, as provided
in Ordinance No.
BONDS YES L/ BONDS NO L/
Section 8. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the time of final
passage.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
- 5 -
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED the day of , 1989.
APPROVED the day of 1989.
PUBLISHED the day of 1989.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance
No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent,
Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon
indicated.
(SEAL)
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
7720-270
6 -
Al
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 21 , 1989_
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: HUMAN SERVICE ROUNDTABLE ACTION AGENDA FUNDING
PACKAGE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: In April , 1989, the Human Services
Roundtable adopted an "action agenda" to act regionally to meet
the pressing human services needs of County residents. As the
next step in the process, the Roundtable at its December 5
meeting will vote on a regional revenue package to fund the
implementation of the action agenda.
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo, Roundtable resolution, regional
revenues, task force recommendations, Human Services Commission
10/25/89 minutes, Planning Committee 11/7/89 minutes.
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Human Services Commission 10/26/89 Planning
Committee 11/7/89
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT• NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmemberlk'mv moves, Councilmember seconds
to ap rov disapprove the endorsement of the Human Services
Roundtab e Resolution for a funding package to support the
Roundtable's action agenda.
DISCUSSION: r�
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4D
C2
MARCHIONE,JOHN / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
------------------------------------------
P--bject: HUMAN SERVICES ROUNDTABLE REVENUE OPTIONS FISCAL NOTE
. ., ator: John MARCHIONE / KENT70/FN Dated: 11/16/89 at 1231.
THE IBC RECOMMENDS SUPPORTING THE HUMAN SERVICES ROUNDTABLE
RESOLUTION TO SEEK A REGIONAL STRATEGY FOR HUMAN SERVICES. THE
CITY OF KENT HAS PLAYED A MAJOR ROLE IN PROMOTING HUMAN SERVICES
IN THE SOUTH END OF THE COUNTY. THE ROUNDTABLE'S PROPOSAL WILL'
STRENGTHEN THE CITY OF KENT'S EFFORTS WHILE SPREADING THE COST
OF HUMAN SERVICES TO ALL RESIDENTS OF KING COUNTY.
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
October 31, 1989
MEMO TO: JUDY WOODS, CHAIR; AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL'S PLANNING
COMMITTEE
FROM: LIN BALL, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: HUMAN SERVICES ROUNDTABLE ACTION AGENDA REVENUES PACKAGE
In April of this year the regional Human Services Roundtable adopted the
"Action Agenda" as a plan to act regionally to meet the pressing human
services needs of county residents. The Action Agenda proposes
solutions in the five areas of regional human services needs identified
as highest priority in the one-year planning project. These areas are:
* Child Care
* Employability
* Family Support
* Health Care
* Housing
As the next step in the process, the Roundtable at its December 5th
meeting will vote on a regional revenue package to fund the
implementation of the "Action Agenda" . The revenue package
recommendations were prepared by a Regional Revenues Task Force made up
of representatives from the private sector, the community, and the Human
Services Roundtable.
The Roundtable at its September meeting voted to go to the individual
Roundtable member' s Councils asking for endorsement of a resolution
which supports a broad-based and flexible funding package for
implementation of the Action Agenda. The Roundtable is not asking for
city dollars to support the Action Agenda. Funding is proposed through
taxing measures, through resources generated at the state level, and
through cooperative action with other local taxing districts. A copy
of the Regional Revenues Task Force revenue package recommendations and
a copy of the Roundtable ' s Resolution are attached.
The Human Services Commission discussed the proposed revenue package at
its October 26 meeting, and voted unanimously to recommend to the City
Council endorsement of the Human Services Roundtable' s Resolution for
a funding package for the Roundtable Action Agenda.
Recommended Action
Planning Committee recommendation to the full City Council to endorse
the Human Services Roundtable' s Resolution for a funding package to
support the Roundtable ' s Action Agenda.
LB:ca
Attachments
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
November 16, 1989
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: LIN BALL, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: HUMAN SERVICES ROUNDTABLE - ACTION AGENDA FUNDING
PACKAGE
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ENDORSEMENT OF THE HUMAN SERVICES
ROUNDTABLE'S RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE
ACTION AGENDA FUNDING PACKAGE.
Background•
In April of this year the regional Human Services Roundtable
adopted the "Action Agenda" as a plan to act regionally to meet the
pressing human services needs of county residents. The Action
Agenda proposes solutions in the five areas of regional human
services needs identified as highest priority in the one-year
planning project. These areas are:
* Child Care
* Employability
* Family Support
* Health Care
* Housing
As the next step in the process, the Roundtable at its December 5th
meeting will vote on a regional revenue package to fund the
implementation of the "Action Agenda" . The revenue package
recommendations were prepared by a Regional Revenues Task Force
made up of representatives from the private sector, the community,
and the Human Services Roundtable.
The Roundtable at its September meeting voted to go to the
individual Roundtable member' s Councils asking for endorsement of
a resolution which supports a broad-based and flexible funding
package for implementation of the Action Agenda. The Roundtable
is not asking for city dollars to support the Action Agenda.
Funding is proposed through taxing measures, through resources
generated at the state level , and through cooperative action with
other local taxing districts. A copy of the Regional Revenues Task
Force revenue package recommendations and a copy of the
Roundtable ' s Resolution are attached.
MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOVEMBER 16, 1989
Action•
The Human Services commission discussed ' the proposed revenue
package at its October 26 meeting, and voted unanimously to
recommend to the City Council endorsement of the Human services
Roundtable ' s Resolution for a funding package for the Roundtable
Action Agenda.
The City Council Planning Committee discussed the proposed revenue
package at its November 7 meeting. Council members Johnson and
Woods voted to forward this item to the City Council with an
affirmative vote for endorsement of the Roundtable' s Resolution for
a funding package for the Roundtable Action Agenda. Councilman
Dowell voted to send the resolution to the whole Council without
a recommendation.
