Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 09/19/1989 City of Kent a City Council Meeting � 6 Agenda P, -a � F P ; a Mayor Dan Kelleher ° g� Council Members ° Jim White, President Berne Biteman Steve Dowell »;. Christi Houser Jon Johnson Paul Mann Judy Woods a September 19, 19891 Office of the Ciry Clerk CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 19, 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 2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. LID 334 B. Street Vacation C. 1990 Block Grant Program 3 . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes B. Bills C. Planning Commission Appointment D. Senior Housing Ballot Committee E. Utility Billing Contract - Resolution ! F. U. S. West - Pay Phone Contract G. Laserprint Contract H. Walnut Park Apartments I . Acceptance of 116th Ave. S .E. Sewer Extension Project J. Amendment to SEPA Ordinance K. Hearing Date for Drangsholt Street Vacation - Resolution ` L. Fire Department Agreement M. Solid Waste Utility Account - Resolution,, N. Defining the Crime of Patronizing a Prostitute - Ordinance' 4 . OTHER BUSINESS Amendment to West Hill Plan an(Kent Zoning Maps 5. BIDS A. Miscellaneous Sewer and Water Main Improvements 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 - Walk for Health Week Kent City Council Meeting Date September 19 , 1989 Y/ Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: L.I.D. 334 DERBYSHIRE NO. 7 SANITARY SEWER 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The public hearing to confirm the final assessment roll for L.I.D. 334 was continued on September 5 to this date. The Public Works Director met with residents of the area on Wednesday, September 13 , 1989 and his report will be heard. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from the Director of Public Works 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (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. 2A DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS September 14, 1989 TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council FROM: Don Wickstrom RE: LID 334 - Derbyshire #7 Sanitary Sewer (121st Avenue, 122nd Avenue and 276th Street) The public hearing on the final assessment roll for LID 334 was opened September 5, 1989 and was continued to the September 19 meeting to allow the Director of Public Works to meet with the property owners to address their concerns and questions regarding the final assessments. A breakdown of the project costs showing the total cost and the amount charged to the LID was mailed to each property owner along with a letter of explanation. A meeting was scheduled and held the evening of September 13 , 1989 . A number of property owners attended the meeting and expressed various concerns and questions. It was explained that a sizable portion of the increase in assessment (final compared to preliminary) was due to actual quantities of materials used which was, in some cases, greater than originally estimated. There was a general feeling by the property owners that had the City inspector been present the entire work day, some of these increases would not have occurred. A few also felt that due to the large quantities, the contractor had been dishonest and was charging the project for materials that weren't installed. Don Wickstrom explained that standard procedure with our current level of staff is to have each inspector covering various projects. With the number of private and public developments, our inspectors are spread thin. Even with an inspector present 100% of the time, there is no guarantee that a savings in material will be realized. Under this scenario, it would be certain that inspection costs would increase, thereby reducing or offsetting any savings in material costs. Should a material savings not be realized, the increased inspection cost would actually increase the assessments. In any event, there was a feeling that the final quantities were not actually installed. Therefore, the staff agreed to review the tickets to determine if the quantities were correct and justifiable. Other than that, nothing else was resolved and those in attendance left the meeting still unhappy. A review of tickets and the associated paperwork did reveal an error in the calculation of the total crushed rock used on the project. A $17 , 411. 67 overcharge was made. One-half ($8 ,705.84) of this was charged to the sewer of which 83. 2461055% ( $7, 247.27 ) was charged against the LID, the remainder being City cost for extra depth. The staff recommends reducing the LID and continuing the hearing until October 3, to allow new notices to be mailed. The attorney advises that new notices to reduce the assessments are not required, but would be recommended. DEW: ls M91 2 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS August 15, 1989 TO: Mayor Kelleher City Council FROM: Don Wickstrom, RE: LID 334 - Derbyshire #7 Sanitary Sewer 121st Ave. , 122nd Ave. , and 276th St) September 5, 1989 has been set for the Public Hearing on the final assessment roll for LID 334 . BACKGROUND Resolution No. 1167 adopted by City Council on April 19, 1988 established May 17 , 1988 for the public hearing on LID 334 . All of this was the result of a petition received in March 1988 and subsequent contact with property owners which indicated sufficient support. Ordinance No. 2781 was passed on June 7 , 1988 creating the LID. DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS Sanitary Sewer Improvements Description: Includes the installation of 8-inch sanitary sewers, 6-inch side sewers and related appurtenances. ON FROM TO 121st Ave. SE SE 276th Street Cul-de-Sac, North of SE 276th St. 122nd Ave. SE SE 274th Street SE 276th St. SE 276th Street 120th Ave. SE 122nd Ave. SE Easement between SE 276th St/122nd Existing manhole Lots 6 and 7 Ave SE Intersection approximately 135 ft southeasterly PROJECT FUNDING This project is to be 100% LID financed except for an extra depth cost to be paid by the City. COST SUMMARY LID CITY TOTAL PRELIMINARY 135, 200 27 , 210 162 , 410 ($51200/Lot) FINAL 156 , 610. 48 31, 518 . 91 188, 129 . 39 ($6, 023 . 48/Lot) See the attached letter which was sent to the property owners with the hearing notice explaining the increased assessments. It should be noted that a new water system for the area was also included in the contract for LID 334 . The City paid 100% of the watermain cost and the cost of the asphalt overlay for repaving the road. METHOD OF ASSESSMENT Each property serviced is being assessed. Since each lot is a single family residential lot each receiving one service, the benefit is equal for all parcels. Therefore, the cost is evenly spread over all lots within the L. I .D. PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENT Upon Council passing the ordinance confirming the final assessment roll (after completion of the construction) , there is a 30-day period in which any portion or all of the assessment can be paid without interest charges. After the 30-day period, the balance is paid over a ten year period wherein each year' s payment is 1/10th of the principal plus interest on the unpaid balance. The interest will be what the market dictates. NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT The project location is a developed residential area composed of single family lots which were on septic tanks. For years, it has been known that the septic systems in the general Derbyshire area function poorly or • not at all . However, previous attempts to install sewers have failed. It has been reported that within the Derbyshire area that some residents have made illegal connections to the storm drains to avoid the consequence of a failing septic system. Residents reported that there was raw sewage on the surface of the ground and that septic odor was a real widespread problem. The Seattle-King County Department of Public Health identified various failing septic systems within the general area. These problems were a threat to everybody who lives in the area. Most of the problems were not repairable and were expected to become worse and more widespread. The only economically feasible alternative was to install a public sewer system. It was also our understanding that one house within Derbyshire No. 7 was vacated by order of the Seattle-King County Health Department estimated that for this until sewers became available. It was e exceed the cost of the sanitary sewer LID assessmenreconstt. would particular house, septic system If the situation had deteriorated further, more people would have probably been removed from their homes. Knowing the severity of the problem, property owners within Derbyshire No. 7 came to the City to request sanitary sewers. A petition was circulated for which 22 signatures out of 26 properties were received. Subsequently, the LID was approved. REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL This LID is outside of the City limits but is within the City' s sewer franchise area. However, final approval of this specific project by the King County Boundary Review Board was required. To satisfy the Review Board, the City is requiring each person applying for a sewer permit to execute a "Petition for Annexation and Declaration of Covenant. " This means that in the s ase vote and of an annexation attempt the property will be counted as a y once enough covenants have been signed, an annexation could proceed. The covenant procedure is an alternative to requiring actual annexation prior to formation of the LID and expedites the sewer installation. '.v August 14 , 1989 RE: LID 334 Derbyshire #7 Sanitary Sewers Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is your final assessment hearing notice. The final assessment amount is greater than the preliminary estimated assessment due primarily to unforeseen conditions which were encountered in the field. These conditions resulted primarily from poor soil conditions which lead to additional costs associated with the road restoration. For the most part, the cost overruns resulted from increased quantities of crushed rock and asphalt used during the project to keep the roadway driveable and to'restore and patch the road prior to the overlay. Please note that these extra costs were split evenly with the water main replacement portion of the project which was 100% City funded. Also the City is funding 100% of the asphalt overlay cost since the County would have constructed the overlay at no cost to the property owners had it not been for the utility project. Also, the property owners are assessed only for the cost to install the sewer deep enough to service the properties within the L. I. D. As originally proposed, the City is paying for the extra depth costs associated with the L. I .D. 334 sewer which resulted from installing the sewer deeper as required for future extension to the West. Should you have any questions, please call me at 859-3384 . Very truly yours, Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Director of Public W rks Merrill Vesper Office Engineer cc: Mayor Kelleher City Council C Kent City Council Meeting V� Date September 19 . 1989 v✓ Category Public Hearin s 1. SUBJECT: ST. ANTHONY'S CATHOLIC CHURCH STREET VACATION NO. STV-89-4 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This hearing will consider an application by St. Anthony's Catholic Church to vacate a portion of Third Avenue South between West Titus and West Saar Streets. Proper legal notice has been given by the City Clerk. On August 15, 1989 , this hearing was continued to this date at the request of Pete Curran. 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff report and map 4 . RECOMMENDEDBY: Staff denial (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) NO YES 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL_ IMPACT: Not Recommended FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT: CLOSE HEARING: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: moves, Councilmember seconds Councilmember to deny/approve street vacation No. STV-89-4. DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 2B n LAW OFFICES DOUGLAS P. SECKER CURRAN, KLEWENO SL .JOHNSON TELEPHONE (206)852-2345 ..� C.PETER CURRAN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION MARK W. DAVIS ESCROW DEPARTMENT DAviD T. HOKIT 555 WEST SMITH STREET (206)859-1090 STEPHEN L.JOHNSON POST OFFICE Box 140 MELVIN L. KLEWENO,JR. JOSEPH A.MCKAMEY KENT,WASHINGTON 98035-0140 06)ECOPIER 852-20 (206)852-2030 LARRY R.SCHREITER JAMES P. CURRAN ® "^ I�j Ir OF COUNSEL v `J August 14 , 1989 AUG 151989 CITY OF KENT CITY CLERK Attn: Mayor Kelleher and City Council Members R City of Kent . 220 4th Ave. So . J Kent , WA 98032 Re : St . Anthony' s Parish - Street Vacation Ladies & Gentlemen: 1 Pursuant to discussion that I had on Monday, _'ApriJI 14 , 1989 , with Jim Harris, it is my understanding that the Department of Planning would have no objection to extending to St . Anthony' s, as the applicant on the 3rd Avenue vacation, a continuance on this matter until the 19th of September, 1989 . We are requesting this continuance because a number of committees in St . Anthony' s Parish need to have an opportunity to fully assess the Planning Department ' s analysis of this street vacation request . The committee process will take at least two weeks . We, therefore, hope that you will favorably consider this request for a continuance. I am asking Joanne Wolfe of my office to attend the council meeting to represent St . Anthony ' s interest and request this continuance on the record. Very truly yours, CURRAN, KLEWENO & JOHNSON, P . S . P&",Y- C4,("yKA4A--, I Charles Peter Curran CPC/lm CC : St . Anthony ' s Jim Harris o}� r KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT August 10, 1989 MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON AN APPLICATION TO VACATE A PORTION OF THIRD AVENUE BETWEEN TITUS STREET AND SAAR STREET I . Name of Application St. Anthony' s Catholic Church II . Reason for Rectuestincr Vacation The applicant states, "This vacation is being requested by the adjacent property owners to coincide with the application currently before the city for the vacation of 3rd Avenue South north of Titus and because of common ownership on both sides of 3rd Avenue. " III . Staff Recommendation After reviewing comments from the following departments and agencies: • Public Works . Fire • Police • Puget Power . Washington Natural Gas and conducting our own review, the Planning Department recommends that the request to vacate a portion of Third Avenue South as mentioned in Resolution 1212 and shown on the accompanying map, be DENIED for the following reasons: 1. It is important to maintain the Downtown street grid system to the extent possible. The vacation of Third Avenue between Gowe and Titus Streets should not automatically trigger other street vacations in the vicinity, even though one property owner may own properties on both sides of the street. 2 . The new Centennial building' s location over the old right of way for Third Avenue is oriented toward access from Third Avenue south of Titus Street. If Third Avenue is vacated south of Titus, access to the new facility will be greatly hindered and all traffic will have to use Fourth Avenue or Second Avenue to get onto Titus Street to then enter the new facility. 3 . Recent channelization improvements have been made to Willis Street at Third Avenue which include the installation of a left-turn pocket for eastbound to northbound traffic. This improvement would allow easy access to the City Hall from Willis Street. This also has the potential for aiding a greater dispersal of traffic over the grid system in the vicinity of City Hall; the vacation of Third Avenue precludes this dispersal. STAFF REPORT STV-89-4 THIRD AVE BETWEEN TITUS AND SAAR AUGUST 10, 1989 4 . In light of the plans to remodel the current library building for use as Kent's Police Headquarters building, closure of the street would greatly hamper egress and ingress into police parking. This situation would adversely impact building security and potentially slow emergency response. In addition, it could impede egress and ingress to the new parking garage which would potentially block the one planned entrance to police parking. 5. Why is the proposed vacation of Third Avenue between Titus and Saar Streets different from the vacation of Third Avenue between Gowe and Titus Streets? The City Hall complex is being transformed into a campus-type setting. Third Avenue currently ends at Gowe Street; much of the traffic using this portion of Third Avenue is City vehicles or the public doing business at City Hall. It is not uncommon for campus-type developments, as they spread outward, to alter local circulation patterns. There is nothing wrong with this as long as alternatives to the altered circulation pattern are taken into consideration. This has been done with the City Hall complex. The City might still provide access through the parking lot of the Centennial/City Hall complex which would connect Gowe and Titus Streets . This access would not be a street but might be a connector via the parking lots between Titus and Gowe Streets. Kent' s newly-revised Downtown Plan (adopted by Resolution 1203 on May, 2 1989) has as its overall goal under the circulation section the following: PROVIDE FOR SAFE, EFFICIENT AND IDENTIFIABLE ACCESS TO AND MOVEMENT WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA BY PLANNED ROUTES FOR PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, RECOGNIZING THE NECESSITY OF RELATING CIRCULATION TO LAND USE AND ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES. The closure of Third Avenue between Gowe and Titus Streets has very effectively implemented this goal by taking into consideration the campus-type development for City Hall. This is vastly different from simply desiring to close a street because there are some common ownerships on both sides of it. JPH:ca Attachment 2 rn l rn ` x J N. IH0� pSDH AVE. LA r 5 . NRDEN RYE. ZC� sca.lc Q H. 6TH. AVE . cn x � (D r O Ct Ln t27 z Ln -4 z Ln 5TH. AVE. 5 m (D ;K -+ w - `" 4 N. 4TH. RYE. r n _ T fol- �/aca �1'�� i1 a� D Cl b XN70 C ^ Ya�aced �' N► rn to p • s-{ b N Z v, O Lo 1" FM O FIF�7 l/ `1/ Kent City Council Meeting Date September 19 , 1989 Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This public hearing will consider adoption of the 1990 Community Block Grant Program as recommended by the City Council's Planning Committee. 3 . EXHIBITS: Proposed 1990 program summary, project descriptions, staff memo 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee 9/5/89 and Human Services Commission 8/24/89 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $234 112 (base level) $236,937 (higher level SOURCE OF FUNDS: Federal Community Development Block Grant money OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT• CLOSE HEARING: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to approve the 1990 Community Development Block Grant Program as presented. DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 2C -ZC- KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT September 14, 1989 MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: GRANS 1990 PROPOSED COMMUNITY Y' THEN T BLOCK T PROGRAM (CDBG) AS RECOMMENDED B COUNCCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION Attached is a copy of the proposed 1990 Community Development Block Grant Program as recommended by the City Council 's Planning Committee. Also attached is a narrative description of all the recommended projects. The human 'services portion of the proposed 1990 Program was reviewed by the Human Services Commission on August 24, 1989, and their recommendation was made to the Council 's Planning Committee on September 5. The Planning Committee reviewed the Human Services commission' s recommendation and the Planning staff' s recommendation for the remainder of the proposed program on September 5, 1989 . The 1990 CDBG Program Year is a 12-month period from January 1, 1990 through December 31, 1990. The estimated total amount for the 1990 City of Kent CDBG Program is $234, 112 . A maximum of $25, 221 of these funds can be used for public (human) services, and a maximum of $10, 088 for planning and administration. The County has also informed us that there is a possibility of the City receiving a higher level of funding than noted in the above estimate. This is dependent on the final federal entitlement budget. This higher level estimate for the City of Kent is $236, 937 . If this higher level funding is received, the public (human) services ceiling will be increased to $27 , 239 and the planning and administration ceiling will be increased to $10,895. This higher level estimate contains a degree of uncertainty at this time. In the attached Planning-Committee-recommended, proposed 1990 Program we have listed both the "base level" program recommendations and the "higher level" program recommendations. Both of these recommendations include the City Council Planning Committee' s and the Human Services commission's recommendations for allocation of any additional funding which may be received. It also identifies which project would be reduced if the County' s projections are overly-optimistic and the entitlement comes in lower than projected. In light of the two different dollar estimates for the 1990 Program it is necessary for the City Council to take three actions: 1. Approve or modify the "baseline" 1990 Housing and MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SEPTEMBER 14 , 1989 Community Development Program as recommended by the Planning Committee. 2 . Approve or modify the "higher" level 1990 CDBG Program as recommended by the Planning Committee, allocating extra public (human) services dollars and planning and administration dollars. 3 . Approve as a contingency plan, a reduction in funding for the Catholic Community Services Project (as recommended by the Planning Committee) in case the entitlement is less than the level projected by the County. The 1990 City of Kent CDBG Program applications must be submitted to the County by October 2 , 1989 . LB:JPH:ca Attachment 2 STAFF PROPOSED CITY OF KENT 1990 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM _,, ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF FUNDS AVAILABLE: $234 , 112/$236, 937 LIMITS ON EXPENDITURES FOR ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN SERVICES: 1990 Human Services Ceiling $ 25' 221/$ 27 , 239 1990 Planning and Administration Ceiling $ 101088/$ 10, 895 Recommended Recommended "Base Level" "Higher Level" Proiect Type Funding Funding 1. Program Planning & Admin $ 10, 088 $ 10, 895 Administration 2 . Housing Repair Services Housing Rehab 118, 390 118, 390 Program 3 . Special Populations Rehab 14, 509 14, 509 Resource Center Rehab 4 . Kiwanis Tot Lot #4 Rehab Rehab 7 , 048 7 , 048 5. Kent/Renton Joint Rental Housing Rehab 8,256 8 , 256 Housing Rehab. 6. Catholic Community Acquisition 28 , 000* 28, 000 Services S. King Co. Center Acquisition 7 . Children's Therapy Center Construction 3 ,500 3 , 500 8 . Kent Community Clinic Construction 19, 100 19, 100 Facility Expansion 9 . Kent Single Parent Human Services 4 , 600 4 , 600 Employment and Education 10. YWCA Emergency Housing Human Services 2, 610 21610 Program 11. Kent Community Health Human Services 9 , 011 11, 029 Services 12 . Domestic Abuse Women' s Human Services 5, 000 51000 Network (DAWN) 13 . Kent Para-Transit (Van- Human Services 4 , 000 4 , 000 Go) TOTAL $234 , 112 $236, 937 Applications not recommended for funding: "Kent Emergency/Transitional Housing" , Funding Requested: $37 , 500; and "South Kent Storm Sewer" , Funding Requested: $133 ,419 . *If entitlement is reduced, it is recommended that this project funding be reduced to accommodate reduced allocation. CITY OF RENT 1990 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM 1. PROGRAM PLANNING ADMINISTRATION A portion of the Block Grant funds will be used to pay for administration of the program and for planning future years ' housing and community development activities. CDBG funds will provided 25 percent of the salary for one planner for the twelve-month program year with a small amount set aside for training, communications, and supplies. 2 . HOUSING REPAIR SERVICES PROGRAM Kent Block Grant funds have financed a housing repair program for nearly 15 years. Funds are used to perform both minor and major repairs on needy owner-occupied housing, which is primarily located within the Neighborhood Strategy Area. Where appropriate, homeowners participate in the work through a self-help arrangement. All beneficiaries are screened to ensure households meet income eligibility requirements. One component of the housing repair services program is the summer painting program. The painting program provides exterior house painting services to those qualifying households within the Neighborhood Strategy Area. CDBG funds will be used to pay salaries, vehicle rental, tools and supplies, work of housing contractors and related costs. 3 . SPECIAL POPULATIONS RESOURCE CENTER HANDICAP ACCESSIBILITY The Special Populations Resource Center is operated by the City Parks and Recreation Department. Located in the NSA, the Center serves developmentally and physically disabled persons, such as victims of stroke. The Center' s building was constructed approximately 43 years ago and is in need of modification to allow the handicapped easy access to the facility. The proposed project would use Block Grant funds to install an electric door with push plate, construct a wheelchair ramp accessing the stage at the north end of the Mt. Rainier Hall and to install a new folding panel door within the building. 