LB:ca
Enclosure
2
SFR Lf
1 1220 Smith Tower Seottle, Washington 98104 (206) 623.7134
\ `U
�U D_�Pgti
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the human service needs of King County's residents have
ri R ,Mayor of Aubburnurn been analyzed and documented through a community-based planning
o
Campbell,Mayor effort which identified priorities for regional action, and,
of 8elleyue
hia!sh,Mayor
of Bothell
Culver,Mayor WHEREAS, creative and innovative solutions to address these needs
of lssoquoh
Monte,Councllmember have been proposed in the Action Agenda, and,
of Kent
sill
County Ezecuttye WHEREAS, the costs of implementing these solutions have been
ey G:uoa,Counc,lmember
County Counc:l carefully documented, and,
i Coow. Mayor
of Kimcnd
HulchfMe,ns,C1c,.d member WHEREAS potential revenue sources to cover the costs of the Action
of Mercer Islcr,a t
en Morch,one,Mayor Agenda are beingidentified now therefore
of Red-,ond g ' '
Net, Covn6membe•
Of I
rles Royr.Mayo, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Human Services Roundtable will propose a
of Secnie
No!c-d,Caunc,lmember broad-based and flexible funding package to support human services in
i,e cty Cojmc:!
ence Moriwoki,Counutmember King County. This funding package will draw on resources available
of Tuky:::o through local taxing measures, through resources generated at the State
Behnke,Choir
rd way a!K na county level, and through cooperative action with other local taxing districts.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Roundtable will work
cooperatively with the Councils and/or Boards of all Roundtable
members, with community-based agencies, and with the business
community to ensure that the regional revenues package for human
services achieves the broadest possible support.
Adopted September 27, 1989
2061220 Smith Tower Seattle,Washinglon 98104
623-7134
w
REGIONAL REVENUES TASK FORCE
RECOMMENDATIONS .
Roegner,Mayor
Auburn
'.om bell,Mayor
Berlevue
ralsh,Mayor
I Bothell
uiver,Mayor
Ilssogvoh
Aann,Councllmember
d Kent
1.
Ioun"EXeculive What the Action Agenda Costs
y Gruger,Councllmember
Counl Council
Cooper,Mayor a n d
of Kirkland
Hutchins,Councllmember How To Pay For It
A Mercer Island
an Morchione,Mayor
DI Redmond
Jelson,Councilmember
of Renton
les Royer, Mayor
o{seotile
Noland,Councllmember
de City Council
snce Morlwokl,Councilmember
of Tukwila
Behnke,Chair
!d Way of King County
E
September 1989
REGIONAL REVENUES TASK FORCE
Roberta van der Voort John Knoll
President Partner
United Way of King County Peterson & Company Consulting
Gil Anderson Marge Qualls
Chief Executive Officer Consumer Affairs Department
Physio Control Puget Power and Light Company
Doreen Marchione Terry Axelrod
Mayor Partner
City of Redmond The Axelrod Company
Nan Campbell Shani Taha
Mayor Deputy Superintendent.
City of Bellevue City Light
Doris Cooper Sally Mackle
Mayor Vice President for Marketing
City of Kirkland Overlake Hospital Medical Center
Robert Roegner Mary Coltrane
Mayor President
City of Auburn Seattle League of Women Voters
Jane Noland Marilyn Canfield
Councilmember Lake Washington East League of
City of Seattle Women Voters
Tim Hill Barbara Fithian
King County Executive King County South League of Women
Voters
Gary Locke
Chair, House Appropriations
Committee
Connie Proctor
Attorney
Alston, Courtnage, MacAulay &
Proctor
Richard Page
President
Washington Roundtable
31 July 1989
HOUSING
EMERGENCY SHELTER AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
Services
. Purchase/rehab single/multi family units for families, single persons, the
elderly, youth and special populations
. Expand voucher and facility programs
. Lease apartment units
Indicators
. Report prepared for Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) cites the
unmet need for 230 beds for families; 100-150 beds for single non-elderly
persons; 200 beds for elderly; 130 beds for street youth; 400 beds for al-
cohol and substance abusers; 30% of shelter residents are mentally III
PERMANENT HOUSING
Service
Develop/rehab affordable rental housing
Indicator
. LISC report estimates a need for 4000 family units; 250 elderly units; 20 beds .
of semi-independent living and 22-bed residence for people with AIDS
HOUSING COUNSELING
Service
. Expand capacity
Indicator
. 10,000 calls to Seattle Tenants' Union from King County
COSTS
Operating
First Year Phase-In: $1.2 M
Base Year After 5-Year Phase-In: $6 M
Capital
First Year $20.5 - 24.5 M
Total $74.5 - 114.5 M
Actlon Agenda Services & Costs Background- 1
HEALTH CARE
PRIMARY CARE, INCLUDING OBSTETRICAL CARE
Services
. Expand community system in areas of King County outside the City of
Seattle s
. Carry out system development work to tie the clinics, hospitals, specialists
and Health Department together into integrated system and to recruit health
care providers
lndIcators
. 9% of all County residents are without health insurance
. Report prepared by Committee for Affordable Health Care indicates that 69%
of people in King County without insurance are working (75%full-time; 25%
part-time)
. Health Department shows that significant numbers of people in the County
outside Seattle do not have access to health care
COST
First Year Phase-In: $640,000 ` 0 �
Base Year After 5- Year Phase-In: $3.2 M
Action Agenda Services & Costs Background-2
EMPLOYMENT
JOB TRAINING
Services
• Occupational skills training; on-the-job training; English language training; basic skills traln-
Ing;work experience training
• More flexible support services
Indicators
• By 2000, 60% of jobs will be service sector; 1/2 will require post-high school education, 1/3
will require college degree
. Labor shortages and Imbalances caused by fewer young people In labor force, mismatch
between skills and jobs, jobs located far from homes of unemployed
JOB ACCESS
Services
• Provide Services to match entry-level workers to employers
• Support to employers to Identify prospective employees
• Establish Job Access Demonstration Projects
• Support services which contain Incentives to work
• Employment retention training
• Entrepreneurial programs for non-malnstream workers
Indicators
• By year 2000, a5% of new labor force entrants will be women, minorities, and Immigrants
• Job seekers lack contacts, transportation, good Information about job market
WORKER SUPPORT
Services
• Provide technical assistance to employers to retain employees
• Workplace literacy programs
• Customized training for skills-upgrading
• Support for working poor to gain access to training
• Retraining
Indicators
• High turnover among workforce
• People are working full-time and are still poor
COST T
First Year Phase-In: $1 M
Base Year After 5-Year Phase-In: $9 NI
Action Agenda Services & Costs Background-3
FAMILY VIOLENCE
Services
. School-based prevention, training, and public education
. Outreach demonstration projects and Family Support Worker programs
. Court and probation services
. Victims' services and housing
. Offenders' treatment
. Expanded children's treatment and services
. Enhancement of elder abuse services
Indicators
. It is estimated nationally that violence occurs in six of every ten families
. An estimated 160,000 women in King County are battered every year
. A total of 12,000 domestic violence calls for assistance during 1987 and al-
most 2500 petitions for civil protection orders
. An estimated 28,000 women and children received crisis, shelter, and coun-
seling services
. An average of 7,500 new cases are opened with Child Protective Services
in King County every year
. Elder abuse is believed to occur at a somewhat lesser rate than child abuse
COST
Operating
First Year Phase-In: $9.5 M
Base Year After 5-Year Phase-In: $16.3 M
—Capital
First Year $1.5 M
Total $4 M
Action Agenda Services & Costs Background-4
CHILD CARE
RESOURCE & REFERRAL
Services
. Information and Referral
. Provider Development
. Enhanced Services for Employers
. Provider Training
. Quality Assurance
Indicators
. Employers and parents cite problems finding child care services
. King County indicates need to develop additional child care providers to
meet demand
SUBSIDIES
Services
. Provide child care subsidies to families not eligible for DSHS subsidies
Indicators
. King County estimates that there are B,400 children who are eligible for sub-
sidies (and not served by any other program)
. 3,300 children in King County are currently enrolled in some type of sub-
sidized child care
COST
First Year Phase-In: $3.9 M
Base Year After 5-Year Phase-In: $6 M
Action Agenda Services & Costs Background-5
REGIONAL REVENUES
Background Information on Possible Revenue Sources
September 1989
PROPERTY TAXES
Authority: King County is authorized under State Law to levy a County-wide
property tax.
Current Level: The County currently levies $1.376 per $1,000 of assessed
valuation (AV). State law allows $1.80 per $1,000 AV. Annual
growth in revenues collected through the county-wide property
tax levy Is approximately 9% per year.
Restrictlons: State law limits taxing districts to a growth in tax collections of
106°,6 of the largest collection year over the past three years.
Approaches: Ud Lift: State law allows taxing districts .to set a new tax rate
which then serves as the basis for future compliance with the
106% lid. A lid lift creates ongoing additional revenue generation
capacity.
This requires 5o°k approval by the voters. Lid lifts have typically
been used by fire districts and suburban Jurisdictions. King
County has never done a lid lift (see temporary lid lift discussion
below).
Temporary Lid Lift: The State Law was changed In 1986 to allow
a limited waiver of the 106% lid for certain period of time, dollar
amount, and/or specific purpose. Once the time period or dollar
amount has been reached, the 106% lid Is once again in effect.
A temporary lid lift also requires a 50% approval vote by the
public.
The City of Seattle currently has two temporary lid lifts In place:
one for the Art Museum and one for low-Income housing. These
were approved by the voters In 1986.
The Art Museum lid lift will generate $29,590,000 over six years at
a rate of $.175 per $1,000 AV (about $17.50 per year for a
$100,000 home). The low-Income housing lid lift will produce
$37,481,250 of new revenues over six years at a cost of $.263 per
$1,000 AV ($26.30 for a$100,000 property).
-Reglonal Revenues-Background InformaUon Page 2
The only county-wkie lid lift In operation now Is funding for the
automated Fingerprint Information System. The cost is $.026 per
$1,0o0 AV.
A number of suburban Jurisdictions also use temporary lid lifts.
Excess Levy: State law also allows the County to ask the voters
to approve a taxing level which exceeds the $1.80 per $1,000 AV
set by State Law.
This often takes the form of a taxing district Issuing councilmanic
bonds which are then pakf off through temporary property tax
Increases.
This requires approval by 60% of the voters.
Farmlands Preservation ($50M), Woodland Park Zoo ($31M),
Harborvlew - Health Department - Community Clinics - Pac-Med
($99M) were funded In this way.
Special Levy:Taxing districts can issue limited general obligation
bonds or councllmanlc bonds which are then paid back through
operating revenues. This does not require a vole of the public.
Snoqualmle, Duvall, and Carnation have used this approach to
Increase funding for baslc services.
Capacity: In 1989, King County has a total AV of$70,629,629,000. Additional
property taxes would therefore generate approximately the
following dollar amounts:
> $.05 per$1,000 AV = $3.5M
($5.00 per year for$100,000
property)
> $.10 per$1,000 AV = $7.OM
($10 per year for$100,000
property)
> $.20 per$1,000 AV = $14M
> $.30 per$1,000 AV = $21M
Regional Revenues-Background Information Page 3
PORT AUTHORITY PROPERTY TAX
Authority: The Port Authority Is authorized to levy a county-wile property
tax.
Current Level: The Port currently levies $.436 per $1,000 AV. At present, this
generates approximately $30 million, used for real estate and
development along the waterfront. State law allows $.45 per
$1,000 AV. Annual growth in revenues collected through property
tax is approximately 6-9% per year.
Approaches: 1) Investing the growth In the revenue In economic development
programs.
A vote by the Port Commission would be necessary, requiring
support from 3 of the 5 Commissioners.
The Port will likely support the empioyabllity-related areas of the
HSR Action Agenda--the Job training, worker support, and Job
access components, possibly Including child care. This option
would be easiest to support because it does not actually ral e
taxes.