4 . KIWANIS TOT LOT #4 REHAB The Kiwanis Tot Lot #4 is located in the Neighborhood Strategy Area (NSA) . The tot lot is 30 years old and is in need of renovation. Recently, play equipment has been removed because it was deteriorated and in unsafe condition. This project would use CDBG funds to refurbish existing equipment, including safety evaluation and replacement of worn parts, and purchase some new pieces of equipment. A soft ground material CITY OF KENT 1990 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM PAGE 2 will be placed under each piece of equipment to help prevent injury from falls. 5. KENT RENTON JOINT RENTAL HOUSING REHABILITATION This project is a continuation of an activity funded through Block Grant in previous years. This program uses federal funds to assist owners of housing occupied by low- and moderate-income renters to bring the rental properties up to a decent, safe, and sanitary level. CDBG funds will be used to pay a portion of the Program Coordinator's salary for the joint cities rental rehabilitation program. 6. CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES SOUTH KING COUNTY CENTER The Catholic Community Services Center offers a wide variety of programs to elderly and other low income persons. Proposed CDBG funds from the city of Kent would be used in conjunction with funding being requested from Auburn, Renton, and King County to provide a down payment on a facility in Kent to provide a centrally located office building for the services provided by this non-profit agency. 7 . CHILDREN'S THERAPY CENTER The Children' s Therapy Center of Kent provides motor and communication therapy to young children with disabilities. The proposed funding from the 1990 CDBG Program would purchase outdoor gross motor equipment to be used by children serviced by the center. The current equipment is insufficient for the Center' s needs and is in need of repair or replacement because of the heavy use it receives. 8. KENT COMMUNITY CLINIC FACILITY EXPANSION The Community Clinic provides health care for low- and moderate-income families in Kent and the Greater Kent area. Proposed CDBG funds for this project would be used for expansion of the existing facility by approximately 625 square feet. This additional space will provide for an expanded waiting room, two additional examination rooms, a physician office, and a business office. 9 . KENT SINGLE PARENT EMPLOYMENT AND EDUCATION This program is designed to place single women and welfare heads of households with children in gainful employment. Operated by the Washington Women's Employment and Education with volunteer support from the Kent Soroptimist Club, the CITY OF KENT 1990 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM PAGE 3 program provides counseling and support, job training and job placeifient to women receiving public assistance through Aid to Families with Dependant Children. The proposed use of CDBG funds will be to sponsor six participants through the WWEE course. Funds will be provided for a three week job training and placement program, including necessary child care and transportation costs. The program continues with job counseling, contacts and supports for one- year and beyond, including auxiliary job start/job training day care. 10. YWCA EMERGENCY HOUSING PROGRAM The Emergency Housing Program provides emergency shelter to families and children without housing and lacking the resources to pay for housing. The Shelter Service consists of 14-21 days of shelter; information and referral in obtaining needed services; crisis intervention; assistance in obtaining jobs, permanent housing and medical care; transportation assistance; child care referrals and vouchers; and emergency food, hygiene and household supplies. The proposed CDBG funds will be used to extend a ten month lease to twelve months (November and December) on three housing units to be used as temporary housing for families with children in crisis. 11. KENT COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES The Kent Community Clinic provides access to primary health care services including medical and dental care to low and moderate income residents of Kent and the Greater Kent area. In program year 1990, proposed CDBG funds will be used to pay the salaries of professional staff (physician, nurse practitioner, and medical assistant) . This project has been funded in previous years by the City's Block Grant and General Fund programs. All CDBG funds in program year 1990 are proposed to provide primary health care services to low income residents that live within the Kent city limits. 12 . DOMESTIC ABUSE WOMEN'S NETWORK (DAWN) DAWN provides services to victims of domestic violence, their children and the community. DAWN provides a 24-hour hotline, weekly support groups, legal advocacy, safe homes and community education. This project has been funded in previous CITY OF KENT 1990 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY - BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM PAGE 4 years by the City' s Block Grant program. Proposed CDBG funds for this program will be used to pay a portion of the rent expenses and for crisis line costs. 13 . KENT PARA-TRANSIT (VAN-GO) The Van-Go Program operated by the South King County Multi- Service Center, provides free transportation services for low income elderly and handicapped residents of Kent and the Greater Kent area. The Van transportation provides access to the Kent Senior Activity Center for food and nutritional services, and the South King County Activities Center job site. The program has been funded in previous years by the City' s Block Grant program. The proposed CDBG funds will be used to pay a portion of the van drivers ' salaries. KENT CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE September 5, 1989 4: 00 PM Committee Members Present planning Staff Present Jon Johnson Charlene Anderson Paul Mann (for Chairwoman Woods) Lin Ball Jim Harris Others Present Marvin Eckfeldt Dee Moschel KENT' S 1990 PROPOSED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Senior Planner Ball reported that the latest estimate of Kent' s share of 1990 Block Grant funds is over $200, 000. An additional $7 , 048 in program income has been received. The base level estimate is $234 , 112 ; higher level funding is $236, 937 . The higher level funding recommendations include an additional $807 to Program Planning & Administration and an additional $2 , 018 to human services funding. Ms. Ball added that almost half of the Block Grant Program is allocated tZ7 the housing repair services program. In 1989 a summer exterior painting project was added to this program. The City hired parttime painters who are completing their eighth house (as compared to the 5-7 houses estimated to be completed) . In addition the painting crew has done some repairs and cleaning. The project has been very successful and is anticipated to continue in the 1990 program. Ms. Ball displayed the painting project progress map. She also displayed a map outlining the Neighborhood Strategy Area, including dots indicating major and minor repair, painting and rental rehab sites as well as housing conditions. Staff proposes allocating the additional $7 , 048 in available funds to the Kiwanis Tot Lot project in the South of Willis area. In consideration of this projected funding, the Parks Department staff has scaled down the project from the original application to include refurbishing, repairing, and replacing equipment and adding a soft ground cover under the equipment to help prevent injury from falls. The Human Services Commission has recommended approval of the human services projects funding. Councilman Johnson MOVED and Councilman Mann SECONDED the motion to recommend adoption of the Block Grant Program as presented and amended. The meeting adjourned at approximately 4 : 30 PM. " Kent Human Services Commission August 24 , 1989 3 : 00 p.m. how- the Commission was formed. Senior Planner Ball commented that a copy of the form used for the survey should be included. Planning Director Harris stated a chronological list of events could be made and enclosed. Discussion occurred on inviting each city to attend a Commission meeting, what should be included in the cover letter of the packet, how the Commission was achieving its goals, a copy of the mission statement, retreat information, and an agency funding application form. SUBSTANCE ABUSE LEGISLATION - FUNDING PROPOSAL Commissioner Mourer stated he would comment on this item at the next meeting. FUNDING FOR VOCATIONAL TRAINING FOR INMATES Captain Byerly, Kent Police Department, provided a brief history of the Corrections Facility and the use of behavior modification. A GED program has been established for the inmates. Captain Byerly requested ideas from the Commission on ways to provide educational programs for the inmates. The facility is not for long-term sentences; many inmates are at the facility for approximately six months, but the average stay is 30 days. The GED program usually is finished in three weeks. Commissioner Eckfeldt stated the mentoring system used by the WWEE program could be considered as a model to follow. Commissioner Atkin believes there is a need for training on writing resumes, applying for a job and surveying the job market. It was suggested that service clubs and community colleges be tapped for assistance. Captain Byerly commented the Commission could use the multi-purpose room in the Corrections Facility for their next meeting, followed by a tour of the facility. 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROPOSALS Ms. Ball briefly reviewed the five applications received for human services: Kent Community Health Services, Kent Single Parent Employment & Education, YWCA Emergency Housing Program, Domestic Abuse Women Is Network (DAWN) , and Kent Para-Transit (Van-Go) . She commented that King County projected a higher entitlement which would increase the human services funding available to a "higher level" of $27 , 239 . The "base level" funding available in 1990 for human services projects is $25, 221. Staff recommends that the extra entitlement be awarded to the Kent Community Health Services as shown in the staff report. Commissioners requested that future summary tables of funding show a breakdown by program within each agency. It was suggested that funding be 2 Kent Human Services Commission August 24, 1989 3 : 00 p.m. considered simultaneously for Block Grant and General Fund. Ms. Ball commented that Block Grant funding could be estimated for purposes of making available applications for funding. Staff will research the feasibility of combining applications for Block Grant and General Fund dollars. Commissioner Foslin MOVED and Chairman Eckfeldt SECONDED the motion to forward to the Council Planning Committee the 1990 Community Development Block Grant human services funding proposals as presented by staff. Motion carried. Councilwoman Woods commented she will be out of town on September 5. She requested that Councilman Mann attend the Planning Committee meeting at 4 p.m. that day. The agenda will include the 1990 Block Grant funding proposals. KING COUNTY RAPE RELIEF - INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Planner Mary Duty reported that King County Rape Relief does not have professional liability insurance which is required of all agencies funded by the City of Kent. They have Directors ' and Officers' liability insurance and are unable to name the City as additional insured on that policy. Ms. Duty stated she had talked to King County Rape Relief about the professional _.. liability insurance requirement. In addition, staff has contacted City Attorney Driscoll and Personnel Director Webby concerning this issue. Planning Director Harris suggested the City should consider funding the cost of liability insurance to assist agencies in removing that possible barrier to funding sources. Mary Ellen Stone, Rape Relief, stated the agency has two insurance policies ; the City is named as additional insured on the general liability insurance but not on the Directors ' and Officers' professional liability policy. Furthermore, Kent seems to be the only city requiring to be insured under the professional liability policy. Ms. Stone explained the difference between general and professional liability insurance and requested that the Commission waive the professional liability insurance requirement for Rape Relief; the additional insurance would cost the agency another $7 , 000. Mr. Harris explained that this insurance requirement might be necessary because Kent is in a self-insured consortium with other cities. Chairman Eckfeldt MOVED and Commissioner Foslin SECONDED the motion to request the staff to prepare a background statement and a recommendation from the City Attorney and the City's insurance officer on this matter and if possible to have it by the 10th. Motion carried. Chairman Eckfeldt requested that Ms. Stone submit to Mary Duty a copy of both of the insurance policies for Rape Relief. Ms. Duty will forward them to the 3 CONSENT CALENDAR 3 . City Council Action: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through N be approved. Discussion Action 3A. Approval of Minutes. ^n , Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of dVv September 5, 1989 with the following correction: the list of those present should include Information Director Ron Spang. Approval of the minutes of the special meeting of August 22, 1989 . n1 3B. Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through September 21, 1989 after auditing by the operations Committee at its meeting at 3 : 00 p.m. on October 2 , 1989. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 8/31 - 9/11 83455 - 83481 $ 162,217.93 9/14/89 83491 - 83881 11542p580.71 $1 ,704,798.64 Approval of checks issued for payroll: Date Check Numbers Amount 9/5/89 124226 - 124898 $ 7250911 .48 Council Agenda Item No. 3 A-B Kent, Washington August 22, 1989 Councilmember Johnson called this special meeting to order at 7 : 00 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Biteman, Dowell, Houser, Johnson, Mann and Woods, City Administrator Chow, City Attorney Driscoll, Planning Director Harris, City Engineer Gill, Finance Director McCarthy and Assistant City Administrator Hansen. In the absence of Mayor Kelleher and Council President White, the Council determined that Councilmember Johnson would preside over the meeting. It was determined that the City Clerk had given proper legal notice for the special meeting and that the agenda contained two items: an ordinance to place the Senior Housing Bond issue on the ballot and discussion regarding solid waste collection. SENIOR November Ballot. It was determined that this HOUSING BOND issue was discussed at the August 15, 1989 Council ISSUE meeting and that the Council had approved putting this measure on the November ballot, but had not passed the required ordinance. WOODS MOVED to adopt Ordinance 2869 , providing for submitting to the voters a proposition for $6.7 million general obligation bonds for the purpose of providing senior citizen housing. Houser seconded and the motion carried. SOLID WASTE Solid Waste. City Attorney Driscoll noted that a proposed ordinance had been distributed in response to action taken at the August 15 meeting. Steve DiJulio, who has been retained to assist in this matter, summarized the proposed ordinance, noting that the ordinance would return the City to its 1986 position by establishing a solid waste collection and disposal system for the entire City, to be under the direction of the City. The ordinance also amends Section 7 of the City Code and authorizes contracts for solid waste collection. He gave background information leading to the City' s terminating its system of solid waste utility in January, 1987 when General Disposal and Tri-Star began providing this service. DiJulio noted that Kent Disposal serves 96% of the residential area, 1 August 22 , 1989 SOLID WASTE and that the commercial accounts are fairly evenly divided between the two companies. He noted that Kent Disposal had set up an extensive local recycling program. On July 28, 1989 a Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission ruling provided for authorization for Tri-Star to operate throughout Kent and for Kent Disposal to be limited to the core area, an area similar to the 1957 City boundaries. Kent Disposal then asked the City to take action to maintain the status quo, resulting in the action taken at the August 15 meeting. The WUTC rejected the City' s proposal to do so and claims that the City has no authority to regulate solid waste collection. He pointed out that 1989 legislation findings included the provision that it is appropriate for solid waste management to be at county or city levels. DiJulio explained that this ordinance will return control to the City and would maintain the status quo for an interim period, to allow the City to more thoroughly study the issue. Both companies would continue to operate and the billing procedures will remain the same: The ordinance provides for contracts with both companies to ensure that the service will not be interrupted and the rates and services would remain the same. Upon Dowell 's question about clean-up weeks and Christmas tree removal, DiJulio noted that the WUTC' s most recent ruling provided that haulers would not have to comply with this City policy. He noted that waste disposal is recognized to be of particular local concern but that phone, gas, etc. is considered at the state level. MANN MOVED to adopt Ordinance 2870, establishing a system of solid waste collection and disposal for the entire city; under direction of the City and authorizing contracts for solid waste collection. Biteman seconded. 2 August 22, 1989 SOLID WASTE Bob Jarvis, 604 VandeVanter, stated that he favored the ordinance in that it provided for competition, and that the City should continue to regulate such things as free clean-ups and senior citizen rates. Biteman noted that both companies have done an excellent job and that the City could be proud of the advanced recycling program. Suzette Cooke of the Chamber of Commerce asked how long the interim period might be and DiJulio noted that this was not specified in the ordinance, but would require additional Council action. He further clarified that the rates would not be increased and that the cost of having the Director of Public Works in charge of the solid waste program had been minimal since January, 1987 . Mr. Segale commented that he had not been notified of last week' s meeting, and that under this proposed ordinance, he could sign the contract and still be cancelled out in 90 days. Dowell noted that this ordinance had just been presented tonight and questioned how the Council could be expected to act on it when they hadn't had time to read it. He noted that usually this type of thing would go through the Public Works Committee before coming to Council. Biteman noted that Law Department had been instructed to act and Council had to rely on staff. Dowell stated that his main objection was to the process, and that this was an important issue. Johnson noted that he also had some reservations about the ordinance but he thought it best to adopt it, thus allowing time to review what the best system would be. To delay would mean that we would be going along with the WUTC, assigning certain areas to each hauler, eliminating competition. He noted for Dowell that he favored the proposal to sign contracts with both companies. Mann suggested a 20 minute break to allow time to read the ordinance; but at Driscoll 's suggestion, DiJulio went through each section of the ordinance. At Johnson' s question, George Kargianis, attorney for Kent Disposal stated that he would advise his client to enter into the contract offered with the ordinance, inasmuch as the same contract was offered to both haulers and the status quo would be maintained. 3 August 22 , 1989 SOLID WASTE Jack Davis, attorney for Tri-Star, stated he could not give an opinion since he had not seen the contract. It was determined that the contract specified "at least 85 gallons" as the size of the toters. Suzette Cooke suggested that the words "or businesses" be added to Item D on page 10 of the ordinance. Gary Ewing of Kent Disposal spoke in favor of the ordinance and noted that his firm had been working with Kent for three years, supplied clean-up service for special programs, and started the recycling program. With passage of this ordinance, both haulers will continue service. Jack Davis , attorney for Tri-Star, stated that Kent was on record, through Brent McFall 's testimony before the WUTC, as taking no position on which company should receive a certificate to operate in Kent. After 20 months, Kent sent a letter stating that the City would like to have two haulers. The Commission has granted a certificate to Tri-Star, and since the City has been pleased with Tri-Star's service, it would appear that there is no reason for this ordinance, except to give special preference to Kent Disposal . He noted that the Commission has not ignored the questions surrounding clean-up week or senior citizen rates, but that such requests must be done in accordance with the Commission's rules. Davis stated further that passage of this ordinance would be contrary to the best interests of the citizens and would result in damages to Tri-Star. Mann asked if Tri-Star had plans to sub-contract service for the West Hill area. Davis noted that originally, a woman-owned business was one of the applicants with Tri-Star. Tri-Star agreed to give a portion of the business to the woman as long as she could give good service. Upon Johnson' s question, Davis stated that Tri-Star would go before the WUTC to request Lifeline rates for seniors but that it was not easy. It would mean special rates for anyone that the company served, not just for Kent. 4 August 22, 1989 SOLID WASTE George Kargianis agreed that both companies had given excellent service. He noted that Kent Disposal served 96% of the residential accounts and more than 50% of the commercial accounts, in addition to providing the recycling service. If the Commission' s order stands, and Tri-Star takes over there would be a disruptive effect on the level of service, as Kent Disposal ' s customers would have to be transferred to another hauler. He reiterated that this ordinance would provide for continuing the present level of service with the customer choosing between the competitive haulers. Upon Dowell 's question, it was determined that passage of the ordinance included approval of the contracts. The motion to pass Ordinance 2870 then carried, with Dowell voting against it. Biteman noted that the WUTC ruling could take effect before the effective date of this ordinance, which could result in substantial disruption in service. He therefore MOVED TO AMEND ORDINANCE 2870 to declare that this ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace, health and safety and for the support of City government and its existing public institutions and for these reasons, an emergency exists and, therefore, this ordinance should become effective upon its signing by the Mayor or passage over his veto, as provided by law. Houser seconded the proposed amendment. Dowell noted that the Council had expressed its wishes and that he agreed that there was an emergency and so he would support the amendment. Biteman' s motion then carried unanimously. It was clarified for Suzette Cooke that the change she suggested for page 10 was not included in the ordinance. ADJOURNMENT There were no further items on the agenda and the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. + Marie Jem�MC City Clerk 5 Kent, Washington September 5, 1989 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7 :00 p.m. by Mayor Kelleher. Present: Councilmembers Biteman, Houser, Mann and White, City Administrator Chow, Assistant City Attorney Williamson, Planning Director Harris and Public Works Director Wickstrom. Also present: Assistant City Administrator Hansen, Finance Director McCarthy and Personnel Director Webby. Councilmembers Dowell, Johnson, and Woods and Fire Chief Angelo, Police Chief Frederiksen, Information Services Director Spang and Parks Director Wilson were not in attendance. Approximately 40 people were at the meeting. PUBLIC Don Knapp, 25046 38th Ave. So. , noted that this will COMMUNICATIONS be Councilmember Biteman's last Council meeting, and expressed his gratitude for Biteman' s assistance on the West Hill. Mr. Knapp also noted he has found golf balls in his yard and requested that the City look into erecting a net on the west side of the new golf course. Mayor Kelleher asked Mr. Chow to investigate that possibility. (PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 1A) Employee of the Month. Mayor Kelleher announced that Rosalie Givens was selected as September's Employee of the Month. He noted that Rosalie works in the Finance Department, in both the Customer Service Division and the Central Services Division. Finance Director McCarthy noted that she has worked for the City since 1987 and commended her for her positive attitude with employees and customers alike. He pointed out that Rosalie recently was the recipient of the Shining Star Award in recognition of her exemplary performance in Customer Service. The Mayor presented Ms. Givens with the Employee of the Month plaque. (PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 1B) Proclamation - National D A R.E. Day. Mayor Kelleher read a proclamation declaring September 14 , 1989 as D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) Day. Captain Hal Rees and Officer Bob Bradley accepted this proclamation. 