2) Increasing the tax from the current level of $.436 to $.45 per
1,000 AV.
— A vote from the Port Commission would be necessary, requiring
support from 3 of the 5 Commissioners.
3) Seeking State approval to raise the local taxing authority above
the$.45 per 1,000 AV.
This approach requires a vote by the State Legislature.
Capacity: At 6% growth = $1,800,000 would be generated In the first year;
$1,908,000 the next year; $2,022,460 the next; $2,143,830 the
next; and $2,272,460 the next, with a cumulative total of
$10,146,770 over 5 years.
At 7% growth = $2,100,000 would be generated In the first year;
$2,247,000 the next year; $2,404,290 the next; $2,572,590 the
next; and $2,752,670 the next, with a cumulative total of
$12,076,550 over 5 years.
At 8% growth = $2,400,000 would be generated In the first year;
$2,592,000 the next year; $2,799,360 the next, $3,023,310 the
next; and $3,265,175 the next., with a cumulative total of
$14,079,845 over 5 years.
At 9% growth = $2,700,000 would be generated In the first year;
$2,943,000 the next year; $3,207,870 the next, and $3,811,270 the
next, with a cumulative total of$16,158,720 over 5 years.
Page 4
Regional Revenues-Background Information
JET FUEL'TAX
Authority: A tax on aircraft fuel was first imposed in Washington In 1967. The
State currently collects a tax from aircraft fuel distributors on fuel
sold, delivered, or used In theS ateat a variable
ari whichever greater (RCW
average retail price or $.05 per gallon,
82.42).
In 1985, the State of Massachusetts enacted a local option law
enabling cities to Impose a local excise tax of 5% on fuel sold
within their boundaries. The City of Boston currently collects
about$14M annually.
In 1983, Florida passed a law Imposing a $.057 per gallon on all
aviation fuel pumped within the State. Florida collects
approximately$53M annually from this tax.
The Florida law was challenged in court by domestic and foreign
carriers, but was upheld In 19B5 by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Airlines have reacted to the tax by passing the cost on to
customers through $2 to $5 fuel surcharges.
Exemptions: The current law exempts a tax on fuel used for a number of key
purposes: commercial aircraft, local service commuter aircraft,
aircraft used for testing or experimental purposes, aircraft that
operate from private airfields, or aircraft that are used to apply
agricultural chemicals.
After all the exemptions, the law applies only to private, non-
current Level: public
non-
commercial, non-experimental aircraft operated from
airfield
enerates around $1M,
placeds. As a result, this tax in the aeronautical a o 9 t of the State general fund.
Is
Capacity: If the exemptions were removed on fuel used for commercial
flights (but leaving an,the
o It is estimated that a let fuel dtax would
the rate
increased to $.10/g
raise about $40 -$50 M St8tewid .
King County's portion of this total would be negotiated with the
State, perhaps based on the percentage o f this low-income
people were
statewide who live In King County (25%). approach
used, this revenue source would generate$10 - 12M per year.
The amount generated would Increase as the amount of fuel sold
grows.
Regional Revenues-Background Information Page 5
ALCOHOL TAX
Authority: The State has the authority to grant counties the authority to
impose optional taxes on beer, wine, and spirits.
u
Current Level: In 1987, King County wholesale sales of beer totalled $156 million;
wholesale sales of wine totalled $56 million; and retail sales of
spirits totalled $83 million.
Combining both taxes and surcharges as of July 1989, the
following taxes are placed on spirits,wine and beer:
> Spirits = 17.1% + $2.03/liter
> Wine less than 14% alcohol = 22.9 cents/Ifter
Wine greater than 14% alcohol = 45.4 cents/liter
> Beer = $4.76/31 gallon barrel
State and local sales taxes are added to all wine and beer sales
and to spirits sold by the glass.
According to the Washington State Liquor Control Board,
Washington ranks first In the country In liquor taxes, eighth In
wine taxes and thlrty-fifth In taxes on beer, Almost all wine and
beer tax revenues, and most liquor tax revenues, go directly to
the state general fund. Some of these revenues go to alcohol-
related programs. Through dedicated taxes, the state allocates
approximately$4.5 million annually to DSHS for alcohol treatment
statewide.
Restrictions: King County attempted to bring this revenue source on line this
past year for housing development and operations for low-income
Individuals with alcohol and substance abuse problems. The
local option tax Is to be among the Countys priorities at the
Legislature this year as well.
Capacity: With total sales of $295 million, a 5% tax would generate
approximately $14,600,000 annually. Since this would be a
statewide measure, and to gain State support, revenue would go
back to the Department of Revenue, which would take 2% for
administration. The total estimated revenue•available In King
County would be $14,500,000.
Y
SUPPORT FOR ACTION AGENDA
BY REVENUE SOURCE
PROPERTY TAXES -TEMPORARY LID LIFT
AREA OF SUPPORT: Housing (opttal) $60 . 100 M
Total:
PORT PROPERTY TAX
AREA OF SUPPORT: Employment
First Year: $750,000
Annual After Phase-tn: $2.9 M
Child are
First Year: $250,000
Annual After Phase-in: $400,000
TQTAL
First Year $� M
Annual After Phase-In: $3.3 M
JET FUELTAX
AREA OF SUPPORT: Health Care $400,000
First Year:
Annual After Phase-In: $2 M
Employment
First Year: $250,000
Annual After Phase-In: $3 m
Child Car
First Year: $650,000
Annual After Phase-In: $2 M
Housing (operating)
First Year: $ 1 M
Annual After Phase-In: $5 m
TOTAL
First Year: $2.3 M
Annual After Phase-In: 12 M
ALCOHOL TAX
AREA OF SUPPORT: Housing (capital)
Total: $14.5 M
LAW, SAFETY, AND JUSTICE MEASURE
AREA OF SUPPORT: Famlly.Vlolence
(Operating)
First Year: $8.2 M
Annual After Phase-In: $14.8 M
.Total Capital: $4 M
Emolloyment
First Year: $0
Annual After Phase-In: $3.1 M
TOTAL
First Year: $8.2
Annual After Phase-In: $17.9 M
CHILDRENS INITIATIVE
AREA OF SUPPORT: Health Care
- First Year: $240,000
Annual After Phase-In: $1.2 M
Family Vlolence
First Year: $1.25 M
Annual After Phase-In: $1.5 M
Child Care
First Year: $3 M
Annual After Phase-In: $3.6 M
Housino (Operating Costs)
First Year: $200,000
Annual After Phase-In: $1 M
T TAL
First Year: $4.7 M
Annual After Phase-In: $7.3 M
GRAND TOTAL-ALL SOURCES (OPERATING)
First Year: $16.2 M
- Annual After Phase-In: $40.5 M
GRAND TOTAL-ALL SOURCES (CAPITAL)
Total: $78.5 - 118.5 M
1 Z
1 A 1 O 1 I rA C Z
I I m
i t
1
I � 1 � � I I 1 •V
• I � I � 1 1 1 N I O 7(
1 1 I I I C 1 --I Y
1 m 1 7 cl
I
------- - ----
I q
p 1 O I j I � I 1 x � •--I
O
I I
I
I m I
m I
_-
-- ------- -----
I
I I
I 1 1 1
1 I 1 I 1 I I 1
i..v 1 � 1 1 j I 1 •--I I
I 1 I I I I I 1
O 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 t
I I I I A D
0
1 ' 1 1 1 I 1 ••-( O
1 1 1 I 1 I i
I I I 1 1 1 1
^ 1 I I l m
t
--i-
1 I I I I 1 I O{n w
i N I 1 I 1 I i r -
V I V I 1 1 1 t 1 I 1
r I 1
I Cl I m I T 1 S I I N A M A
D I N I r 1 I r 1 1 G m C O
m m
i m i t-I 1 x 1 1 1 1 N my
I D I m 1 .G-• I I 1
1 I I i A O I I m 1 •-1 I O i 1 1 1T C x m
I
1 I I I S I I 1 (l
1
———————————————————
I
1 1
•� i i +- 1 I i i i in i ma(
I i I m 1 m
1 1 I
fQ
i i i i i i a
1 1 I I I I I 7O A CD
------------- ---- ---��— i-.
N I I I 1
1 1 1 1 I N
1 I 1 G r N
I I
1
————————————— ——————————————————————
N I 1 1 I 1 W 1
N I I 1 W I N I I 1 L 1
I ' •" ' i i x I
' I 1
10 1 I I I N 1 m
I I 1 A I
————————————— —————
N I N I N 1 N I t n t
L I N I W ; i ,�-• I N I 1 S 1
I O I x I A 1 I 1
x 1 ( N 1 I tJt I 1 I O 1
N 1 O I 1 \ I O I I m I
V I O I Ot I I r 1 O 1 1 Z 1
1 \ I S I I I \ 1 I 1
W 1 N i i • I N t 1 N I
x I S I I i S I i--• I i •-+ 1
2 1
I � I
Z; 7———— I N N 1 N —— I
1 O Vt I N I 1 1 H rt
\ I 1 O O I O I
N I I
•; 1 1 \ 1 \ I I 1 1 O
N I 1 1 I D• J
1 I I
1 1 1 1
I 1 I tD 1 I 1 l
Z—i N——i N
N I h• I Ot 1 N 1 I > I I' I
I x 1 N 1 N I I I
x I N I 1 1 I I T 1
o I 1 c r
1 O I
1-�• I I O 1 \ 1 1
N 1 1 \ I \ I
1 I I 1 I 1 1
N I I 1 I r •1
I 1 i i 1
—————————————————
N 1 N I N I N I I
N I N 1 I' t� I lD 1 OI 1 I
r I t-• i W 1• = 1 I A I I
Ol I I 1 O I I
N 1 x 1 S 1 N 1 x I I 1
\ 1 N I N I x 1 N I O I 1 O
O 1 I I 1 W I W 1 I
In I I 1 1 I N 1 I
x I I 1 I I 2 I 1
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
REGIONAL REVENUES TASK FORCE
September 1989
COUNTY-WIDE INITIATIVES
I. Roundtable initiate a $60 - 100 M temporary lid lift for low-income housing.
II. Roundtable negotiate with the King County Law, Safety, and Justice
Committee to include Family Violence and relevant job training funding in
this package.
STATE-LEVEL INITIATIVES
I. Roundtable take leadership role in obtaining passage of statewide Jet Fuel
Tax by State legislature in 1990 session.
II. A. Roundtable members actively support passage of
Children's Initiative.
B. Roundtable seek representation on the Children's Initiative Steering
Committee.
III. Roundtable support the efforts of King County to obtain passage of the
Alcohol Tax in the 1990 Legislative session.
PORT OF SEATTLE
I. Roundtable join in negotiations with Port of Seattle to use funds from
growth in Port Property tax for employment programs.
KENT CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE
November 7 , 1989 3 : 30 PM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT '= PLANNING STAFF PRESENT
Judy Woods, Chair Charlene Anderson
Steve Dowell Lin Ball
Jon Johnson Jim Harris
Greg McCormick
CITY ADMINISTRATION Fred Satterstrom
Janet Shull
Jim Hansen
OTHER CITY STAFF PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT
John Marchione
Judy Clegg Tony McCarthy
Larry Frazier May Miller
Steve Johnson
Leona Orr
Lyle Price
HUMAN SERVICES ROUNDTABLE REVENUE OPTIONS
Tudy Clegg provided an overview of the Roundtable's work to date. The
.......oundtable met on September 27 to discuss revenue options. She is requesting
that City Councils review the regional revenue package developed by a
Roundtable committee and give direction to their Roundtable representative.
On December 5th the Roundtable will take action on moving forward on the
revenue package. Redmond, Mercer Island, the City of Seattle and King County
have voted to move forward and pass the resolution to pursue regional
revenues for human services .