1 September 51 1989 PUBLIC (PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 1C) COMMUNICATIONS Proclamation - Constitution Week. Mayor Kelleher proclaimed the week of September 17-23 , 1989 as Constitution Week in the City of Kent. Neda Morrow, Chair of the Constitution Week Committee, Daughters of the American Revolution, Lakota Chapter, Federal Way, accepted the proclamation. (PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 1D) Letter from Kaibara. Mayor Kelleher read a letter from Kotaro Yasui, Mayor of Kaibara, expressing thanks for the hospitality shown on his recent visit to Kent. CONSENT BITEMAN MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through CALENDAR E be approved, and that Item F be removed at the request of Public Works Director Wickstrom and Item G be removed at the request of Planning Director Harris. White seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3A) Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of August 15, 1989 . HEALTH AND (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3E) SANITATION Latecomer Agreement - Forest Creek Apartments. AUTHORIZATION for staff to prepare and for the Director of Public Works to sign a Latecomer Agreement for costs associated with the construction of the utility extensions for the Forest Creek Apartments in the vicinity of 100th Ave. S.E. and S.E. 248th Street. SEWERS (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A) LID 334 Derbyshire No. 7 Sanitary Sewer. This date has been set for the public hearing on the final assessment roll for LID 334. The City Clerk has given the proper notification to the property owners. The Director of Public Works noted that the area is east of Kent, south of Kent-Kangley and west of 124th Ave. S.E. He noted that it is a developed residential area, which has had significant septic tank failures. He explained the cost summary and manner of assessment, and noted that the City has shared the cost for extra depth of the sewer line. 2 September 5, 1989 SEWERS The Mayor declared the public hearing open. Bob Wise, 27516 121st Avenue S.E. , voiced concern about being billed for the 20 ' manhole, the project signs and the asphalt overlays. Wickstrom noted that a summary of the total cost of the project had been mailed to the residents, and that he would meet with them to go over the distribution in detail if they so desire. He noted for Houser that originally the cost of the asphalt overlays was to be split between the City and the residents, but that since it had turned out to be a bigger project than anticipated, the City paid 100% in order to ease the cost to the property owners. BITEMAN MOVED to continue the public hearing for two weeks. White seconded and the motion carried. The Mayor asked that Wickstrom meet with the property owners before then to clear up their concerns. EQUIPMENT (BIDS - ITEM 5A) RENTAL Multicrrader. Bids were opened July 21 and three bids were received. The low bidder specified equipment that did not meet the bid specifications. The bid by the second low bidder, while offering compensating differences, still did not meet bid specifications, and the third bid exceeded the budget for the equipment. Upon Wickstrom' s recommendation, WHITE MOVED to reject the bids and readvertise with a modification to the specifications. Biteman seconded and the motion carried. ZONING CODE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3G) REMOVED BY PLANNING DIRECTOR HARRIS Parkincr and Storage of Certain Commercial Vehicles in Residentially Zoned Areas. The parking of commercial trucks, vans, trailers and semi-trailers on City streets in residentially zoned areas poses a risk and hazard to the public's health, safety and welfare including noise disturbance and obstruction to vehicular traffic. Therefore, an ordinance has been prepared to prohibit the parking of commercial trucks, vehicles, vans, trailers or semi-trailers on _. 3 September 5, 1989 ZONING CODE any City street in residentially zoned areas except for such vehicles engaging in loading or unloading during business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6: 00 p.m. Planning Director Harris noted that this item should be referred to the Planning Commission for their consideration before an ordinance is adopted, since it would amend the Zoning Code. WHITE MOVED that this item be referred to the Planning Commission. Houser seconded and the motion carried. FINAL PLAT (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A) Lavender Hills Final Plat. A public meeting on the Lavender Hills Final Plat is scheduled for this date. The preliminary plat was approved by the Council on November 3 , 1987 with conditions. The conditions have been complied with and staff recommends approval of the plat. In response to White ' s question, Wickstrom indicated that there are sidewalks within the plat, as well as a path on 94th Avenue. Maureen MacNamara, 23839 94th Ave. So. , distributed photographs of the development showing the rural look of the area and the erosion which has occurred. She expressed concern about drainage, erosion repair, the loss of trees in the area, clean up of garbage and gravel, and edging of the blacktop at the corner of 94th and 240th. Planning Director Harris noted that the conditions approved by the Council are as follows: 1. Sanitary sewer, water service and fire protection shall be provided to all lots. In so doing, the developer shall: a. Provide to the Engineering Department for review and approval detailed plans for water and sewer improvements. b. Loop the water system through Kentview if necessary for adequate fire protection. C. Inspect and obtain approval foe needed off-site systems from Kentview Plat prior to design, and d. Provide fire sprinklering for all occupied buildings if any portion of the proposed S. 237th Street exceeds a 12 percent gradient. 4 September 51 1989 FINAL PLAT 2. The developer shall provide a detailed analysis of on-site and off-site conditions affecting the final design of' the storm drainage system for the plat. The developer shall e provide adequate drainageway across the subject property to accommodate upstream runoff together with necessary public easements for access and maintenance. Detailed plans for handling storm water runoff for the site as well as upstream tributaries shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. 3. The developer shall improve the western half oP 94th Avenue S. for the entire frontage thereon with 18 feet of asphalt paving (as measured from the centerline of existing pavement) , curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, storm underground utilities and related appurtenances. The engineering design for the structured roadway section shall take into account site specific soil conditions and traffic volume projections from the City's Traffic Section. All other streets within the subject property shall have minimum pavement widths of 28 feet (as measured from the curb face) , curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, storm water drainage facilities, underground utilities and related appurtenances in accordance with the city's Subdivision Code. Harris noted foK White that these conditions have been met. He stated that some of Ms. MacNamara Is concerns are a matter of policing. In regard to erosion, Wickstrom pointed out that the contractor is liable for his work and would have to repair any problems associated with it. Upon Biteman' s question, he noted that the City has a one-year warranty and guarantee and a performance bond on the improvements. MANN MOVED to make Ms. MacNamara's photographs a part of the record. White seconded and the motion carried. WHITE MOVED to approve the Lavender Hills final plat as presented by staff. Biteman seconded and the motion carried. 5 September 51 1989 FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3B) Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through September 51 1989 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 3 : 00 p.m. on September 15, 1989 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 8/11/89 82215 - 82217 $ 3,324.72 8/14 - 8/28 82851 - 82903 689,056.05 8/30/89 82904 - 83454 1,023,791.64 $1,716,172.41 Approval of checks issued for payroll: Date Check Numbers Amount 8/18/89 123550 - 124225 $ 732,303.75 (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3F) REMOVED BY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR WICKSTROM Environmental Mitigation Fund. As recommended by the Public Works Committee, authorization to adjust the Environmental Mitigation Fund budget to establish the $40, 000 revenue from the County recycling grant and to provide for additional expenditures for the spring cleanup in the amount of $5, 000, the Christmas tree pickup in the amount of $2 , 300, $2 , 000 for additional costs of the recycling program and $20, 000 in set up costs. Public Works Director Wickstrom asked that this item be reconsidered at a later date, since Mr. DiJulio has some concerns about it. WHITE SO MOVED. Houser seconded and the motion carried. 6 September 5, 1989 FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3C) Armored Car Service Contract. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign a contract with Continental Armored Transporting to provide armored car services to City facilities including the golf course, City Hall, Kent Commons and the Senior Center, as discussed with the Operations Committee at their August 15th meeting. This proposal was originally discussed as part of the banking services agreement with U.S. Bank, but the item is handled as a separate contract directly with the armored car service. POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3D) State Traffic Safety Project Funding. ACCEPTANCE of State funding for Kent Police Department Public Education Unit from the Washington Traffic Safety Commission in the amount of $51, 015 for the period from 7-1-89 to 6-30-90. COUNCIL (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B) Council Absence Request. Councilmember Biteman has requested authorization to be excused from the next five regular Council meetings, since he will be out of town. The Mayor noted that Mr. Biteman has received an opportunity to teach in Mainland China. Upon White' s question, Assistant City Attorney Williamson noted that the Council is legally covered. MANN MOVED to approve Councilmember Biteman' s request. Houser seconded. White suggested including Councilmember Dowell ' s request to be excused from tonight' s meeting in the motion. Mann and Houser agreed, and the motion carried. The Mayor asked Biteman to keep Kent in mind in terms of a sister city and possible international business. REPORTS (REPORTS - ITEM 6A) President's Report. Noting that improving the transportation system has been a goal of the Council for some time, Council President White proposed that the Public Works Committee and the Operations Committee look at the feasibility of a public works bond issue which would include the 272nd Avenue corridor as a four or five lane project, the 196th 7 September 5, 1989 REPORTS corridor and possibly the 228th corridor, along with any other projects which would be suitable. He asked that the two committees make their recommendations to the Council as soon as possible, so that the bond issue could be submitted to the voters next year. White noted that the City is growing rapidly and needs to plan for the future. (REPORTS - ITEM 6G) Administrative Reports. At 7:45 p.m. , the Mayor announced that there would be an executive session of approximately five minutes. EXECUTIVE The meeting reconvened at 7 : 50 p.m. BITEMAN MOVED SESSION to accept the Corrections Officers contract for 1989-1990 as negotiated, including the provisions of the memo from the Personnel Director to the Police Union dated September 5, 1989 . White seconded and the motion carried. ADJOURNMENT The meeting then adjourned. Brenda Jacober, CMC Deputy City-Clerk 8 Kent City Council Meeting Date September 19 , 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor's appointment of Tracy Faust to replace Al Haylor on the Planning Commission. This term will expire December 31, 1990. 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 REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS• 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3C 3� OFFICE OF THE MAYOR TO: JIM WHITE, PRESIDENT, CITY COUNCIL FROM: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR\ � r- DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 1989 SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT I have recently appointed Tracy Faust to the Kent Planning Commission. She will replace Albert Haylor who has resigned. Ms. Faust is a practicing attorney in Seattle, served on the Kent 2000 Committee, is presently a member of the Single Family Housing Committee, and until recently has served as a member of the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Faust' s term will begin immediately and continue through December 31, 1990. I submit this for your confirmation. Kent City Council Meeting Date September 19 , 1989 Category Consent Calendar w 1. SUBJECT: PROCEDURES FOR AND APPOINTMENTS TO SENIOR HOUSING BALLOT COMMITTEES 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approve procedures for appointing committees advocating approval or disapproval of senior housing ballot measure and confirm Mayor's appointment to such committees. 3 . EXHIBITS: Draft procedures, staff memo 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (City Council Planning Committee will be considering this at their September 19 meetinct) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO 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 %�t' KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT September 14, 1989 MEMO TO: City Council President Jim White and Council Members FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director SUBJECT: SENIOR HOUSING BOND COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS The City is required to appoint citizen committees advocating approval or rejection of the Senior Housing Bond measure set for the November 7 ballot. These committees would serve to write statements advocating their position, for publication in the local Voter's Pamphlet. The County Elections Division recommends that each jurisdiction develop written guidelines for making Committee appointments. The attached draft appointment procedures set forth a mechanism for appointment of the members. Staff recommends Council approval of these procedures. Due to timing requirements, the City Clerk has already followed actions outlined in these procedures, including advertising the availability of Committee slots. No person responded to the ads. Staff expects that the Mayor will nominate several persons for confirmation by the Committee and full Council at the September 19 meetings. Committee names must be forwarded to County Elections by September 22 . DS:JPH:ca Enclosure CITY OF KENT PROCEDURES FOR APPOINTING COMMITTEES ADVOCATING APPROVAL AND DISAPPROVAL OF BALLOT MEASURES In accordance with RCW 29.81 A.080 and requirements of the King County Records and Elections Division, the following written procedures are designed to clarify the method by which the committee advocating approval and the committee advocating disapproval of a ballot measure will be selected by the City. These committees are composed of interested citizens with the responsibility of writing statements for or against the ballot measure. 1. Method and Time of Public Announcement No later than four weeks prior to the deadline for receipt of committee names by the King County Records and Elections Division, notice shall be provided by publication that the City is accepting applications for the two committees. The notification shall be made in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. 2. Deadline for Prospective Members to Applv The deadline for committee application shall be given in the published announcement. The deadline shall be no sooner than two weeks following the date of publication. Application shall be made to the Office of City Clerk, in writing, by telephone, or by personal contact. 3. Committee Eligibility and Method of Choosing Committee Members Each committee shall be formally appointed by the City Council on a "first-come, first- served" basis. The committees shall be composed of the first applications to be received by the Office of City Clerk, up to a maximum of three members. In the event that no applications are received by the deadline, the Mayor shall nominate committee members for confirmation by the City Council. Wherever possible, nominations for the committee advocating approval shall include persons known to favor the measure, and those for the committee advocating rejection shall include those known to oppose the measure. Any registered voter who is resident of the City of Kent is eligible to be a member of the committees. Kent City Council Meeting Date September 19 , 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: UTILITY BILLING CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION - RESOLUTION U 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As discussed with the Operations Committee at their September 14 meeting./adoption of Resolution;� authorizing a contract with Idaho Computer Services, Inc. for a computerized Utility Billing System, upon the approval of appropriate contract terms and conditions by the City Attorney and Information Services Director. Prior Council approval of the City's Automation Plan, including a Utility Billing System, occurred on August 18, 1986. In accord with the Automation Plan, funding has already been set aside in the CIP for this purpose. 3 . EXHIBITS: Attached memo and resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee 9 14/89 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $70 , 000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: 522-18F-1720-6400 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3E RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the city of Kent, Washington, relating to the sole source purchase of utility billing software for installation on the City's HP 3000 computer system. WHEREAS, on August 11, 1986 the Council budgeted for and authorized installation, training, and maintenance of integrated computer software systems relating to municipal activities, including the City's combined Utility Billing System; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent desires to acquire, install, provide training, and maintain an enhanced version of its utility billing software system; and WHEREAS, the installation, training, and maintenance of enhanced utility billing software will provide for greater efficiency and application of the city's existing software systems and objectives of the City's Automation Plan; and WHEREAS, said the purchase of said utility software system enhancements exceed Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($7,500.00) pursuant to RCW Chapter 35.23 and KCC Chapter 4.02; and WHEREAS, on July 5, 1989 the Information Services Department issued a Request for Proposal and received responses on July 31, 1989 to determine available software vendors to meet desired utility billing software standards for enhancement of its existing software system; and WHEREAS, the Request for Proposals has yielded two (2) vendors proposing enhanced utility billing software systems which have been reviewed by the Utility Billing Evaluation and Selection Committee; and WHEREAS, said Committee has unanimously recommended Idaho Computer Services, Inc. (ICS) as the sole qualified and vendor capable of meeting the City's objectives relating to utility billing enhancement; and WHEREAS, said Committee has also concluded that ICS also represents the only source provider of utility billing software capable of meeting the City's desired specifications within the northwest for purposes of software system installation, training, and maintenance and other service for such desired system; and WHEREAS, the ICS and Utilbill/3000 system has also been found to be acceptable by the Washington State Auditor and demonstrated as a proven product capable of audit examination having been utilized by Washington State municipalities, including the cities of Spokane, Vancouver, and Mercer Island; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Council finds that the purchase of the ICS Utilbill/3000 software is clearly and legitimately limited to a single source or supply within the near vicinity of the City of Kent and that said system, including any and all necessary services and supplies, are subject to special market conditions. The City Council further finds that because of ICS's location in Twin Falls, Idaho and combined services for installation, training, and maintenance, that this location together with the Utilbill/3000 system capabilities set forth in a Utility Billing Evaluation and Selection Committee constitute uniquely local market conditions favorable to the City of Kent not available from any other software. Section 2. The Council authorizes the negotiation and execution of a contract with Idaho Computer Services, Inc. for the purchase of the Utilbill/3000 software system and success of programs, including review and approval by the City Attorney for the purchase of such software. 2 - Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this _ day of 1989. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1989. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of 1989. (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK 7570-270 3 - JL MEMO DATE: September 14 , 1989 TO: File FROM: Charlie Lindse SUBJECT: U/B Software Selection Process The evaluation team consisted of Tammy McQueeny and myself from Finance, Marty Mulholland and Bob Olson from Information Services, and Bonnie Fell from Public Works. We began meeting in December, 1988 to develop our needs requirement and the resulting RFP, which was mailed to 10 vendors across the nation on July 5, 1989 . Three proposals were received by the closing date of July 31, 1989 . Idaho Computer Services, Protos Software Company, and Software Associated Programming Services. The committee members evaluated the proposals individual- ly and then as a group. We decided that all proposals could meet our needs if the product actually existed and that we should contact references to determine if the product existed and what each user could tell us about the strengths and weakness of the systems. The reference checks indicated that Software Associated Programming Services did not yet have an installed prod- duct. We sent them a letter stating that and that they were third in the running and gave them the option of demonstrating their product and they declined. This left us with two vendors to select from. We had demonstrations from both and were impressed by both. Idaho Computer Services had a fully developed product installed at various sites throughout the state. Protos Software Company was proposing to rewrite their base pro- duct to meet our specifications and use it as their next generation U/B system. They indicated that the programm- ing for the product would occur in Indianappolis , with consulting services from Austin, and support coming out Colorado and coordination of the project coming out of Texas. The committee met on Sept 7 , 1989 and discussed the pros and cons of each system. We then took a ballot vote and the consenus was unanimous to select and ask for author- ization to negotiate with Idaho Computer Services, be- cause they had a developed product, that all training, consultation, and support services would be coming out of one location, Twin Falls, Idaho, and were most likely to meet our deadline for installation. Kent City Council Meeting Date September 19 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: PAY PHONE CONTRACT WITH US WEST COMM(JNICATIONS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: At the September 14 meeting, the Operations Committee approved the contract with U.S. West Communications under which the City will receive 10 percent commission from the pay phones, including inmate phones at the City's Corrections Facility. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo to Operations Committee, dated Sept. 11, 1989 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3F CITY OF �� ri I=_IW CTA TO: OPERATIONS CONZ'ITTEE FROM: Ron Spang, Information Services Director PREPARED BY: Dee Gergich, Telecommunications Analyst /� 1 DATE: September 11, 1989 RE: Commission Contracts -- Information Following a review with Bill Williamson, Assistant City Attorney, and with the cooperation of the I.B.C. and Police Department, we recently concluded and finalized two payphone commission and/or support contracts as outlined below: 1) U S West Communications --- Commission Rate: 10% Contract Term: 3 yrs. This contract provides that US West Communications will install, maintain, and support their payphones located at sixteen sites throughout the City as well as nine inmate phones and one payphone located at the Corrections Facility. These above services are done at no cost to the City. Based on useage and revenue, US West Communications will pay the City 10% com- mission on any revenue received from these payphones. In past years our commis- sion rate was an average 4.So. Contract term can be renewed every three years. 