Five priorities were identified in Phase I of the Roundtable Project: child
care, employability, family support, health care, and housing. The
Roundtable ' s goal is to work out how to pay for the solutions and services
identified; cost estimates were provided by technical contractors. Guiding
principles used by the committee were 1) to seek ongoing revenues for ongoing
costs and look at short-term revenues for one-time only capital expense, 2)
provide a broad-based revenue package including both state and local sources,
and capture and redirect revenues that are already in place toward pieces of
the Roundtable agenda. It is estimated to cost $40 million per year in
ongoing operating costs for regional human services in the five identified
priority .areas and a range of $85 - $115 million for housing. In actuality
to do everything needed to be able to provide affordable housing would cost
over $400 - $500 million. Because this amount would be too much to absorb
locally, the Roundtable ' s estimated cost is that needed to keep the 2000
units of subsidized housing that will roll over and become market rate
housing in the next five years. In child care, the Roundtable is looking at
the regional resource and referral service.
"The revenue package involves negotiating with the Port to use existing
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7 , 1989
property tax revenue to do employment job training, the economic development
activities which are part of their mission statement. It looks at the jet
fuel tax to provide health care, subsidized 4child care and some operating
costs associated with housing. It looks at alcohol taxes to fund the housing
part of the treatment facilities for alcohol and substance abusers. Also
planned is work with the planning committee for Law, Safety, and Justice to
build in the pieces of the action agenda related to family violence and
employment. There are a number of items which can be accomplished via
resources from the Children' s Initiative if it passes on the November ballot.
Ms. Clegg is asking for the Council to endorse the resolution to pursue a
broad-based revenue package for human services .
Councilman Dowell confirmed that the "bricks and mortar" will come from local
taxes and the staffing of the facilities will come from state taxes. He
commented that the citizens of Eastern Washington will be paying for services
on the west side. Ms. Clegg responded that the state taxes such as the jet
fuel tax will be administered by the Department of Community Development who
will probably allocate the funds based on the number of people in poverty,
perhaps one-third to King County and two-thirds to the rest of the state.
It was clarified that the Kent. Human Services Commission is separate from the
Human Services Roundtable. Judy Clegg stated that the premise on which the
Roundtable is operating is that the Roundtable is building on a base of local
control over local funding and resources. There are also regional services
and regional issues too large and costly for local jurisdictions ; this is the
package undertaken by the Roundtable. The regional revenue package is in
addition to the local funding recommended by the Human Services Commission.
Planning Director Harris stated the Roundtable can use the Human Services
Commission as the initial group through which policies are reviewed, a
sounding board, a group who makes policy recommendations. Councilman Dowell
is concerned about overlaps. Mr. Harris notes there is a continuum of care
required in housing and pieces for both local and regional groups to solve.
Councilman Dowell notes a conflict between an inability to provide the
infrastructure required for people now and requesting to provide affordable
housing for more people.
Senior Planner Ball noted that the Roundtable is focussing not on overlapping
but on adding another layer on what the cities can do for human services.
She noted that the affordable housing issue is beyond the capability of local
funding.
Councilman Dowell noted the City of Kent has provided $12 , 300 to the
Roundtable for 1988 and 1989 . Ms . Clegg stated that over the last two years
the total income for the Roundtable was $328 , 000 . The City of Seattle, the
county and United Way have contributed $35 , 000 each. The Roundtable is
targeting a county-wide housing levy for November, 1990. They are working
on the jet fuel tax during this legislative session. Negotiations with the
Port started this month. Law, Safety and Justice is estimated for revenues
2
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
LNUTES OF MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7 , 1989
in 1991-92 . Councilman Dowell noted this is an additional two years and
$328 , 000 to keep the Roundtable Project going, a total project cost of
$656, 000.- Ms . Clegg anticipates estimated annual operating revenues of $40
million and a county-wide housing levy of about $100 million. She added that
there have been many by-products of the project in addition to what will be
achieved later, including demographic information and planning data that have
been given to all jurisdictions, and an increased understanding of the
issues.
Councilman Johnson MOVED and Chairwoman Woods SECONDED the motion to forward
to the City Council with an affirmative recommendation the resolution to
proceed with the regional revenue package. Councilman Dowell voted to send
the resolution to the whole Council without a recommendation.
SINGLE FAMILY COMMITTEE REPORT
Single Family Housing Committee Chairwoman Leona Orr stated she was hopeful
the City Council will read the report. The group had found a lot of common
ground. She expressed some personal reservations about applying the 5, 000
sq. ft. lot blanket zoning. The Planning Commission is recommending it with
guidelines for its use. One recommendation in the report is to rethink zero
lot line and PUD ordinances. There are not many five-acre parcels left in
he City and there was development interest in looking at reducing the
....,(inimum lot size for such proposals. Ms. Orr had looked at a very beautiful
development in Renton that had 5 , 000 sq. ft. lots with 35% open space; it was
built on over twenty acres. She would like the Council to consider very
carefully the recommendation to reduce the minimum lot size for PUD' s and
zero lot line developments .
Councilman Dowell noted that the 5, 000 sq. ft. minimum lot size is not tied
to PUD' s; single-family lots could be of that size as well. Discussion
occurred on proposals being addressed by the Planning Commission on the 5, 000
sq. ft. lot size.
Planner Janet Shull reviewed the Action Agenda, the last chapter of the
report. She noted that Chapter 6 outlines specific recommendations that were
categorized to address the six problem areas identified early on in the
community meetings. The key problem areas are listed and expanded on in
Chapter 5 . The Action Agenda is broken into five categories and have
identified target dates and key players: 1) examine annexation and
annexation policies in light of single family residential, 2) review
regulations including 5000 sq. ft. lot, zero lot line and PUD, 3) under
public policy address neighborhood concerns in existing neighborhoods, 4)
utilize public education including open houses and design competition and
awards programs, and 5) develop interdepartmental programs to foster single
family housing.
Larry Frazier stated the building industry can support the recommendations
3
KENT HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION
October 26, 1989 3 : 00 PM
Commission Members Present Planning Staff Present
Marvin Eckfeldt, Chair Charlene Anderson
Dee Moschel, Vice Chair Lin Ball
Sharon Atkin Mary Duty
Bill Carleton Fred Satterstrom
Dick Foslin
John Pardo Other City Staff
Judy Woods, Council
George Burke
Commission Members Absent Dennis Byerly
Jean Archer, Excused
Peter Mourer, Excused
Others Present
Judy Clegg
Pete Peterson
Hans Rasmussen
CORRECTIONS FACILITY TOUR
Lt. Burke provided those in attendance a tour of the Kent Corrections
Facility and dinner at the conclusion of the meeting.
JUDY CLEGG• HUMAN SERVICES ROUNDTABLE ACTION AGENDA REVENUE SOURCES
Ms. Clegg distributed copies of the Roundtable Action Agenda adopted last
spring. Over the summer a committee worked out the costs involved with that
agenda. It is recommended that the Roundtable 1) look for ongoing revenues
to pay for operating costs, and 2) take advantage of short term funding,
e.g. , levies and bonds, to pay for capital costs. The Roundtable will act
on the revenue package on December 5th. Specific recommendations include 1)
county-wide temporary property tax for housing costs, 2) work with group
planning law, safety and justice financing to incorporate pieces of family
violence agenda, 3) pursue state jet fuel tax for ongoing operating costs,
especially child care and health, 4) support the Children's Initiative, 5)
help King County get the alcohol tax in this legislative session, and 6)
encourage the Port of Seattle to do job training.
The Human Services Commission is urged to recommend that the City Council
adopt the resolution in support of a revenue package. The revenue package
recommendations will provide a framework for proceeding with funding. The
cities of Kirkland and Redmond have supported the revenue package and action
agenda and have adopted the resolution.
Chairman Eckfeldt clarified that the City Council is not being asked to make
KENT HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 1989
a commitment for further funding. Commissioner Atkin would like the Human
Services Commission to support the action agenda and revenue package. She
stated that regional revenues provide an. opportunity to meet some City needs
as well as regional needs.
Ms. Clegg stated that the Roundtable does not want to pursue revenues
reaching into City revenue sources.
Commissioner Atkin MOVED and Commissioner Pardo SECONDED the motion to
recommend to Council adoption of the Resolution for the funding package to
support human services in King County. Motion carried.
Ms. Clegg informed the Commissioners that LISC, a 'national provider of
technical assistance in housing development, is looking at ways to implement
the housing strategy of the action agenda. LISC is working with community
housing providers. Ideas include trying to get a housing levy on the ballot
and working to have the capability to develop needed units. A community
development association has been suggested but much discussion will occur
before recommendations are finalized.
APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 28 , 1989 MINUTES
Vice Chair Moschel MOVED and Commissioner Atkin SECONDED the motion to
approve the minutes of the September 28 , 1989 meeting as received. Motion
carried.
1990 FUNDING ALLOCATION PROCESS/NOVEMBER 7TH BUDGET HEARING
Agency representatives will be present at the meeting and will be introduced.
The Council agenda packet will contain letters from each agency in support
of the human services funding allocations.
HUMAN SERVICES MONTH/CHAMBER SOCIAL (NOV. 21 , 5-7 PM)
Chair Eckfeldt will confirm for the Chamber of Commerce that no alcohol will
be served at the Chamber Social ; therefore, young students may be in
attendance.
Chair Eckfeldt distributed a draft proclamation of Human Services Month.
Discussion occurred. Some editing of the draft proclamation will be done to
shorten it. Senior Planner Ball has written a draft article to appear on the
front page of CITYLINE.
Voting occurred on the packet design for the Chamber Social. It was decided
the design will be the shadow balloon one. Planning Director Harris has
suggested that the title state "Kent Human Services Commission" and below
that "Planning Department" . Ms. Ball noted that the word "Invicta" will be
changed to "City of Kent" on the shield. The packet cover will be a heavy
2 _,
V
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 21, 1989
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: ADJUSTMENTS TO THE 1990 BUDGET
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As discussed in workshop prior to
tonight's meeting, a presentation will be made concerning
proposed adjustments to the 1990 Budget. Following a decision
on those adjustments, the Council will direct the staff to
prepare the 1990 Budget and tax levy ordinances for the
December 5 meeting. The tax levy amounts, though estimated in
the Budget, are not precisely determined at this time as
information from the County received last week says that the
precise amounts will not be available until approximately
December 1.
3 . EXHIBITS•
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to authorize additions of the adjustments as agreed in the
workshop and direct the staff to prepare the Budget and tax levy
ordinances, consistent with those adjustments.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4E
Kent City Council Meeting
\ Date November 21, 1989
Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: FOOD SERVICE %WR CORRECTIONS FACILITY •
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Three bids were received to provide food
service for the Corrections Facility. The low bid was submitted
by Consolidated Food Management of Mercer Island in the amount
of $113 , 381.75 based on an average of 65 people per day.
3 . EXHIBITS: Exhibit A of bid package, memorandum from Capt.
Byerly and from Chief Frederiksen, IBC memo.
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: IBC Public Safety Committee, Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $113 , 381.75
SOURCE OF FUNDS: budgeted
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION.
Ge4+ffeidmember move j, �ortn Zngmb - o sls
to award the bid to Consolidated Food Management in the amount
of $113 , 381.75. lViiic ✓e e' : c -'fir C! n .,ot, ~obi e- fl'i Ct� Cr^, Cl, r'Oier
h IC'ih (---'( c'�:�e't"
DISCUSSION•
r
ACTION: a✓ ��5 `'.__ --
Council Agenda
Item No. 5A
-r
7'
MILLER,MAYENE / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
Subject: CORRECTIONS FOOD BID FISCAL NOTE
C. tor: Mayene MILLER / KENT70/FN Dated: 11/13/89 at 1227 .
The IBC recommends awarding the Corrections Food contract to "Consolidated
Food Management, Inc. , " who was the low bidder for the two year contract.
The $113 , 381. 75 amount, figured at a projected average daily population of
sixty-five for 1990, is within the city budget for 1990.