2) A T ,T --- Long Distance Commission Rate: 14% Contract Term: 2 yrs. t A pay he This contrat from along Tdistance lcalls t l rovis made on all City and inmates pay- phones. The commission rate the City receives is based on a national commission contract between A T $ T and PTI, the R $ D arm of IC4A and NLC. It is possible that the commission rate the City receives may increase because this rate is based on a sliding scale of revenue dollars based on the collective member participation nation-wide. Contract term canlbe renewed or extended for one more year. Copies of the completed contracts are attached for your information. If you have any questions, please let me know. �T Kent City Council Meeting Date September 19 , 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: LASERPRINT CONTRACT RENEWAL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations Committee, authorization for the Mayor to sign a contract renewal with Laserprint Communications for printing, inserting and mailing of the City's utility bills. There are some moderate increases that impact this but they have been anticipated in the budget. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo and copy of Laserprint contract 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $23 000 - 1989/$24 000 - 1990 budget SOURCE OF FUNDS: Utilities 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds That 116th Ave. sewer extension be accepted as complete. DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3G MEMO TO: Operations Committee FROM: Charlie Lindsey, Customer Services MaCnal 0 SUBJECT: Lazerprint Contract Renewal Request authorization for the Mayor to sign contract re- newal with Lazerprint Communications for printing, in- serting, and mailing of our Utility Bills. The moderate increases proposed have little or no impact on us. They are: Additional inserts from $. 002 each to $. 004 each. This impact is from about $24 monthly to about $48 monthly. Delivery and Pickup of tapes and inserts from $8 per trip to $9 per trip an increase of about $2 per month. These increases were anticipated in the budget process. Our annual expenditure for this services for 1988 was $19 , 179 and approximately $23 , 000 for 1989. The main reason for the significant increase between 1988 and 1989 is the increase in our account base. LASERPRINT, INC. Pricing for CITY OF KENT August 1, 1989 Statement Specifications: Customer supplies tapes split into single - and multiple-page statement groups. Offset statement form 1 color, 2 sides onto 8Yz"XI I", 20# white. Laser variable information onto pre-printed form. Perforate return stub. Automatically insert single statements into 1110 white window envelopes printed 1 color, 1 side with #9 or #7-3/4 reply envelope printed 1 color. Manually sort and insert multiple page statements. First class presort mail sortation and preparation. Delivery to U.S. Post Office 48 hours after receipt of tapes. Approximate quantity: 12,000 per month. Single Statement Price: $0.172 Variables to Unit Pricing: Additional Inserts $.004 each Computer Programming $55.00 per hour Computer Processing $110.00 per hour Pickup and Delivery $9.00 per trip If customer suplies own envelopes: #10 Window Subtract ($0.020) #9 or #7-3/4 Subtract ($.018) Preprinted materials will be billed at time of actual printing at $.02. Minimum quantity 50,000. • • SERVICE AGREEMENT Customer City of Kent Contact Charles Lindsey Billing 220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98031 Address Street City/State Zip Delivery Same Address Street City/State zip It is agreed between LaserPrint Communications, Inc. (hereafter referred to as LaserPrint) and Customer as follows: 1. Services: LaserPrint offers the following services: E1 ectroni c laser printing of utility statements, Envelope printing and mail processing services. .1 - 2. Ouanrity, Descrintion and Price for Service:An initial Project Description Sheet dated August 1 , 1989 detail- ing quantities and description of items to be produced and prices for services is attached. During the term of this Agreement additional Project Description Sheets will be supplied by LaserPrint whenever the description of items to be produced is different from the initial Project Description Sheet. Actual work will be initiated by Customer supplying to LaserPrintwork order forms or by LaserPrint supplying to Customer Project Description Sheets or work order forms. Customer must approve all Project Description Sheets prior to commencement of work. 3. Adiustment to Pricing: After 60 days of actual production of the work covered by this Agreement, LaserPrint may submit a written adjustment to pricing to Customer. Customer will have five (5) business days to either accept the adjusted price or discontinue the Agreement with no penalty. 4. Term of Agreement:The term of this Agreement shall be the 12-month period beginning on the date of acceptance of this Agreement by LaserPrint. 5. Acceptance: This agreement shall become binding only after it has been signed and dated by an officer of LaserPrint. (The LaserPrint Sales Representative is NOT an officer and does not have that authority.) Once accepted, a signed copy will be returned to Customer. 6. Minimums: A. Per Period- Statements (identical specifications) -$1,000 in revenue in each calendar month per 12-month period _ ($1,000 x 12 = $12,000) Electronic printing - $250 in revenue in each calendar month per 12-month period = ($250 x 12= $3,000) Direct Mail (identical specifications) - $1,000 in revenue in each calendar month per 12-month period _ ($1,000 x 12 = $12,000) Direct Mail (different specifications) - $3,000 in revenue in each calendar quarter per 12-month period _ ($3,000 x 4 = $12,000) Duplicating- $1,000 in revenue in each calendar quarter per 12-month period = ($1,000 x 4 = $4,600) Offset printing-$1,000 in revenue in each calendar quarter per 12-month period = ($1,000 x 4 = $4,000) B. Per invoice - Statements (identical specifications) - $200 in revenue Electronic printing - 500 impressions per magnetic tape and$100 in revenue Direct Mail (identical specifications) -$500 in revenue Direct Mail (different specifications) - $3,000 in revenue Duplicating - 500 impressions per line item and $100 in revenue Offset printing - 500 impressions per line item and $100 in revenue 7. SurchareeforNon-FulfillmentofServiceAoTeementMinimums: lf,duringanycalendarquarter,customerfailstofulfill the minimum revenue requirements, as listed in item 6, then Customer agrees to pay LaserPrint a 10%surcharge,over and above the prices listed in item 2, for all revenue produced during the term of this Agreement. 8. Credit Check:LaserPrint reserves the right to investigate Customer's credit rating,credit references and general credi standing prior to acceptance by LaserPrint of this Agreement. Customer expressly consents by execution hereof to such investigation(s). 9. Payment:LaserPrint may,at its discretion,require payment in cash by Customer at the time of pickup and/or delivery. In the event LaserPrint renders invoices for the payment of all charges incurred hereunder,such invoices are due and payable upon receipt of said invoice(s). Any full or partial invoice amount not received by LaserPrint within thirty (30) days of invoice date will be assessed a 1.5% monthly service charge on the past due portion. 10. Postage: All postage checks will be made out to LaserPrint Communications, Inc. and funds are to be available at LaserPrint prior to mailing. All proposals are exclusive of postage and Washington State sales tax. 11. Customer's Property:For the purpose of this paragraph, "Customer's Property"shall mean any and all property,including but not limited to documents, drawings,books,manuals,pictures, magnetic tapes,floppy diskettes and writings of any sort supplied by Customer to LaserPrint for the purpose of performance of this order by LaserPrint. Reproduction/reprographic work necessitates the disclosure of Customer's property to LaserPrint employees and representatives. LaserPrint shall use its best efforts to afford confidentiality to Customer's property received pursuant to this order. LaserPrint shall incur no liability of any sort for loss, destruction or damage to Customer's property or disclosure of Customer's property to third parties. 12. Indemnification: Customer shall indemnify and hold LaserPrint harmless from any claim,demand, liability, cause of action or damage for actual or alleged infringement of any property rights, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets or U.S. or foreign parents arising or resulting from or in connection with LaserPrint's performance hereunder. Customer agrees to defend, at Customer's own expense, all suits, actions or proceedings in which LaserPrint is made a defendant for actual or alleged infringement of any property rights,copyrights,trademarks,trade secrets of U.S.or foreign patents arising orresultinF from or in connection with LaserPrint's performance hereunder. 13. Attorney's Fees: In the event either party files suit to enforce, interpret or collect sums due under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit incurred,in addition to any other relief awarded. 14. Venue:It is agreed between the parties to this Agreement that any disputes,conflicts or litigation that arises will be re- solved in any District Court of King County, State of Washington, or the Superior Court of King County, State of Washington. CUSTOMER CITY OF KENT LASERPRINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Paul Wham, President By ( Print Name and Title) By ( Print Name and Title) Signature Signature Date Date Customer's Purchase Order Number L ASERYRINT Communications 19026 72nd Avenue South Kent,WA 98032 (206) 251-6688 Fax 251-9147 Kent City Council Meeting Date September 19. 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: WALNUT PARK APARTMENTS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance for continuous operation and maintenance, the bill of sale and warranty agreement for approximately 2 , 930 feet of water main extension, 1,826 feet of sanitary sewer extension and 450 feet of storm sewer improvements constructed in the vicinity of S.E. 248th Street and lllth Ave. S.E. for the Walnut Park Apartments and release of cash bond after expiration of the one year maintenance period. 3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Don Wickstrom (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO 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. 3H D ..r w G) 2 D \ n0 •t HAZEL AVE c ��... m (n LET1Uxn A.c >O .� rmm n O MAR > O ` SALEXA DER cm aft m. Z co PL 7 y g _A CREST AVE m S r A AVE _ _�•.;, w m to m r z ; r m r O( t;F•. .. -4 w <'q. iRN�R m (ai �O •�`'�.,i{(� - y ALVORD AVE 4 CA awe .� O T LAB w A r D f ?O N SUMMIT HILLTOP AVE AVE O VIEW t`.'.,�. f AVE f S ELL IS w w m (a ' 'c m N i PL "I� w S 92ND PL S. . C REITEN RD n_i_ w in N -1 S MAPLEWOOD AVf A L 1 �'t ` Nw 3 w n W 1O m .� 947H AVE S KIMSER 1 ,,t4✓ ,�Z��+c, •� = rw S <y 1'OOOtL:, `T�aL•' 94TH AVE S 1 r ( w N w AVE �. W 9L"c. {• t i I Z �-( O 96 '?L Y y 1 96TH 96TH AVE S 6THAVE S' S 4lL70 . w w N -1 f ., ,'�:Ob7CcC{��^O •�� N_C 97TH N w N J. F A -1 2 {f,r, '7 �•}�l 's .�1�". AVES � m A c N 'C: .• %� 96TH AVE S '` S RAWS RRY w �:�t_L<' w• S 96TH AVE S O ( w -4 \ (Pvt) Od i N a 99TH AVE S / N �i i Nwi 1 ■J+ 00 lOOTH AVE SE O n=r — omN 14 4 {( o 3E W7t 03-I �rr: if Aml Z 0z— 102ND. ..Barricade C-.•.'-'_•,�' Ar AVE SE m 1 r, y3 ( T_ • I m m m 103RD 3-2 AVESE 104TH AVE N �2 "�� 104TH AVE SE !O m 105 N _1d5TH 159 ♦h AVF�pJ N rO (+1 - j PL S �aaY 0 SfS 35 Y4. ZO - 2 w m ',OS F11 UL w 1 w m W W N1 w J Wrn r w W z z AV SE N N _ -t� 2 H19O♦ y Ww nwi N I09TH AVE SE lOBTH AVE SEI w r Nm O N � -+ ♦ S ,a z iTH = m S = Is6• t�ay ♦ O S w = 109TH I w(t .a!y'S'3S ` 110 Th AVE T '( pL SE I M l H10♦ PL Sf ,�~ ' • PROJE T 110TH \ w W 1 111TH AVE SE LOCATI N PL SE A z (Pvt) n2TH AVE SEA LIMIT WALNUT ARK v m 1 1 • � z x 113TH AVE SE f "ya© _ - a� m N. .J14TH PL SE 114TH A E E W m 115TH�r� 11 m • e¢fi N N r PL SE AVt "I 1 T � � V N ro tD PE 116TH AVE SE TY T N m �A •� O c P V r r (- •'117TH PL m w r A SE i ISTH 01 y m U) ' cn m Iv tv WALNUT PARKS APARTMENTS J 19 AVE S �11( 0 12orH Kent City Council Meeting Date September 19 , 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: 116TH AVE. S.E. SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This project was awarded to Rodarte Construction, Inc. for the bid amount of $72 ,953 .99 on August 2, 1988, and notice to proceed was issued September 19, 1988. The project consisted of the installation of 1,725 feet of sanitary sewer pipe and 20 feet of side sewer with 47 feet of water main and various related appurtenances. Final construction costs are $92, 328.25. It is recommended that this contract be accepted as complete and the retainage released after receipt of the necessary releases from the State. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from the Director of Public Works and vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Don Wickstrom (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO 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. 3I DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ~r September 19, 1989 TO: Mayor Kelleher & City Council FROM: Don Wickstrom RE: 116th Avenue S.E. Sanitary Sewer Extension This project was awarded to Rodarte Construction Inc. for the bid amount of $72 ,953 . 99 on August 2 , 1988 . Notice to proceed was issued September 19, 1988 . The project consisted of the installation of 1,725 feet of sanitary sewer pipe and 20 feet of side sewer, with 47 feet of water main and various related appurtenances. Final construction costs are $92 , 328. 25. It is recommended this contract be accepted as complete and the retainage released after receipt of the necessary releases from the State. T + sE 25T .* ST - " SE 231ST 1PARK RCHA xw j E 231 231ST ST xy ■SCH ITARY �y < ST aF ST 232ND ST ow „> SE 231A- oL SE 232ND F! ST �w,. gE Ow E 232ND < 232ND PL 232ND W 4. o ? ST W > C y4i j S�•�t 233RD SE ~ 233RD ST y S W ST 5E 233RD< e( f �^ 41. tl j N x yIL p 4'r G .(F in (/� .<~. SE 234TH ST MERIDIAN SE 234TH < �4' . .ab x JR.HI. SE 2347H S' 57H�= 19�S�v r SE .SE SCHOOL ST. °oti Q 4 234TH PL? � ~ w N �b SE 236TH ST AVE �/�•'yJ ST5GTH Barricade AField lIc0 wWSE 235TH > ST '..5� SE.i�/ SE 236TH ST .. ay CsdO '= 236TH PL W U) WG x N x w S6,'S•y4, 2c .. `. 237TH ST W Heservo-r waw >E 238TH a 0A SF SE 237TN m >23 ST ._ < C n1 N w SE OTH ST 17 16 20 21 w V PROJ CT x y LOCA ION SE 21 244TH a ST - x sY;ii.,C.LARJG?;;:2 ., ST (I � a J ST SE 248TH ST W w N y w W y > �•� IL w > SE251ST � \ _ x S2E y < m m STD E ND ST ' = > a > / SE� 252ND w < ® .. SE 252ND ST ''ILL. ` :� W = = SE 253RD water % tz- •' y [^• W Reservoir Cal' J $_ d W W �_ < = N w c W SE 254TH PL a _y 4 x < x x r > K SE F .~-. rr ch N 256TH ST •"'. .�i 4�20 21 $ y 29 28 eE2s x y WCL O J S.E. 5 TI1L f STH w S g q LENT SCHOOL STRI ADMINISTRATION LDG. � w w O r to SEr� SE 911TH L ' 260TH �h ST D�Ey T RDAQ y g1 116TH AVE SE SEWER & WATERMAIN < (Pvt)SEQUOIA Sb u•unn. Kent City Council Meeting Date September 19 , 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO SEPA ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The City of Kent and Chamber of Commerce Environmental Mitigation Task Force Committee made certain recommendations for amending the City's Environmental Policy ordinance to establish a minimum ten trip generation threshold to ensure that all new developments with significant traffic impacts that fall under the scope of the state and Kent Environmental Policy Acts participate, in transportation improvements. Adopt Ordinance , J�/to amend Kent's Environmental Policy ordinance to so provide. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 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 DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3J li ORDINANCE NO. I 'i AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to land use and environmental policies, amending Kent City Code 12.12A.210 adding a new section for threshold determination of significant traffic impacts. WHEREAS, the City of Kent and Chamber of Commerce ( Environmental Mitigation Task Force Committee made certain 1Irecommendations in order to address the significant impacts of 4raffic throughout the City generated by development; and I'. WHEREAS, these recommendations included the suggestion 'I that the Kent Environmental policy Ordinance be amended to establish a minimum 10 peak hour trip generation threshold to !insure that all new developments with significant traffic impacts 'Ithat fall under the scope of the State and Kent Environmental Iipolicy Acts participate in transportation improvement; and II �. WHEREAS, at its meeting on August 15, 1989, after Ilconsidering the input of the public and all recommendations of the lTask Force, the City Council accepted those recommendations and !,directed the staff to develop the steps necessary to implement (' such recommendations; and l WHEREAS, the City Council finds that based on local conditions of significant traffic congestion due to development, it is necessary to establish a threshold level for examination of (significant traffic impacts on the City for those actions falling within the purview of Kent's Environmental Policy and the State hlEnvironmental Policy Act and implementing regulations; NOW, IITHEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES (HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: II II i i i Section 1. Kent City Code 12.12A.210 is amended as follows: Ii 12.12A.210. THRESHOLDS FOR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS. A. The City establishes the following exempt levels for ' minor new construction under WAC 197-11-800(1) (b) based on local conditions: 1. For residential dwelling units in WAC , 197-11-800(1) (b) (i) : 12 dwelling units or less. II 2. For agricultural structures in WAC I197-11-800(1) (b) (ii) : 30,000 square feet or less. i I 3. For office, school, commercial, recreational, 'service or storage buildings in WAC 197-11-800(1) (b) (iii) : (;buildings of 12,000 sq. ft. or less and 40 or less parking spaces. I II 4. For parking lots in WAC 197-11-800(1) (b) (iv) : 40 or less parking spaces. 5. For fill and excavations in WAC .I197-11-800(1) (b) (v) : 500 cubic yards or less. ICI I 6. For all development: less than 10 minimum Peak ,(hour traffic trips. I I B. Whenever the City establishes new exempt levels hinder this section, it shall send them to the Department of Ecology, Headquarters Office, Olympia, Washington, under WAC II197-11-800(1) (c) . Section 2. No vested right shall be effected by the ( provisions of this ordinance. I Section 3. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase ofi this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional byll a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitu- ''tionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality if lany other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. i - 2 - i II i I� II II Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take Iieffect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its (!passage, approval and publication as provided by law. I� I DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR !!ATTEST: If MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK . I i APPROVED AS TO FORM: i ATTORNEY ISANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY �I I II !(PASSED the day of 1989. (APPROVED the day of 1989. it �IPUBLISHED the day of 1989. I iiI 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 hereoq ;!indicated. (SEAL) ! MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK II II i II I I 759O-260 1 - 3 - I i .� I i Kent City Council Meeting Date September 19 , 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: STREET VACATION - RESOLUTION 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution �' /�, setting a public hearing date of October 17, 1989 upon the Drangsholt petition to vacate a street west of Woodland Way and south of S. 262nd P1. for the Hawkridge Development. 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Property Manager (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 DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3K RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, regarding vacation of certain property located west of Woodland Way and south of South 262nd Place and more particularly described as follows: the west 50 feet of the east 215 feet of that portion of the south half of the north half of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 30, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M. lying south of the north 30 feet thereof. setting a public hearing for October 17, 1989 on the application of Thomas Drangsholt. WHEREAS, a proper petition has been filed requesting vacation of certain unnamed property located generally west of Woodland Way and south of South 262nd Place, in the City of Kent, as described in the title of this resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The public hearing on the aforesaid vacation petition shall be at a regular meeting of the Kent City Council to be held at 7:00 p.m. , October 17, 1989, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, Kent, Washington. Section 2. The City Clerk shall give proper notice of the hearing and cause the notice to be posted as provided by law. Section 3. The Planning Director shall obtain the necessary approval or rejection of or other information from the Public Works or other appropriate Departments and then shall transmit information to the City Council so that the matter may be considered by the City Council at a regular meeting on October 17, 1989. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of 1989. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this _ day of , 1989. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of 1989. (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK 7580-260 2 - Kent city council Meeting Date September 19 , 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: FIRE AGREEMENT WITH STATE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of an agreement with Washington State Community Development under which the Kent Fire Department will provide a Drill Master for the State Fire Academy in North Bend. The state will reimburse the City in the amount of $11, 000. 3 . EXHIBITS: Agreement 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Public Safety Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO 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. 3L THIS AGREEMENT, entered into by and between the City of Kent (hereinafter referred to as the CITY) , and the Washington State Department of Community Development (hereinafter referred to as the DEPARTMENT) , WITNESSES THAT: The DEPARTMENT desires to engage the CITY to perform certain tasks as hereinafter agreed upon by both parties. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of covenants, conditions, performances and promises hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. FUNDING. The total funds to be paid to the CITY for the duration of this AGREEMENT shall not exceed $12, 060. 2 . SERVICE PROVISIONS. The CITY shall use the funds to provide a Drill Master (trainer) for the DEPARTMENT'S Fire Service Training Center at North Bend, Washington. The CITY and DEPARTMENT shall perform in accordance with the provisions of this AGREEMENT and Attachment A (Project Scope of Work) and Attachment B (Project Budget) which, by this reference, are incorporated into this AGREEMENT. 3 . AGREEMENT PERIOD. The effective date of this AGREEMENT shall be September 1, 1989 . The termination date of this AGREEMENT shall be November 15, 1989 . 4 . REIMBURSEMENT PROVISIONS. After the termination date above stated, the CITY shall mail a Washington State Invoice Voucher (Form A-19) to the DEPARTMENT indicating the type of services rendered during the duration of this AGREEMENT. Within twenty (20) days after receiving the voucher, the DEPARTMENT shall remit to the CITY a warrant covering the cost of the prior agreed upon activities. The final voucher must be submitted prior to December 15, 1989 to allow sufficient time for processing. 5. EVALUATION AND MONITORING. a) The CITY shall file a brief report along with the request for reimbursement indicating how the money has been spent to meet contract objectives. The CITY shall cooperate with and participate in any monitoring or evaluation activities conducted by the DEPARTMENT that are pertinent to the intent of this AGREEMENT. 5. EVALUATION AND MONITORING - CONTINUED b) The DEPARTMENT or the State Auditor and any of their representatives shall have full access to and the right to examine during normal business hours and as often as the DEPARTMENT or the State Auditor may deem necessary, all the CITY' S records with respect to all matters covered in this AGREEMENT as long as City is given three (3) days prior notice of such request to examine. Such representatives shall be permitted to audit, examine, and make excerpts or transcripts from such records and to make audits of all contracts, invoices, materials, payrolls, and records of matters covered by this AGREEMENT. Such rights last for three years from the date final payment is made hereunder. 6 . EMPLOYMENT PROVISIONS. There shall be no discrimination against any employee who is paid by the funds indicated in this AGREEMENT or against any applicant for such employment because of race, religion, color, sex, age, or national origin. This provision shall include, but not be limited to the following: Employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment, advertising, lay-off or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training. 