The IBC also agrees with the Police recommendation to start the contract under
option A where the contractor purchases the food and prepares it on site as
we have in the past. Option B with the city purchasing the food can be
initiated any time during the contract.
November 13 , 1989
TO: Chief Frederiksen
FROM: Capt. D. Byerl
RE: Corrections Food Service Bids
Attached are copies of the three (3) food service proposals for the
Corrections Facility.
Commencing with the low bidder, they are:
1. Consolidated Food Management of Mercer Island
2 . Food Management Control, Inc. of Seattle
3 . ABC Services of Bellevue
At the IBC meeting on November 7 , 1989 at 1100 hours, a verbal
presentation was given. As per the City Attorney, it appears we
are mandated to accept the low bid.
As mentioned in our earlier memo, four of the five institutions
contacted that are utilizing Consolidated, are pleased with the
service. I have no reason to believe that Consolidated cannot
provide the services proposed.
F.M.C. has provided the City of Kent with 3-1/2 years of near
flawless service. Their service and staff are above reproach.
In addition, they have become integral members of our team and
provide vital day-to-day feedback on the condition of the facility,
staff and inmaates. This will be missed.
If Consolidated is awarded the contract, they have a hard act to
follow.
/mt
KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT
NOVEMBER 13 , 1989
TO: Public Safety Committee
FROM: Chief Frederiksen iLd
SUBJECT: Corrections Food Service Bid
Although originally there was concern expressed about the low
bidder' s past performance record with other jurisdictions, a
background check conducted by Captain Byerly revealed no reason to
believe that Consolidated Food Management of Mercer Island cannot
provide the service required.
It is my recommendation that the low bidder, Consolidated Food
Management of Mercer Island, be awarded the food service contract
to provide service to the Kent Corrections Facility.
Certainly, as is always the case, we will closely monitor the
service provided and will ensure that the service provided meets
the terms outlined in the contract. This issue has been reviewed
by the City Attorney, who concurs with our recommendation.
RHF:klr
BID FORM
Option "A"
Kent City Clerk - 220 4th Ave. So. - Kent, Washington 98032
The undersigned hereby certifies that he/she has read the requirements and
specifications for FOOD SERVICES FOR THE KENT CORRECTIONS FACILITY, and
thoroughly understands the same and propose as follows:
To provide food service of three meals per day, seven days per week, twelve
months per year for inmates and staff at the Kent Corrections Facility,
1230 Cantral Ave. So. , Kent, WA 98031, with the contractor purchasing all
foods, supplies, paper products and cleaning supplies.
COST PER MEAL 40 thru 45 per day . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2 . 060
COST PER MEAL 46 thru 50 per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1 . 883
CPST PER MEAL 51 thru 55 per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1. 767
CG:iT PER MEAL 56 thru 60 per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1.672
COST PER MEAL 61 thru 65 per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1 . 593
COST PER MEAL 66 thru 70 per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1 . 575
COST PER MEAL 71 thru 75 per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 468
COST PER MEAL 76 thru 80 per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1 417
COST PER MEAL 81 thru 85 per day $ 1 '27-3
Remarks:
I ment Inc
Firm Name: i c�nG� � � mated Food Manaq.�
Addre s: 2448 76th S .E . , Mercer Island. WA 98040
Phon No ( 206) 232 9771
Signature of Authorized Official (s) .
Print Name of Authorized Official (s) Frank R. Lowe
Tit1F of Authorized Official (s) president CEO
NOTE: If the bidder is a co-partnership so state, giving the firm name under
which business is transacted. If the bidder is a corporation, this
proposal must be executed by its authorized official . The above bid
shall remain firm for (30) thirty days from bid opening date.
R E P O R�,�T S
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT
B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
D. PLANNING COMMITTEE
E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
F. PARKS COMMITTEE
�3
G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS )
l
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 14, 1989
PRESENT: JON JOHNSON TONY MCCARTHY
JUDY WOODS TIM HEYDON
JIM WHITE JOHN MARCHIONE
DON WICKSTROM MAE MILLER
GARY GILL CHERYL VISETH
JIM HANSEN BONNIE FELL
BILL WILLIAMSON LYLE PRICE
Review of Proposed 1990 Public Works Budget
Wickstrom stated the budget concentrated primarily four areas -
project development, water quality, equipment rental and
transportation. While pleased with the recommended approvals,
Wickstrom emphasized this would not be a cure-all. It helps but
is not a solution to all the problems. He noted there were a few
"glitches" but will be able to work those out with Administration.
The Committee indicated they had no concerns and recommended
approval .
White expressed two areas of concern - one being the corridor
projects and the other is the railroad crossings. He asked if
there were a plan for improving the condition of the crossings -
could they be included in a bond issue. Johnson asked if we were
requiring developers to put in rubberized crossings if the
development has a rail crossing a public street. Wickstrom
confirmed that is the approach we try to take. Wickstrom added
that Burlington Northern has included funds in their budget for the
James Street crossing. If Burlington Northern funds that crossing,
our funds can be used for other crossing improvements either on the
Burlington Northern tracks or the UP tracks. White concurred with
this approach. White commented if the City has to go to a voter
bond issue for transportation improvements that all our needed
street improvements be included in the package. Johnson asked if
the City passes a voted bond issue and later a TBD is formed, could
the City be reimbursed by the TBD for any expenditures already made
for transportation improvements. Williamson stated he did not know
if that was anticipated by legislation. Wickstrom commented that
if Kent passes a voted bond issue, there would not be a TBD as it
would tap the funding sources for the TBD. White stated that
concerned him but if it were going to be 3-5 years to put together
a TBD, then he thought we would have to go for a bond issue - that
the improvements could not wait that long. Wickstrom added the
SCATBD committee is working on having all the municipalities sign
the interlocal agreement. Auburn is hesitating as they do not see
the same benefit to them as to the other participants. White
commented that is why he would like for Kent to have a contingency
plan if for some reason the TBD doesn't come about or doesn't come
about in a timely manner.