7 . AGREEMENT MODIFICATIONS. The DEPARTMENT and the CITY may, from time to time, request changes in services to be performed with the funds. Any such changes that are mutually agreed upon by the DEPARTMENT and the CITY shall be incorporated herein by written amendment to this AGREEMENT. It is mutually agreed and understood that no alteration or variation of the terms of this AGREEMENT shall be valid unless made in advance, in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and that any oral understanding or agreements not incorporated herein, shall not be binding. 8 . TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT. a) If the CITY violates any of its covenants, agreements or stipulations of this AGREEMENT, the DEPARTMENT shall thereupon have the right to terminate this AGREEMENT and withhold the remaining allocation if such default or violation is not corrected within twenty (20) days after submitting written notice to the CITY describing such default or violation, except for acts of God, strikes or other condition beyond it' s control. 8 . TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT - CONTINUED b) Notwithstanding any provisions of this AGREEMENT, either party may terminate this AGREEMENT by providing written notice of such termination, specifying the effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) •days prior to such date. Reimbursement for services performed by the CITY, and not otherwise paid for by the DEPARTMENT prior to the effective date of such termination, shall be for services rendered by the CITY as of the date of termination. 9 . SPECIAL PROVISION. The failure of either party to insist upon the strict performance of any provision of this AGREEMENT or to exercise any right based upon a breach thereof or the acceptance of any performance during such breach, shall not constitute a waiver of any right under this AGREEMENT. 10. HOLD HARMLESS. It is understood and agreed that this AGREEMENT is solely for the benefit of the parties hereto and gives no right to any other party. No joint venture or partnership is formed as a result of this AGREEMENT. Each party hereto agrees to be responsible and assume liability for its own wrongful and/or negligent acts or omissions, or those of its officers, agents, or employees to the fullest extent required by law, and agrees to save, indemnify, defend, and hold the other party harmless from any such liability. In the case of negligence of more than one party, any damages allowed shall be levied in proportion to the percentage of negligence attributable to each party, and each party shall have the right to seek contribution from the other party in proportion to the percentage of negligence attributable to the other party. 11. RECAPTURE PROVISION. a) In the event that the City fails to expend state funds in accordance with state law and/or the provisions of this AGREEMENT, the DEPARTMENT reserves the right to recapture state funds in an amount equivalent to the extent of noncompliance. b) Such right of recapture shall exist for a period not to exceed three (3) years following termination of the AGREEMENT. Repayment by the CITY of state funds under this recapture provision shall occur within thirty (30) days of demand. 12 . GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE. This AGREEMENT shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, and the validity and performance hereof shall be governed by, the laws of the state of Washington. Venue of any suit between the parties arising out of this AGREEMENT shall be the Superior Court of Thurston County, Washington. 13 . SEVERABILITY. In the event any term or condition of this AGREEMENT or application there of to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other terms, conditions or applications of this AGREEMENT which can be given effect without the invalid term, condition or application. To this end, the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT are declared severable. 14 . ADMINISTRATION. a) The CITY'S representative shall be b) The DEPARTMENT'S representative shall be John Anderson. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the DEPARTMENT and CITY have executed this AGREEMENT as of the date and year written below. Tim Arnold, Ass 't. Director Dan Kelleher, Mayor Dept. of Comm. Development City of Kent Date: Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant Attorney General City of Kent City Attorney Date: DATE: ATTACHMENT "A" PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK PURPOSE The CITY will be responsible for providing a City employee to serve as a Drill Master (trainer) at the DEPARTMENT'S Fire Service Training Center Recruit School. ORGANIZATION/CHAIN OF COMMAND The Drill Master will be supervised by the DEPARTMENT'S Program Specialist. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The Drill Master shall perform in accordance with the program guidelines and safety requirements of the Fire Service Training Center. The Drill Master's duties and responsibilities shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Determine class size and number of instructors required, based on number of students registered for courses. Prepare recruit class schedules and weekly class rosters, and coordinate use of facilities with DEPARTMENT personnel . Enforce recruit school policy and procedures to standardize conduct and operations. Determine final judgments on disciplinary problems. Maintain attendance records, test scores, and performance evaluations. Supervise and monitor instructor and student conduct at the training center. Assign housing units to recruits. Recommend changes to the Operational Guidelines for conducting recruit academies. Prepare instructor assignment letters. Inspect instructor quarters prior to start of academy and notify DEPARTMENT personnel of needs, if any. Ensure that lesson plans, slides, handouts, and other necessary equipment are available and in good working order. Prepare instructor workshop schedule. 2 . Arrange for, and schedule instructors to teach flammable liquids, search and rescue, and fire extinguisher courses. Prepare progress reports and counsels instructors throughout academy. Ensures safety practices are followed, and ensures that if an injury occurs, medical attention is obtained, regardless of the recruit's personal feelings regarding the injury. Ensures that responsible parties are notified following the injury. 3 . Supervise the 2-week instructor workshop to ensure that instructors are qualified to instruct recruit fire fighters. Arrange for delivery of equipment required to teach the 6-week recruit academy. 4 . Schedule recruit interviews and notify individual departments. Interview all recruits to ensure that department representative and recruit under his/her standing in the academy. 5. Schedule substitute instructors, when necessary, to ensure uninterrupted training. Prepare examinations, and publish, grade, and review same with students prior to informing DEPARTMENT regarding the student's academic standing. Prepare printed results of examinations and maintain cumulative test results and student standings for determination of class Valedictorian. Prepare evaluation forms used by instructors to conduct daily and weekly student evaluations. Establish and recommend a uniform method of grading and evaluating recruits to standardize results. Supervise and monitor the Instructor Coordinator, who is responsible for working with individual instructors, to ensure that students are treated fairly. 6. Coordinate preparation of trophies and plaques to recognize inspirational award winners and valedictorian of graduating classes. Notify Washington State Fire Fighters Association of Chiefs Company Award Winners so they can prepare and present their respective trophies at graduation exercises. Coordinate graduation ceremonies with host department. ATTACHMENT "B" PROJECT BUDGET Compensation for cost to the City of Kent $11, 000. 00 for the services of Darrell W. Orndorff, Battalion Chief, which includes wages and benefits to cover a 44 day period. TOTAL: $11, 000. 00 Kent City Council Meeting 6J( / Date September 19. 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT• oSOLID WASTE UTILITY �h#Jr�ori��ahz( ACCOUNT.. Miic o Futfam 2 . SUM14ARY STATEMENT: Adopt Resolution No. /A/!o creating a solid waste utility account in the Environmental Mitigation Fund and authorizing and appropriating funds necessary therefor. 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution 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 DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3M RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the city of Kent, Washington, relating to the City. Solid Waste Utility, creating a Solid Waste Utility account in the Environmental Mitigation Fund and authorizing and appropriating funds necessary therefore. WHEREAS, on August 22, 1989, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2870 reinstituting the City system for solid waste handling; and WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Mitigation Fund contains an account entitled "Landfill Mitigation," such account having been maintained as part of the City's combined Sewer Utility to deal with issues involving previous city solid waste utility operations; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to create a special accounting procedure to provide for the city Solid Waste Utility and the Landfill Mitigation Account, with additional revenue from grants and other sources, is an appropriate account for such purposes; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Landfill Mitigation Account in the Environmental Mitigation Fund be and the same is hereby renamed the "Solid Waste Utility Account". Section 2. Current appropriations and revenues from the Solid Waste Utility Tax and other solid waste related sources not specifically provided for herein shall be included in the Solid Waste Utility Account. Section 3. The Director of Public Works is authorized to expend an additional $29,300 from the Soli aste Utility Account, consistent with that report of the Director dated August 30, 1989, attached hereto. 3� Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this _ day of 1989. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this _ day of 1989. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN P. STEPHEN DiJULIO SPECIAL ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of 1989. (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK 7560-270 - 2 - Kent City Council Meeting Date September 19 . 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE DEFINING THE CRIME OF PATRONIZING A PROSTITUTE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Ordinance No. 4 JC T � adding a new section to the Kent Municipal Code creating the crime of patronizing a prostitute. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY Public Safety Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO 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. 3N 3N ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, adding a new section 9.02.33 to the Kent Municipal Code defining the crime of patronizing a prostitute. WHEREAS, the Kent Municipal Code already makes it a crime to commit or offer or agree to commit an act of prostitution; and I IIWHEREAS, the City Council has determined that so long as prostitution is illegal that both the prostitute and the customer ! should be penalized; and WHEREAS, The City Council seeks hereby to send a clear message to the citizenry that patronizing a prostitute is criminals conduct; NOW, THEREFORE, i THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: II Section 1. A new Section 9.02.33 is added to the Kent IlMunicipal Code which shall read as follows: III 9.02.33 - PATRONIZING A PROSTITUTE. A. Unlawful Act: It is unlawful for anyone to 1patronize a prostitute. A person is guilty of patronizing a ! prostitute if: 1. Pursuant to a prior understanding he/she pays a fee to another person as compensation for such j person or a third person having engaged in sexual conduct with him/her; or 2. He/she pays or agrees to pay a fee to another person pursuant to an understanding that in return therefore, the other person or a third party will engage in sexual conduct with II him/her; or 3. He/she solicits or requests another person to ii engage in sexual conduct with him/her in return for a fee, exchange, reward or promise. I i B. For persons charged with violations of 9.02.33, it shall not be a defense that the person agreeing to accept a fee to lengage in sexual conduct or who is solicited or requested to w accept such a fee is a law enforcement officer acting in his/her official capacity. Section 2 Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK l APPROVED AS TO FORM: I SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY I PASSED the day of 1989. APPROVED the day of 1989• ( PUBLISHED the day of 1989. Fill 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 7550-270 i I 2 - )IV Kent City Council Meeting Date Sebtember 19 1989 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: WEST HILL - AMENDMENT TO_Wy EST HILL SUBAREA PLAN AND KENT OFFICIAL ZONING MAP 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: In response to Resolution 1172, the Planning Department has conducted a study of multifamily residential densities and reviewed ways to encourage single family development. The Planning Commission held two workshops and three public hearings on amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and official zoning map for the first study area, West Hill. 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo, cover memo from Mayor Kelleher, staff report to Planning Commission, Council Resolution #989, Planning Commission's findings and conclusion, Planning Commission minutes of July 24, August 14 , and August 28 . 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission 8/28/89 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $23 000 - 1989/$24 000 - 1990 budget SOURCE OF FUNDS: Utilities 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds To adopt/disapprove/modify the recommendation of the Planning Commission for text and map amendments to the West Hill Subarea Plan and amendments to the official zoning map and direct the City Attorney to prepare the required resolution and ordinance. DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 4A tM S E P 151989 CITY OF KENT CITY CLERK OFFICE OF THE MAYOR - September 14 , 1989 TO: City Council President Whi' ` 1 dd Council Members FROM: Mayor Dan Kelleher SUBJECT SUBMITTAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE WEST HILL SUBAREA PLAN AMENDMENTS As per RCW 35A. 63 . 072 and City Council Resolution No. 989, I am forwarding to you the Planning Commission' s recommendation on revisions to the West Hill Subarea Plan. The Planning commission held two public hearings on this matter, on July 24 and August 14, 1989 and adopted their Findings and Conclusions. on August 28 , 1989 . At the August 14 public hearing, the Planning commission voted to amend the West Hill Subarea Plan. Proposed amendments include deleting certain language in Goal 2 Policy 2 of the Housing Element, and adding a new policy under Goal 1 of the Public Facilities Element. Map amendments include redesignating one site from MF-40 (24-40 multifamily units per acre) to MF- 24 (12-24 units per acre) , and creating a "Single-Family Designated Area" overlay for a portion of the West Hill Planning Area. The specific recommendations of the Planning Commission are outlined on pages 3-4 of the "Findings and Conclusions. " Related to the Plan amendments, the ommission has also recommended amendments to the City's Official Zoning Map. The Official Zoning Map amendments would rezone three areas of West Hill to a less dense multifamily designation. As per RCW 35A. 63 . 072 and Council Resolution No. 989 , within 60 days of receipt of the Planning Commission' s recommendation, the Council at a public meeting shall vote to approve, disapprove, or modify and approve as modified the subarea plan amendment. The Council may also refer it back to the Planning Commission for further proceedings. Attached to this memo are the following: 1. Council Resolution No. 989 2 . Council Resolution No. 1172 3 . Staff Report to Planning Commission, Area Housing Studies: Project Overview & West Hill Planning Area 4 . Planning Commission's Findings and Conclusions (adopted 8/28/1989) 5. Planning Commission minutes (7/24 , 8/14 and 8/28, 1989) Followixig is a brief discussion of how and why these recommendation are being made. In response to Resolution No. 1172 , the Planning Department conducted a study of multifamily residential densities throughout the City. Staff also reviewed ways to encourage new single family development. The detailed studies followed a major update of the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element, approved by Council in February of this year. Resolution No. 1172 directed ._ staff to conduct the study in steps, area by area, and to move forward on implementation as each area was completed. DS:JPH:ca Attachments September 15, 1989 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING The Kent City Council will be considering a recommendation from the Planning Commission to amend the City of Kent West Hill Subarea Comprehensive Plan and Kent Official Zoning Map (CPZ 89-2) at the regularly-scheduled public meeting on Tuesday, September 19 , 1989 at 7 : 00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, Council Chambers. The City Council has the option to approve, disapprove, or modify and approve as modified, the comprehensive plan amendment as set forth by the Planning Commission in the Findings and Conclusions approved August 28, 1989 . The Council may also vote to refer the comprehensive plan back to the Planning Commissions for further proceedings. Marie Jensen, CMC City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. y A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent, Washington, concerning the procedure for City Council review of recommendations of the Planning Commission for the Kent Comprehensive Plan. WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.060 directs every City to direct its planning agency to prepare a comprehensive plan for anticipating and influencing the orderly and coordinated development of land and building uses of the code city and its environs; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.070 sets forth specific requirements for notice and public hearing by the planning agency concerning a comprehensive plan, or successive parts thereof; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.071 and RCW 35A.63.072 provides for transmission of comprehensive plan recommendations, and consideration by the City's legislative body in public meeting of those recommendations; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent has established a Planning Commission to conduct public hearings pursuant to Chapter 35A.63 RCW; and WHEREAS, it is a disservice to the Planning Commission and the members of the public who appear at Commission hearings for the Council to accept and consider information not before the Commission, and to conduct supplemental hearings; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.072, within sixty days of receipt of recommendations for the Comprehensive Plan, the City Council will consider the recommendations at a public meeting. Section 2. At the public meeting the Council will also consider such other written submittals that are filed with the City prior to the public meeting, concerning the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Section 3. Following the public meeting the Council shall vote to approve, or to disapprove, or to modify and approve as modified, the comprehensive plan. The Council may also vote to refer the comprehensive plan back to the Planning Commission for further proceedings, in which case the Council shall specify the time within which the Planning Commission shall report back its findings and recommendations on the matters referred to it. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent Washington this )/ day of 1211AjPr11 1983. \ Conc rred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of �Y� �T, 1983. '"ISABEL HOGAN, MAYOR , ATTEST: MARZE JEN N CIT CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: P. -STEP7E4 DiJULIO, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. �4 9 , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the pL day of /,yA,ecii , 1983. � � (SEAL) MARIE J , CI7�Y CLERK 5597-4 do RESOLUTION NO. , A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, regarding housing, directing an update of the Housing Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, including a area-by-area study of single-family and multifamily housing densities. WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1123, evidenced a desire to achieve reduction in the density of .multifamily housing developments through revision to Kent's comprehensive plan and zoning code; and WHEREAS, there is an increasinq imbalance between multifamily and single-family housing within the City, and a lack of availability of a mix of housing options for Kent resident;and WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned with the City's ability to provide, in a timely manner, the public facilities and services necessary to support the increase in multifamily development; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1145, endorsed options B and C of the Planning Department's July, 1987 "Report on Multifamily Density", and directed the Planning Department, Planning Commission and Hearing Examiner to undertake actions necessary to proceed with those options including gathering input from the public on the report and options; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held Public Hearings on the multifamily density reduction on November 23, 1987, January 25, 1988 and February 29, 1988; and referred its resulting recommendation to the City Council. WH£RFAS, on April 19, 1988 and June 7, 1988 the Kent Planning Committee discussed the matters related to reduction in the density of multifamily developments; and received additional public input. WHEREAS, the Council Planning Committee, on June 21, 1988, submitted to the Kent City Council it's recommendations and accompanying addendum for implementing Council Resolution 1123; NOW, THERFFORE, THE CITY CCUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. City of Kent Ordinance aM, passed contemporaneous to this resolution, amending the Kent City Zoning Code to achieve a reduction of multifamily residential housing by 20 percent is incorporated by reference into their resolution. The City-wide graduated scale reduction referenced in that ordinance shall be an interim measure, to remain in effect until the completion and adoption of an area-by-area residential analysis, as described more fully in Section 2 below. Section 2. A. The Planning Department shall conduct a study and proposed update of the housing element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, including an area-by-area analysis of multifamily residential density for the East Hill, West Hill and Valley Floor planning areas. 2. The analysis shall determine those areas which are appropriate for density increases, for potential new multifamily areas, or for density reductions. The goal of the analysis shall be to present to the Council a plan to achieve an average 20 percent reduction in total multifamily residential density. C. The study shall explore ways to encourage new single-family residential development and to maintain existing single-family neighborhoods. D. The study shall be conducted in steps, area by area. As each step is concluded, the results of the analysis shall be implemented. The results of the area-by-area study are to be proposed for implementation through text and/or map zoning 2 - amendments to be presented to the Council within one year of the adoption of their resolution. E. The step by step analysis shall include a review of the Central Business District and surrounding area in order to consider the potential for increasing residential densities in that area, either through proposed rezoning or revising of the zoning in that area. The review is for the purpose of encouraging implementation of Valley Floor residential densities increases that are needed as one element of successful implementation of a commuter rail program. F. Two city neighborhoods, an area south of Willis and a small section of North Park, shall be reviewed to consider revising the zoning of these areas, in order to maintain the neighborhoods' existing single-family residential character and to encourage single-family home ownership for, among other things, low and moderate income residents. G. The densities of future annexation areas shall be considered as annexations are presented to the Council for consideration, with the intent of ensuring that single-family housing continues to play a major role in the City's housing mix. Section 3. The Planning Department shall work with the City Council to develop a work program for the area-by-area analysis described in Section 2. Section 9 . The Planning Department shall present to the Council proposed revisions to the City's Planned Unit Development Ordinance, in order to consider the retention of availability of. a 20 percent multifamily density bonus, and in order to encourage and increase of the applications for Planned Unit Developments. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this _yam day of 1988. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of ^ ' 1988. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR 3 - ATTEST: MARIE JEN CITY LERK APPR ED AS TO FORM: SA RA DRISCO , TTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. // 7 2— , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the 5 day of _ , 1988. er (SEAL) MA E J N CITY LERK 5900-210 4 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 14 , 1989 The meeting of the Kent Planning 'Commission was called to order by Chair Martinez at 7: 30 p.m. Monday, August 14, 1989 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Linda Martinez, Chair Anne Biteman Elmira Forner Greg Greenstreet Gabriella Uhlar-Heffner COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Carol Stoner, excused Raymond Ward, excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager Dan Stroh, Senior Planner Stephen Clifton, Planner Janet Shull, Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 24 , 1989 Commissioner Forner MOVED that the minutes of the July 24 , 1989 Planning Commission be approved as printed. Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion. Chair Martinez reopened the public hearing (Verbatim Transcript) Dan Stroh: Good evening. I 'm Dan Stroh with the Planning Department and I would like to inform you about the two facets of what needs to be discussed tonight. One change in the scope of the items being discussed, which is a fairly important change, is that the staff recommendation of what would be reviewed at this time would include only the three multifamily areas, the multifamily areas that have been studied on the West Hill, which include essentially all the vacant and underdeveloped land that has been identified up there. This would not include the single family areas that have been identified earlier in the study. At this time we would propose that the Planning Commission hearing Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14 , 1989 look specifically at the multifamily areas and not at the single family areas at this time. This is somewhat of an adjustment in the earlier work. We were planning to carry this through for all three planning areas so that the scope of the work would include the multifamily areas throughout the city with single family areas not reviewed at this time. Chair Martinez: Can we stop right there and ask some questions. Dan Stroh: Sure. Chair Martinez: Do you want to talk about why, please. Dan Stroh: Sure. We have done work in looking at the single family areas and the vacant and available land that could potentially be developed in the single family areas as well . The major scope of Resolution 1172 that set up the study is toward the 20 percent reduction and the site-specific review toward that end. We have a lot of concern that given the timing and the amount and the time that has elapsed between when the Council first identified this as an issue and a priority and the current date is a long, long time that has elapsed, and that the process of looking at all single areas as well as the multifamily areas could really just pull this out into an unacceptable length of time. So we do recommend basically looking at the multifamily areas. We feel that we are looking at accomplishing some things through the study still that would address the single family issues. For instance, the single family designated overlay zone. . .would continue to recommend that that be established as an overlay in the comprehensive plan. The creation of the R1-5 district, which would be a new zoning designation, we would recommend that the Planning Commission go forward with a recommendation on that. Would also include other work we have been doing with single family development. For instance, right now the city has a Single Family Committee that has been meeting to look at a number of single family issues. In fact they just had a meeting this evening. That work will continue. They will be coming out with a range of recommendations towards encouraging single family in the city. Also, the first phase of this project in response to 1172 was the Housing Element Update. In that process there were a whole new range of policies that were introduced into the comprehensive plan housing element that addressed number of single family issues. So we feel that by moving forward on the multifamily areas we can address much of what the Council resolution asked us to address with the addition of the single steps that I mentioned. We will be moving forward on really providing a lot of the encouragement to single family that Council asked us for as well. And by doing it, limiting it basically to these two areas, we will be bringing this forward to the Council 2 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14 , 1989 in a much more timely way than would otherwise occur. The Council would then have the opportunity to decide how it wants to go on these issues while there are still decisions to be•made. Every day as we talked about last time that decisions aren't made on this, more and more sites get tied up by becoming vested through the building permit process. So we do feel that it is important to move along and take action, whatever that action may be, on the multifamily issues the Council asked us to address as soon as possible. Commissioner Greenstreet: If we feel that it makes sense to concentrate on the multifamily and not deal with the single family but we don't want to recognize the 5, 000 square foot lot until we do address the single family, can we focus just on multifamily and not have to address the 5, 000 square foot on all these West Hill . . .East Hill. . . Dan Stroh: In the West Hill area I don't believe we are recommending the R1-5 for any of the three areas. In the East Hill we are. For the multifamily areas I think the first time we will need that is in the East Hill planning area. For the East Hill we would need to create that, because we are recommending a rezone from a multifamily designation to R1-5 in the East Hill Area. Commissioner Greenstreet: Oh, all right. Dan Stroh: So we would need that for. . . .that would be at the next set of hearings which right now we are projecting to begin on August 28th for the East Hill area. But you would need to do it for the West Hill area, given the current. . .at least to put into effect the staff recommendation that is before you for the multifamily areas on West Hill. Commissioner Greenstreet: It wouldn't set a precedent or undermine any efforts to protect whatever zoning for single family on West Hill though by creating the 5000 lot. . .and that doesn't really change that it is already zoned 7200 or whatever. Dan Stroh: If you were to go ahead and create the R1-5 now and not put it into effect anywhere on West Hill, it really wouldn't have any effect at this time. It probably makes sense to go ahead and withhold action on that until the East Hill review and when that R1-5 is really needed. The other thing is. . . if this meets with the Council ' s approval. . .or with the Commission's approval, we'd be actually recommending that it is possible you'd be moving towards taking action at the earliest phase possible. If that is possible tonight, that would be great. There is another date that is possible. Set aside next week if you need to continue this 3 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14 , 1989 further, but given that basically the review is limited to the multifamily areas, it may be possible to do your deliberations tonight. In whichever case, there are findings and conclusions that would be drawn up that would summarize your deliberations and we would be able to do that. For instance, if it were tonight that you came up with a decision, we would be able to provide whatever staff support you needed for that to have something available on the regular meeting on August 28th. The other thing I wanted to add is that Stephen Clifton will be following me with some other information from the staff. We'd like to respond to some of the points raised at the last meeting both in terms of. . .I think there was some concern about notification, and also specific concerns brought up about some of the site specific analysis and he' ll be able to provide some summary comments on some of those fronts. Chair Martinez : Before we go on though, do any of the Commissioners have any further questions or comments regarding the recommendation. Elmira Forner: I have some concerns about it. But if we (unclear) don't somehow take up that number of housing units that we prevent (unclear) and we don't offer some substitute for that, we are going to create a housing shortage which is going to drive the price of houses up which means that affordable housing in that area is going to be less and less. I have a real concern about that. . .saying that we are going to reduce multifamily but we are not somehow going to substitute something in the single family housing that would be comparable. Dan Stroh: I don't think it was ever the staff' s intention to substitute single family units on a one-to-one basis for the multifamily units. If we were to be able to put into effect some of the single family recommendations we are looking at, it would provide for, I believe, something on the order of 200 or 250 units of single family. . .-not sure of the exact number. . .but versus. . .we were recommending to reach the Council ' s 20 percent target on multifamily taking off something on the order of 950 or 960 units or so of multifamily. I don't have the precise figures. I was never my intention to really have a one-to-one swap of taking multifamily areas development off and being able to replace it with single family. The single family is so much more intensive. . .or uses so much more land per unit, it is not really possible to do that. We have been aware certainly of the affordability repercussions of anything we do that would modify the housing market, and that is a concern, and it is an important concern of the study. 4 Kent Planning Commission Minutes T August 14 , 1989 Elmira Forner: What do you feel (unclear) multifamily and not the single family. Dan Stroh: I think that. . .several things on that front. One is that we are doing some things other than the site-specific analysis on the single family to address the single family encouragement and that some of those potentially could actually help to bolster the single family market and provide for additional. . .sort of spur the market on for single family development in Kent. To some degree the affordability question is a little bit different for the two markets, because many of the people who are in . . . not everybody, but many people that are in multifamily don't have the option of becoming single family occupants. And so. . .and it is not the case across the board. Some people could have the option of becoming single family owners or renters and choose to live in multifamily, but for a large portion of the population that lives in multifamily, they don't have that option, so what we do with single family really doesn't directly impact the affordability of their housing. They were talking about what happens with the multifamily rents. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: What happens (unclear) notification on East Hill since you had this change in scope. Dan Stroh: What we have done on East Hill and because these things have to be done so far in advance, we have already put all that into play. The 200-foot radius and the list of affected properties includes only the multifamily properties. . .multifamily properties that have been studied and the 200-foot radius from the multifamily properties, and the report only deals only with the multifamily areas. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: One other question. Do you (unclear) mail and update of what the housing (unclear) as far as encouraging single family housing. Dan Stroh: Sure. 'This has really been a year of housing in the Planning Department. We've had a whole series of things going on. We had the committee, as you are well aware, that met to discuss and come up with strategies for the updated housing element. They met last fall and that resulted in the new housing element of the comprehensive plan. Subsequent to that we have had three other committees appointed all dealing with housing. We had one meeting on assisted housing, one meeting on the issue of group homes, and we had one meeting on the issue of encouraging single family development. They have all been meeting simultaneously and are all pretty much into their deliberations. The Single Family Committee is at a stage where they are beginning to actually develop some 5 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14 , 1989 recommendations on actions, so we could send you kind of a digest of where they are at and what kind actions they are looking at. Commissioner Uhlar Heffner: In a way it makes sense to delete looking at site-specific concerns for single family (unclear) recommendations for single family parcels until the Single Family Committee comes up with (unclear) recommendations. Chair Martinez: Okay. Thank you. Dan Stroh: Stephen Clifton is going to follow me, and along with providing some response to things heard last week, he also has a digest or summary of the actual comments themselves that is an easier way than reading all the verbatim transcript to review what people said last week. Stephen Clifton: Hi. My name is Stephen Clifton. I am with the Kent Planning Department and I am here to partially respond regarding the last meeting' s comments. We had 13 speakers at the last meeting and one submittal via a phone call which I received and I submitted the comments to the Planning Commission. Most of the speakers were against the single family recommendations to rezone the two areas, SF4 and SF6, to Single Family R1-5. Many of the speakers. . .there were four. . .the recommendations of rezoning the multifamily land to a lower density. Some of the issues which were raised were opportunities. . .this was by Mr. Mike Larson, the loss of opportunity to build affordable housing, need for multifamily housing and wants opportunity to serve these people, and that was for Multifamily Area 2 , which is on the northwest corner of the Kent Highlands landfill . Other residents who were against the R1-5 zoning, their concerns were regarding traffic, regarding school overcrowding, water supply, utilities, police patrol and a couple of people who were worried about the devaluation of their homes due to R1-5 zoning next to their larger lots. What you have before you is a summary sheet of their concerns and, like Dan had mentioned, that is a lot easier than reading the minutes. To respond to those issues, I did talk to the Kent School District and the Federal Way School District once again, and some of the Kent citizens were very concerned. . .but Kent Schools don't serve Kent residents or Kent students. Unfortunately that is beyond our control. They mentioned to me that the people who do define those boundaries are the State Boundary Review Board and the Educational Service District. The state divides those areas into service districts and both work at trading the boundaries for these districts. I asked her what we could do as a city as far as influencing the boundaries or how to define the boundaries for the school districts. Unfortunately it is beyond our jurisdictional control. She said that these boundaries can be 6 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14 , 1989 amended or changed, but it is an extremely difficult process and it is very lengthy and whether or not they will be changed is another issue. Part of the problem is that school districts are not synonymous with city boundary districts. The City of Kent, especially up on the West Hill, is serviced by the Highline School District, the Kent School District and the Federal Way School District. As far as cities being able to agree with one another as far as what density are we going to get in this area, and what density are you going to provide in that area, in order to get the proportion of kids to fit in certain schools, it is extremely difficult to do. More county or regional planning needs to take place. Unfortunately that doesn't happen right now. I did do a break down of how many students would go to schools as a result of our recommendation. With the multifamily reductions we would have a reduction of around 37 students, and that is within the Kent School District. It is estimated that with multifamily units approximately .405 students per unit is the calculation that they use. So for 90 some units we would have a reduction of around 37 students. Now with the single family recommendations, of course if we are not looking at single family areas at this time, there is no reason to address it, but I think I should since there are people here who are from the West Hill area. In the areas SF4 and SF6, those students go to Federal Way School Districts. We would have an increase of 22 students with those recommendations. So overall for the West Hill area, we would have a reduction of around 15 students. The increase would go to Federal Way School District, and the decrease would be taken away from the Kent School District. I tried to get a hold of Federal Way School District officials, but I did not receive any calls back from them so, unfortunately, I could not tell you as to whether or not these students would be able to be accommodated in those schools. It would equal 12 students for Star Lake, five students for Totem Junior High, and four students for Thomas Jefferson High School. So you can see it is only a few students per school. But just to let people know, that would be the breakdown. We did have another concern regarding notification. These were people in area SF5 primarily. We did find the errors as to why those people were not notified. Subdivision activity had been input into the system, but somehow those parcels. . .those people who mentioned that they did not receive notice were not put into the system, so we have taken measures to rectify the situation. We would just like to thank people for bringing that to our attention, because if we are going to have any kind of mailing system in the future that is efficient and effective, we need to know about these things. Chair Martinez: Stephen, a question that I have is did you identify the problem just as far as West Hill, or -is it so that we can fix it for all the other mailings. 7 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14 , 1989 Stephen Clifton: So far we did identify it for only the West Hill. It is very likely that we won't find out about the East Hill or the Valley Floor until the hearings. Then if there are any mailing mixups or if the numbers aren't into the computer system, we' ll find out at that time. It is impossible to find out at this time whether or not. . . Chair Martinez: Who is responsible for inputting that information? Stephen Clifton: We take our information off King County tax rolls, and then in addition to that we also input information from people who have done short plats so that, for instance, they have one parcel of land and they short plat that into five parcels, we take that information and put it into the computer system. So it is . . . the majority of it is taken from the King County tax rolls, and another part of it is taken from our GIs Information System because we input the short plat into that. Voice is unclear. Stephen Clifton: According to what we are required to do, we are required only to notify people within a 2oo-foot radius of the affected areas, and so we also did advertise for this meeting in the paper as well and we did advertise for the other meeting in the Times. And we did talk with people who did not see it in the Times, but we had other people who said that they did see it in the Times. So it was in there. We used several types of methods of advertising. okay. Let's see. In regard to the multifamily areas then, as Dan had mentioned, that is what we are hoping you agree with as far as looking at the areas at this time. I did break down some figures to help you with further analysis. With the West Hill recommendations of reducing two areas from MRM to MRG and one area MRH to MRG, we would have a reduction of around 535 vehicle trips per day for those three areas. Obviously without the single family being analyzed at this time or recommendation taken on those single family areas, the increase there would be insignificant at this time. Just for your information, the difference between the single family increases and the multifamily increase was a reduction of around only 18o some vehicle trips. So, I would like to address. . .excuse me, I already did address the student population and where the students would go. In looking at all areas combined--West Hill, East Hill and Valley Floor--we would have a city-wide reduction, and this is important to know because you need to know how the West Hill fits into this, city-wide reduction of as many as 6, 115 vehicle trips per day. And so the West Hill constitutes 535 of those trips. 8 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 (Voice unclear) Stephen Clifton: That was when you combined the multifamily decreases with the single family increases in vehicle trips. (Voice unclear) Stephen Clifton: 6, 115 are the total vehicle reductions city wide. When you look at multifamily reductions city wide. (Voice unclear) Stephen Clifton: Correct. And I quickly also did some calculations right before this meeting and when you do not analyze the single family areas. . .before we were looking at 11.31 percent increase in potential single family units over what would be allowed under existing zoning. Under the recommendation of only looking at multifamily units, that drops to 9 percent, so you only have a reduction of 2 . 31 percent, so you can see that the single family zoning or the single family areas in which we were recommending single family increases was only 2 .31 percent of that. So you can see that most of the increases are coming from the multifamily reduction, and with that reduction the single family increases on that multifamily land. Okay. I believe that is all I have at this time unless you have any other questions. Chair Martinez : Thank you. Stephen Clifton: You' re welcome. Chair Martinez: A couple of things before we begin. The first one is that we are working under the rules of the Appearance of Fairness which was explained to us last time, but that is that whatever needs to be said to the Commissioners needs to be said in this forum and not outside, because we will ask the Commissioners report back and things get confusing. So, say what you have to say to' us tonight. The second thing is that there should be a list going around. . .a sign-up list. Has it been around? And has everyone who wanted to speak signed? Fred Satterstrom: Has everyone had an opportunity to sign this? Chair Martinez: If you are interested in getting any additional mailings as we go along, we also use that list for people who want to get minutes of the proceedings and that sort of thing. So, you can indicate whether you want to speak. (unclear voices) Elmira would you like to make a comment. 9 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Elmira Forner: At the last meeting there were two people in the audience, Cindy McReynolds and Dale Dodrill had asked me to get them information. Cindy had asked for information on why her child had to go to a school in Federal Way when she was in Kent, and Mr. Dodrill had asked for information on how the boundaries were formed. And I actually got information from the state and did send that to them in the mail with a correspondence, but it only had to do with school formation and why their kids went to a certain school district. Chair Martinez: Now we would like to hear from the public. The first one is Jane Koler. Jane Koler: Good evening Commissioner Martinez and members of the Planning Commission. I am Jane Koler and represent Kentview Properties, Inc. My address is 18th Floor, Pacific Building, Seattle 98104 . At the hearings which you last conducted about the rezone process you stated that you had adopted a very generalized approach to the rezone process. And I think that it is important to clarify that when you are engaged in a planning process or a legislative process, such as amending your comprehensive plan, it is perfectly permissible to have a generalized sort of process where you don't delve into a site-by-site analysis of the properties you are going to rezone. However, in a rezone process Washington law obliges you to do a very intensive site-by-site analysis of the properties which are going to be rezoned. Under Washington law a rezone process, whether its an area-wide rezone or a site-specific rezone, is a quasi-judicial proceeding. Washington law is very, very protective of the rights of individual property owners. And because of that they say even if you are rezoning, oh gosh, there are cases. . . let' s see, Woodcrest involves 500 acres, they say that is an area-wide rezone and its quasi- judicial proceedings. There is a case involving 900 acres. the Washington courts say yes, that is a quasi-judicial proceeding. In some jurisdictions. . . in some other states area-wide rezones are legislative proceedings, but not in Washington. So I think. . .by virtue of the fact that a rezone proceeding is characterized as a quasi-judicial proceeding, you have to accord the property owner certain due process protection. And those protection include a quasi-judicial hearing before the zoning classification of property is changed. Now quasi-judicial proceeding. . .hearing is basically a hearing where the property owner has notice, a full opportunity to present all evidence bearing on the rezone, an opportunity to cross examine opponents of the rezone or proponents of the rezone, whatever his position is, and a full opportunity to be notified of the date on which this proceeding will take place and the opportunity to have the decision maker to enter written findings and conclusions that specifically support that rezone or the denial 10 Kent Planning Commission Minutes _• August 14 , 1989 of that rezone. Because a rezone in Washington is a quasi- judicial proceeding even when it is an area-wide rezone, it is imperative that the Planning Commission, when you are going to rezone property, accord the property owner a full quasi-judicial hearing. And consider very carefully legal requirements imposed by Washington law and by the Kent Municipal Code on the rezone process. Before a property can be rezoned in Washington and in Kent, certain legal requirements have to be met. In fact the Kent Municipal Code actually has more rezone requirements than Washington law. And you have to meet both sets of these requirements. In the Kent Municipal Code the requirements are codified at Section 15.09, and the Washington legal requirements are that the proponent of the rezone has the burden of proof. That means that the proponent has to come forward with all kinds of evidence showing that the rezone is justified. There is presumption of validity accorded to the present zoning status of property. So if you are rezoning property, it is a really big deal. You've got to come in and you've got to show that circumstances have substantially changed at the site and in the area of the site and that the present zoning classification of the property is no longer justified because of a substantial change in circumstances. You've also got to show that the rezone is in the public interest, you've got to show that the rezone is of the particular parcel of property is in compliance with SEPA. Then the City has to enter findings and conclusions specifically supporting the rezone of the particular parcel of property. And you've got to give the property owner a quasi-judicial hearing. Kent Zoning Code also is very, very protective of the right of individual property owners. The reason that Kent has created the office of hearing examiner is to inject more due process into the administrative land use regulatory process. The ordinance which creates the office of hearing examiner states that the hearing examiner is to provide and I quote from the ordinance a greater of due process in land use regulatory hearings. And the ordinance also says the purpose of the office of hearing examiner is to separate land use policy formulation from the land use administrative process. Now the land use administrative process is when you apply specific provisions of the zoning text to specific parcels of property. So, we are dealing now when you are sitting and contemplating making a recommendation about map amendments, you are performing a land use regulatory function. Now the hearing examiner ordinance and the ordinance which creates the Planning Commission and defines your authority states that the planning process should be separated from the administrative process. So the way the city of Kent is set up the Planning Commission, it envisioned that this body would be considering policy changes and making planning decision, but that a separate body would implement these policies and apply them to specific 11 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14 , 1989 parcels of property by doing map amendments, and that office is the hearing examiner, which performs administrative functions. There is a problem with this present process. Chair Martinez: Can I ask a question. I seems that you may be arguing with the wrong people, and it may be well stated that you want this on the record; however, we have been directed by the City Council, who also looks at the hearing examiner's proceedings and we have also had it researched by the City Attorney, as I understand it, before we were directed to do that. And I don't know whether you're right or wrong. I do know what our task is, though. Jane Koler: For the record, since we have been deprived of a hearing before a hearing examiner, which your zoning code states you have a right to if you have property which is being rezoned, I 'd like to state some specific problems which I see with ordinance 2796 which interests the Planning Commission in this specific instance with the function of performing a regulatory function. It states that the Planning Commission when implementing a rezone which involves the municipal policy of reducing the density of multifamily development that the Planning Commission rather than the hearing examiner will consider such rezone decisions, such map amendments. It is contrary to law due process is what we are dealing with to accord citizens in most circumstances with the right to a hearing before the hearing examiner before their property rights are changed, and then to single out one specific instance in which you say well, this is a different kind of rezone. It still involves a rezone, it still involves a map amendment, but we are changing the process right now. For these hearings the Planning Commission is going to conduct the hearings, you are not going to be given opportunity to come in and present a bunch of evidence, cross examine the city. It' s a different proceeding. It offends due process to do that. You have to accord equal process for similar types of activities. So for map amendments you can't say in some situations we're going to accord citizens a right to have a hearing before the hearing examiner, and in this one specific instance we're abandoning that procedure. We are ignoring the zoning code. We' re ignoring the provisions in the ordinance creating the office of hearing examiner. We're ignoring the provisions in the ordinance creating the Planning Commission which state that the planning function and the regulatory function should be separate, and we're going ahead and enact this new procedure which provides for a sort of different process. So there's a constitutional problem with that ordinance which has directed you to hear amendments concerning map amendments, and it is contrary to other provisions of the municipal code. Because this rezone significantly affects the owners of Kentview Properties and 12 Kent Planning Commission Minutes _. August 14 , 1989 significantly changes their property rights, their development rights, they are requesting officially that they be accorded a hearing 'before the hearing examiner and to have the hearing examiner consider this rezone. So as part of the record tonight I 'd like the record to reflect this official request we are making to the city. There are a few other considerations I think that must be considered, and one of those is affordable housing. Everybody. . .when you read the papers you see the rising cost of single family housing is a great concern. And certainly a lot of people in other years who would purchase single family housing are forced to live in multifamily housing. And there is a strong concern that there be affordable multifamily housing. The City of Kent beginning, oh gosh I guess, in about (unclear) has radically reduced the amount of property that is available for multifamily development. They rezoned a lot of property along the Green River for agricultural use, which was a holding zone for more intense future development, including multifamily development. That property no longer is available. Now you are reducing the density which is allowed in multifamily zones, and I think that all of these decisions are going to create a sort of, I guess a fancy bedroom community without much affordable multifamily housing. So it is important to remember that when you rezone property, there is a public interest in having. . .you have to show that it serves the public interest. Certainly there is a strong public interest in having affordable multifamily housing available. Also, there is a lot of talk about not being sufficient, you know there are transportation problems and that sort of thing. Whenever a developer does a development, you always can impose mitigation through SEPA on that developer and have them provide infrastructure improvements that are necessary. Kentview Properties is very concerned about this process and about having their density reduced simply because they are very close to the landfill site, and that will perhaps be a hardship on their abilities to develop the property, will make it more expensive, and they are certainly interested in having the maximum amount of density that they can at that site. Does anyone have any questions? Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: I do. You have these procedural concerns about the staff recommended site-specific alternatives for multifamily properties, do you have the same procedural objections to the text reduction which is an across-the-board reduction multifamily by 20 percent, irregardless of site characteristics. Jane Koler: Okay. The text reduction. . .I haven't looked at that specifically. . .the Planning Commission does have the authority to enact text amendments. You don't have the authority under the zoning code to enact map amendments. If the text amendment amends 13 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 the zoning map, then it seems to me that we are dealing with something that is tantamount to a map amendment. Commissioner Unhlar-Heffner: A text reduction, as I understand it, is simply following the ordinance which instructs the Planning Department to reduce across-the-board multifamily housing by 20 percent. So it is not looking at site characteristics. Jane Koler: I think that is. . .really when you get into that sort of text amendment it is really tantamount to amending the zoning map. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: So you would see that as amending the. . . Jane Koler: Whenever you change development rights, there is a long line of cases stating that you've got to have a hearing, because the property owner has been paying taxes, he's purchased the price in reliance on zoning classification. So when those rights are changed, he has to have the opportunity to come forward and present all the evidence that he wishes to. Commissioner Forner: You're not questioning the hearing, you're just questioning us acting as a hearing. . . Jane Koler: I 'm questioning not having a hearing before the hearing examiner. Commissioner Forner: But this is a hearing. Jane Koler: But this is different than when you can come in with experts and you can spend as much time as you need to, like cross examining the members of the city that are presenting conclusions, like. . .there are some very interesting conclusions of this whole rezone proposition.' Commissioner Forner: So you are questioning this as acting as a. . . Jane Koler: Quasi-judicial hearing. Commissioner Forner: I have one more question. You mentioned an RCW at the beginning. Do you have the number of that RCW that you quoted. . .the state Jane Koler: The state requirements on the rezone process. You find the state requirements are articulated in cases beginning with Parkridge v Seattle. Let me get you the citation. . .Do you want the citation for these. 14 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14 , 1989 Commissioner Forner: What general topic would it be under. Jane Koler: lt' s 89 Washington 2nd page 444. I have it over at my seat. I can correct that. This is an area I understand that the city justifies as being a legislative proceeding on the basis that it is an area-wide rezone. Woodcrest Investors is a court of appeals case, and it very squarely addresses the issue of whether a rezone which covers an area is a quasi-judicial proceeding, and the conclusion of that case is yes. And I can also. . .I 'll just give you a note that has the citations. Then the city has also said that this is legislative, because the zoning amendments. . .the map amendments were initiated by the city. But Barry v Kitsap County addresses this issue in its annexation zoning. It' is city initiated, and it is even initial zoning which is being imposed on property which is being annexed into the city. And the court very clearly says because specific property rights are more affected than the rights of the populace at large, we've got to consider this a quasi-judicial proceeding. It just seems that these proceedings are so protracted. They' ll be at the Planning Commission and then they will go on to Council, and I think it makes good sense to do it right because it is affecting property owners ' rights, so why not have hearings before hearing examiners. Or else if you want it before the Planning Commission, I think there is a problem with having a Planning Commission hearing simply because your Planning Commission ordinance and your hearing ordinance are so emphatic about separating the planning and zoning functions, the planning and administrative functions, that I think that is a real problem the way Ordinance 2796 combines those functions. Commissioner Forner: Probably this is rhetoric, but you say that the Planning Commission cannot act as a quasi-judicial committee in this hearing. Jane Koler: The way your ordinances are set up, like in some cities Planning Commissions do perform. . .they do conduct quasi- judicial administrative hearings. In Kent you happen to have set your ordinances up so that the Planning Commission performs planning functions, policy-making functions, and then the hearing examiner performs administrative functions. Then when you think about it, it makes good sense because policy decisions everybody is all fired up about and they want to see them implemented straight across the board. Hearing examiner has a little bit more distance from the planning process and he is able to say, well now, is it fair to apply this policy in this situation. Let's consider all the characteristics of this particular property and balance those against the city' s need to apply these new policies. And it can work the opposite way. . . the property owner can be saying yeah, 15 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14 , 1989 yeah I want my property to be rezoned, and the hearing examiner can be balancing and say wait, this is what the comprehensive plan says about this area. This is what the city's planning objectives are for this area and balancing them with interest. Commissioner Forner: But apparently the municipal code says that we could, otherwise we wouldn't have been given this job. So you think the state. . . Jane Koler: No, not the state, the city impermissible enacted Ordinance 2796. That' s the ordinance which entrusts you with performing this quasi-judicial function. I think that in doing that,' you know, first of all there's a problem with having different processes for a map amendment. For saying to most of the citizens in Kent, yes, if you want a map amendment, you get to have a hearing before the hearing examiner, which usually those hearings last two or three hours. Then to say but if the rezone consider. . . if the map amendment pertains to the reduction of multifamily density, then you have to go before the Planning Commission, everybody is going to be given 10 minutes to speak and that' s your fair hearing. So there are inherent problems with the task that you have been asked to perform, because you are not considering all the characteristics of all the individual properties. That would be too tough. I think that's why Kent divided the planning functions from the administrative functions. Commissioner Forner: We' ll have to go back to the legislative body and ask if we are legal. Chair Martinez : We have, actually. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: Just one more question. You are representing which property owners. Jane Koler: Kentview Properties, Inc. Kentview Properties Inc. , they own the Kent Highlands site. Commissioner Uhlar Heffner: That's Multifamily Area Two. Jane Koler: Yes. And because this is adjacent, the property they own is adjacent to the Kent Highlands, they are very concerned with having a decision maker consider all the complexities there are at this site rather than just have sort of a generalized approach to map amendments in this case. commissioner Greenstreet: Approximately three years ago or so, remember Kent Highlands sponsored a large contingent before the Planning Commission and they had engineers, lawyers, experts that 16 Kent Planning commission Minutes August 14, 1989 had done landfills from San Francisco, up the coast, U of W. and so they recognized the Planning Commission back then, and addressed them as so. . . about six so-called experts, and I didn't hear the statements that you are making then. Jane Koler: I can't comment on what they said then. Commissioner Greenstreet: All I am saying is that the Kent Highlands was the owner of that property and he had a very large, almost a community such as the Lakes that he was envisioning, and so they recognized the Planning Commission back then. I am just putting that in. You are making your statements and just remembered this owner before 'had approached this body in a different way. Jane Koler: I guess I have very strong feelings about this. I have been involved with a zoning appeal of part of the Kent Highlands property, and if your zoning code provides for a procedure, it makes a lot of sense to go with that procedure, because why spend the city's time and money on an expensive appeal process, and why spend the property owner's time and money. There is better stuff to be doing with money than grinding through the Washington court systems. Commissioner Greenstreet: one question I guess I 'd have is asking Fred if we can just follow through on the procedures that we've been going through on this and she can address this in another way. Chair Martinez: As I understand it, we have already addressed that with. . .the Council addressed that before it came to us. Is that correct? Fred Satterstrom: You can stay closer, Jane. Perhaps something I say will spur some thought on your part. For the record I am Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager in the Planning Department. I want to have the Planning Commission rest assured that the City staff and the City' Council have reviewed the ordinance that Ms. Koler has cited to you that authorizes the Planning Commission to hold hearings on this zoning matter. our city attorney basically drafted the ordinance that directs the Planning Commission to hold these hearings. The City feels, the administration feels that the process it has directed the Planning Commission to do is in fact a legal one. It is not unprecedented either. We have done the same process of having the Planning Commission hold the public hearings on zoning six or seven years ago in conjunction with the agricultural zoning on the west and south sides of the Green River. We did it also in conjunction with the subarea study up on East Hill where the Planning Commission rezoned a number of commercial 17 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14 , 1989 properties out there. Ms. Koler has suggested that perhaps a separate hearing be done on each separate piece of property, and really were that the ideal situation, I think . . .or if that were feasible, then perhaps we could do that. If we fully analyzed 744 vacant and underdeveloped parcels, and were we to hold individual hearings on each one of those individual parcels which are scattered throughout the city in all of the three subareas, we'd be here until doomsday holdings hearings in front of the hearing examiner. The Council directed the Planning Commission to do this study for good reason, and that is because you have a broader, more general approach to these matters. The city believes it is a legislative type of process and one that would designate the Planning Commission to hold the hearings on. So we can look at it through that broader prospective. So I would urge the Planning Commission not to spend too much time on whether or not this process is legal or illegal. The simple matter of it is that the administration would not have directed the Planning Commission to do it if it didn't think it was the proper process. Commissioner Forner: Still one question. Is there a possibility of it being challenged individually for constitutionality over a technicality. Fred Satterstrom: Certainly. I think the opportunity to challenge this action on a number of grounds is available. I don't want to play lawyer here but I leave that to Jane and the attorneys, but I suspect that a number of property owners may in this process be concerned enough certainly to at least hire attorneys to look at it. And the possibility of a lawsuit on this as well as countless other matters that the Commission may deal with are always susceptible to lawsuits. Jane Koler: Those sites that you were talking to me about, Parkridge is 89 Washington 2d 454 , that reiterates all the basic legal requirements imposed on rezones. Woodcrest Investments v Skagit County 39 Washington App 622 addresses the issue of whether an area-wide rezone is legislative or quasi-judicial proceedings and concludes that it is a quasi-judicial proceeding. I can't ask you to analyze the legal merits of whether you should be conducting these hearings. I am convinced that there are significant problems with this present process, ordinance #2796. I would like to request either a hearing before the Planning Commission, a full hearing where we can present a bunch of witnesses and cross examine the city' s witnesses, because we are entitled to a quasi-judicial hearing. There is no doubt about that. Thank you very much for your patience. 18 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14 , 1989 Chair Martinez: Thank you. The next person who has signed up to speak is Kim Wise. Karev Wise: For the record my name is Karey Wise, K A R E Y, and whether it is Karey or Kim, either way I'm he. My address is 26841 Downing Avenue South. I come to this meeting a little bit cold and with quite a bit of tunnel vision tonight. My own concerns deal with parcel SF6. - I 've been told that the access for that development is going to be going directly in front of a school. . .the only ingress and egress for that parcel will be directly through a school zone. The main purpose of my being up here is to request the Planning Council to take a very careful look at the vehicle trips back and forth in front of that school in considering the increased density. Chair Martinez: If we go along with the recommendations that have been made tonight by the Planning Department, the density recommendations will not change in single family plot 6. That is the new recommendation that has been brought to us by the department. Karev Wise: Thank you. Chair Martinez: Thank you for your concern. Patricia Rommick, unless I 've mispronounced it badly. Patricia Rommick: No, I didn't want to speak. Chair Martinez: Are there any other people who have signed up to speak tonight. Then I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Greenstreet: So moved. Elmira Forner: Second. Chair Martinez: Discussion. All in favor. Commissioners: Aye Chair Martinez: Opposed. (Silence) Chair Martinez : We have several things before us that we need to discuss. How would you like to start. Commissioner Greenstreet: The proposal made by the staff as far as multifamily and not addressing single family. . .I am personally in agreement that it would speed up the process of the West, East 19 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14 , 1989 and Valley Floor as an overall way to deal with this. It looks like it would be better for us getting through this and then review the single family, because that seems to be the burden that we have in this. . .West Hill especially. I 'm sure we'll run into it on the East Hill. So I have no problems with that recommendation. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: I would agree with that. I would like to see some recommendations from the Single Family Housing committee before we take up the issue of single family housing. Commissioner Forner: I still have the concern, even though I 've been assured that the purpose of this is not to trade off apartments for single family, but I still have some concerns about availability and affordability of single houses if they don't deal with it. Chair Martinez: However, do you think that we may be mixing apples and oranges here to the point where we would never actually make it through the process. Commissioner Forner: That' s probably true. Chair Martinez: That' s a concern of mine that we get through the process. . . Commissioner Forner: That we deal with one issue at a time. Chair Martinez: Yes. They aren't going to get any smaller without it. And they will either be built on it at a higher density only if we make sure it comes to us again. Commissioner Greenstreet: I make a move that we accept the recommendation. . . Chair Martinez : With the exclusion of the single family consideration. Commissioner Greenstreet: Correct. Chair Martinez: Which recommendation. . .we have actually four before us. Commissioner Greenstreet: Well, it did include adding the 5000 zoning change to the plan, but it is not using it in a single family review. 20 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14 , 1989 Chair Martinez: Okay. We have no action, we have site specific reduction, text reduction, or the other which doesn't exactly apply to the West Hill. So -which does your motion speak to. Commissioner Greenstreet: I didn't realize that this had to deal with these alternative plans. Commissioner Forner: We were just discussing whether to deal only with multifamily housing. We weren't discussing which. . . Chair Martinez: I thought you were making a motion to. . . Commissioner Greenstreet: No, I wasn't. Chair Martinez: I 'm sorry, I misunderstood. Would you repeat;your motion again. Commissioner Greenstreet: The motion was at the original start of the hearing was staff made a recommendation that we limit our review to multifamily reduction and the creation of the 5000 lot size. Isn't that correct? Dan Stroh: Yes Chair Martinez : Just to the multifamily Dan Stroh: (Unclear) Commissioner Forner: I second that motion. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: They did bring up the single family overlay zone that they would like to have that considered as well as the R5. Commissioner Greenstreet: Maybe I should have that clarified because I 'm not sure. . . (unclear) . Stephen Clifton: Stephen Clifton, Kent Planning Department. What we are asking for is only the review of the three multifamily areas and recommendation on those. We are asking for the single family designated overlay area to be approved. We are asking that the Rl- 5 zoning classification not be approved at this time and to wait for the East Hill hearing instead. We are asking for the text reduction for the West Hill Comp Plan as is stated in the back of the report and the comp plan changes in regard to the three multifamily areas. 21 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14 , 1989 Commissioner Greenstreet: I 'm going to table my motion just because it is more complicated. Chair Martinez: Will you move to table it? Commissioner Greenstreet: The overlay, are we addressing WH-12? Chair Martinez: Just a moment. Let me get a second on the tabling before we go any further. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: I second that. Chair Martinez: Now where am I. Now you would like to discuss. Commissioner Greenstreet: Yes, I just want to clarify it. I didn't know it was going to be . . . one whole. . .on one motion to decide the whole thing. That was not my intent. Chair Martinez: Why don't you make the motion that you intend. Commissioner Greenstreet: If that's the proper procedure to do it in bits and pieces. Chair Martinez: We can decide. Commissioner Greenstreet: That' s fine. My intent to move that we just address the multifamily, that we create the 5000 lot size (unclear) for the single family homes in multifamily-zoned areas. Those are the two things that I thought were the starting blocks. Stephen Clifton: Then in addition to that you do want to make sure that the comp plan reflects the zoning changes which are taking place. In other words, if you are changing Multifamily Area One from MRM to MRG, that area would need to be MF24 or 12-24 units an acre. MRG zoning is 16 units an acre; therefore, it falls within that range and so therefore that' s why you need to identify that as being MF24 . Commissioner Forner: Isn't that a technicality that goes along with the change? Stephen Clifton: Well, you want the comp plan and the zoning plan to reflect each other and to make sure that. . . Commissioner Greenstreet: That they are in tune with each other. (Unclear) . . .nothing drastic there. 22 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14 , 1989 Stephen Clifton: You are just making sure that the two are compatible. Commissioner Greenstreet: Okay. I have no problem with that. So part of the motion is that the comp plan and this plan are compatible or reflect one another. Stephen Clifton: - In addition to that you would also want to address the single family designated area overlay district. Commissioner Greenstreet: See now we are getting in (unclear) where we are not. . .I don't totally understand. When you say the single family overlay, now am I getting off the beaten path. James Harris: Perhaps that needs to be explained. I am supposed to be up on this stuff and I 'm a little bit confused, too. I think what we need to do is go through one step at a time. For instance, we are asking that multifamily only be approved and we are not dealing with any sites specific single family. Two, we are asking. . .and I think we are asking 5000 text amendment to also be included, although I heard someone say that maybe that could be put off until the East Hill hearing. Three, we are discussing also a large overlay that designates where single family areas will be on West Hill. In other words there will be a line drawn around and this is a single family neighborhood for West Hill . Stephen Clifton: Right. You can turn to page WH-49 and that shows the single family designated area concept. James Harris: The other thing is to bring the comp plan into sync with the thing we are doing also, or the other should be in line. Chair Martinez: Can't we do them one at a time so there is no confusion about what we are doing. James Harris: Yes, we're giving an overview of what we are doing. Chair Martinez: By the way, I 'd like to go back in the minute. . .just a second. We had a move to table and I had a second. Did I have a vote on it? Voice: No chair Martinez : I apologize. We should vote on that so that is clear in the record. Commissioner Forner: When you table a motion, (unclear) bring it up again. . . 23 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Chair Martinez: But we need to vote on it. All in favor. Commissioners: Aye. Chair Martinez: opposed. (Silence) Thank you. Now you wanted to make a motion. Commissioner Greenstreet: The third time's a charm. We are going to go out on number 1, number 2 , number 3 , number 4 and make a motion on each one and approve it. Chair Martinez: That would probably be the way I would recommend whatever way you make the motion, we' ll see what we think. Commissioner Greenstreet: That would be my intent. The motion is that we just move on the multifamily development sites to disallow the single family problem and separate them and concentrate on single family. Chair Martinez: Is there a second to that? Commissioner Forner: Now you' re just talking West Hill. Let's make sure we understand that. Chair Martinez: Is there discussion? All in favor. Commissioners: Aye Chair Martinez: opposed. (Silence) Do you want to consider this before you go on to any other motion, which I think would be an excellent idea, because then you will know what you are making a motion on. Voices: Sure Chair Martinez: We have three alternatives in front of us. We have no action, we have sites specific reduction, and we have the text reduction. What is your pleasure? Commissioner Forner: We are legal to go site specific. Chair Martinez: We have been told we are and we will act that way until we are told differently. Commissioner Forner: If this is just for the multifamily that we are talking about text reduction. Chair Martinez: Yes. We are talking about. . . (unclear) or no action. 24 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Commissioner Forner: That means that everybody does the same Chair Martinez: Twenty percent reduction across the board. Commissioner Forner: I move that we adopt the text reduction for the multifamily zones on West Hill. Commissioner Greenstreet: Now just let me review for a second. Chair Martinez: Is there a second. Anne Biteman: I ' ll second that. Chair Martinez: Now the text reduction will be 20 percent across the board for all sites zoned multifamily. Commissioner Greenstreet: Now I 'm looking at Multifamily Area 1, 2 and 3 proposed zoning change on WH-19 . Chair Martinez: Okay, I 'm looking at 18 . Commissioner Greenstreet: And when you are looking at that (unclear) . . .text. Chair Martinez: No, that is site specific. Commissioner Greenstreet: Site specific. And the same when I look at WH-22 , that' s site specific also. Chair Martinez: That' s correct. Commissioner Greenstreet: Okay. I guess my question is why do you prefer text to sites specific. Commissioner Forner: Because it is more equitable. Everybody reduces 20 percent and you then don't get into the hassle of saying you have made me do 'more and why did you make this one reduce more than that one. Everybody is treated equally. Reduce it 20 percent across the board. . .all multifamily. Chair Martinez: I would hasten to remind you that this is why we have it back because the Council disagreed with us (unclear) . Commissioner Forner: And you don't get into the individual differences of why one would have to reduce more than the other. Commissioner Greenstreet: I know when we were doing it, basically the theme of most of the people that we've heard is that they are 25 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14 , 1989 trying to establish the quality of their neighborhood, and site specific seems to be more in tune with the neighborhood which is single family. Because there isn't on the West Hill that much multifamily, and so to have a less density is really into the flow of things than to be concentrated. We've heard everything from moratorium where there is no building and less traffic, less crowded schools. . .everything points to less dense from everything we've heard. . .other than affordable housing. That's the only argument I 've heard for more density. In (unclear) multifamily intent, I think the affordable housing Kent has done its share. The community has done its share. . .the schools, the roads and everybody that has to deal with that problem are feeling that the community is doing more than its share. Commissioner Forner: We' re just talking about the West Hill now. Commissioner Greenstreet: Right. I 'm on the West Hill traffic and schools. Commissioner Forner: So you recommend that we go more than 20 percent. Is that not enough? Commissioner Greenstreet: Looking at the sites specific plan and looking at the density there and I feel that is more acceptable. Chair Martinez: you feel it is more acceptable because it reduces density more or for other reasons. of the ns se of Commissioner way it affects thewhole community. . .street: That is one .overcrowded oschools,u the hour- late bussing. Commissioner Forner: But it doesn't reduce it more, does it. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: It does. Text reduction achieves an overall reduction of 3600 units and the sites specific achieves 35. I 'm sorry you are right. Commissioner Forner: But that was including single family. Commissioner Uhlar Heffner: But that is broken out separately. Chair Martinez: But if you look at the totals, one of them. . . is this correct, staff. . .there is about 85 more units. . . (unclear) two more here, nine more there and 40 more there. . .about 50 more in the sites specific for the reduction. Is that correct? 26 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14 , 1989 Dan Stroh: There are more reductions for the West Hill area for these three areas that would be put into effect with the sites specific reduction. Because we are going from Multifamily Area 1, we are going from the current MRM zoning, Medium Density, down to Garden Density, that's 23 down to 16. Straight 20 percent would be 23 down to 19. MF Area 2 in West Hill we are recommending going from MRM, Medium Density, down to MRG, again 23 units per acre down to 16. Area 3 MRH, -High Density, recommending all the way down to Garden Density, that' s 40 down to 16. In this particular area it is a greater reduction. The city totals. . .when you look at the city totals of course, our end result was to find different ways of achieving the bottom line 20 percent. So you might take more off in one area and less off somewhere else, but it was all juggled to produce a bottom line 20 percent impact. So that is why the city totals look the same. In this particular case the sites specific will take a little more than 20 percent off West Hill. Commissioner Forner: And the other thing, I would rather have the West Hill have more apartments than the East Hill, because they are closer to transportation, they are closer to the infrastructure rather than having to provide more services and part of the infrastructure further out in the rural area. I think good planning promotes higher densities nearer public transportation and facilities. Commissioner Greenstreet: But that' s just a philosophy. You can talk to one group of people. . .planners and they can say that at this intersection concentrate your people. You can get another group of planners and they at this intersection there will be more people stopped at a traffic light, interacting and everything should be built off so that there is more view, more light because there is so many people there and things are built away from it. So you can get two groups of people saying two different ways to build. I 'm not saying either one is right, but in this situation I happen to lean toward less. When I review East it might not be site specific. On the overall plan and for the good of the community West Hill', East Hill, Valley Floor, this plan I think is the best for the West Hill. If it' s good for the West Hill, then I think it would be good for all of Kent. If West Hill reduces, I 'm not saying add the people to East Hill. I'm not saying that at all. I 'm looking at it strictly at the planning of West Hill, a quality community. And for those people, the schools, that traffic, I think it's the best approach. commissioner Forner: I disagree. Chair Martinez: The thing that has been uppermost in my mind when I 've been looking at this are things such as. . .transportation is 27 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14 , 1989 already in all three of these areas where we are talking about text reduction at level E and F. And you may say that there are transportation sites there, but in fact they are almost to capacity at the present time. Simply by going with the sites specific, it would seem to me that. . .I have to admit in the overall city, the West Hill is not going to bear the brunt of (unclear) multifamily. It seems to me that we need to take into consideration that with an even hand these same kinds of factors as we are going to look at the West Hill and at the Valley in that these people are almost at gridlock. They have no sidewalks, in many cases there are other parts of the infrastructure that don't exist up there. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: I guess I can- see where adopting the text reduction across the board is the most equitable and easiest way of accomplishing this; however, you don't have the options for going from the multifamily to residential zoning with an across- the-board 20 percent reduction. I think that is probably appropriate in some cases. We don't have that being brought up on the West Hill, but we do with the East Hill and the Valley Floor. And I guess I 'd like to see that option made available. And I do like the fact that with the sites specific recommendations, the staff did make an attempt to look at impacts with transportation and impacts on the schools and utilities. Where with an across- the-board reduction you don't get that (unclear) analysis. So I guess I would favor the sites specific alternatives for the West Hill multifamily. Looking at those options rather than across- the-board text reduction. Chair Martinez: Anne, do you have anything you want to add. Commissioner Biteman: I guess (unclear) I 'm not for more apartments on the West Hill, but we have to have them, I guess. So I would like to have the most amount of reduction. Chair Martinez : Is there a call for the question. Commissioner Greenstreet: What' s the motion? Chair Martinez: The motion before us is to accept the recommendation of the text reduction, which is an across-the-board 20 percent reduction in the three multifamily areas that we are looking at. Commissioner Forner: We didn't get a second on it. Chair Martinez : Yes, we did. Anne Biteman seconded it. All in favor. 28 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Commissioners: Aye (Commissioners Forner and Biteman) Chair Martinez: Opposed. Commissioners: Nay (Commissioners Greenstreet, Uhlar-Heffner) Chair Martinez: I 'm looking for another motion then. Commissioner Greenstreet: I move that we accept the site specific reduction for West Hill. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: I second that. Chair Martinez : Is there further discussion. Commissioner Forner: Call for the question. Chair Martinez: All in favor. Commissioners: Aye (Greenstreet, Martinez, Uhlar-Heffner, Biteman) Chair Martinez: Opposed. Commissioner Forner: Nay Chair Martinez: So that is our recommendation on the density reduction alternative. The next thing to consider is the new zoning. Commissioner Greenstreet: Where in the text could that be found exactly. Dan Stroh: If I may lead you to pages WH-47 and WH-48, at the end of the report are listed out the four actions that staff was proposing to be done as part of the review tonight. We still would be proposing that all four of those be accomplished tonight with the exception of course of the single family areas in item 4 zoning map amendments. We would continue to propose that items 1, West Hill Subarea Plan text amendments be made. These are needed to bring some of the text in the subarea plan for West into conformance with the recently passed housing element in the city's general comprehensive plan. Item 2, Subarea and Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments, what these do is they do make the zoning and the comprehensive plan maps consistent for the West Hill Area. It also includes the creation of the single family designated area overlay which we continue to feel would be an appropriate action even without taking the specific zoning action on the single family sites. It is designed to really protect the area, basically the area that is of the single family character on West Hill. The 29 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 third action on page WH-48 is the zoning code amendment creating the R1-5 district. The Commission could take or could not take that action tonight. We don't need it for Area 1, 2 or 3 , but that would be up to you whether or not you want to move on that tonight. Then, of course, the zoning map amendments which, having decided on the specific way of doing the zoning map amendments with the site specific analysis, you've already partially moved on that one. Chair Martinez: What is the pleasure of the Commission. Commissioner Greenstreet: I move we create a new zoning district, R1-5. Chair Martinez: Is there a second. Commissioner Forner: Are you talking about number 3 , create a R1- 5. Chair Martinez: Is there a second. It dies for want of a second. Commissioner Greenstreet: Okay, number 2. Isn't that the single family area. I move we accept the recommendation #2 there. . .single family designated area which is shown on map 49, WH-49 . Chair Martinez: Are you moving to amend the West Hill Plan Map to create single family designated area overlay and to amend the West Hill Plan Map for implementation to site specific recommendation. . .to multifamily area MF03? commissioner Greenstreet: Yes. Chair Martinez: Is there a second. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: I second that motion. Chair Martinez: Is there discussion. And we all understand that nothing (unclear) I don't know where that is going to be yet. Is there any discussion on this. Commissioner Forner: We've already done part of it. All we are doing is saying is do we accept the overlay where the single families are. Call for the question Chair Martinez: All in favor. Commissioners: Aye 30 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Chair Martinez: Opposed. (Silence) Thank you. We have to amend the West Hill Subarea Plan which we have not done. Commissioner Greenstreet: Which is number 1. Chair Martinez: That changes the housing element and the public facilities and services (unclear) . Commissioner Forner: I move we amend the West Hill Subarea Plan test as proposed in number 1 on page WH-47 . Chair Martinez : Is there a second to that? Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: I second that. Chair Martinez: Is there discussion? Commissioner Forner: Call for the question. Chair Martinez: All in favor. Commissioners: Aye Chair Martinez: Opposed. (Silence) The last thing we really have to do is make the zoning map amendment to go along with the motion that we want to go with the sites specific recommendation. Commissioner Forner: But we don't have to amend it for single family, we only have to amend it for multifamily. Chair Martinez: That is correct. Commissioner Forner: I move we amend the zoning map for multifamily areas MFO11 02 , and 03 . Commissioner Greenstreet: I second. Chair Martinez: Okay. Is there further discussion? Question. All in favor. Commissioners: Aye Chair Martinez: Opposed. (Silence) Motion carried. Dan Stroh: For clarification of that motion. . .was to amend the zoning map consistent with the item 4 in the staff report which was from the current designations of MRM, MRM and MRH respectively to MRG for all three areas. 31 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 1989 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Acting Chair Stoner at 7 : 30 p.m. Monday, August 28, 1989 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Stoner, Acting Chair Anne Biteman Elmira Forner Greg Greenstreet Leona Orr Raymond Ward COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Linda Martinez, excused Elmira Forner, excused Gabriella Uhlar-Heffner, excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning- Manager Dan Stroh, Senior Planner Lauri Anderson, Planner Stephen Clifton, Planner Janet Shull, Planner Scott Williams, Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF AREA HOUSING STUDY - WEST HILL Commissioner Greenstreet MOVED and Commissioner Ward SECONDED a motion to approve the Findings and Conclusions of the Planning Commission for the City of Kent Area Housing Study -- West Hill. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Harris explained that the findings will go to Council and that the Comprehensive Plan is open for amendment at any time the Council chooses to assign study or when the Planning Commission desires to reopen the issue. It is permanent only until further study is requested. Planning Commission Minutes August 28 , 1989 EAST HILL ZONING IMPLEMENTATION CPZ 89-3 (Verbatim Transcript) Acting Chair Stoner: We will now open the public hearing on the East Hill Housing Study. Because there is such a large group this evening, I 'd like to be very clear about our procedures and how we need to do this. First of all, we are going to have about a 15- minute staff presentation so that we are all current and know what the information is, and this may answer many of your questions if you have questions about what is going on. Then I will be interested in hearing testimony from you. There is a sign up sheet circulating, and I will call people off that sheet until 10: 00 . At 10 o'clock if we have not heard from everyone, we will make a decision— if there are just a couple of people left, we will finish. If there are more people left, then I think we will move to continue the meeting, and we will give you the date at that point when the next meeting on this issue will be. I want to make it clear that we are operating under Appearance of Fairness guidelines for this set of hearings. What that means is that we need everybody' s comment as part of the record. We need your comments and your testimony on the record, so we want you to come to the podium, use the microphone so we make sure we have a clear record and a tape of what has happened and we know what your concerns and questions are. The other thing I would ask you to do, if you have questions, if you have items you want clarified, would you please direct your questions to the chair. We then will ask staff to clarify for you, but that is another matter that will make things go more smoothly. At this point. . . I assume the signup sheet is circulating. We will circulate that and we have some people on it and we will start with the staff presentation. James Harris: Madam Chair, before we get into the staff presentation I 'd like to have the Commission enter into the record three letters we have received. I will quickly go through these. The first letter is from James C. Tracy, Acting Director of King County Planning and Community Development Division of the Parks, Planning and Resources Department of King County. He simply has a letter discussing this matter and would like the opportunity to more fully respond by September 15, 1989 after reviewing the area housing studies. The next letter is from Donna D. Sampson. The subject matter is in response to your letter dated 15 August 1989 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF KENT ZONING CODE. The next letter is from John Meinzinger, and that is a letter concerning the East Hill Sub Plan and zoning changes. Commissioner Ward: I don't have the second one. We're supposed to have all three of them. 2 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 24 , 1989 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Martinez at 7 : 30 p.m. Monday, July 24 , 1989 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Linda Martinez , Chair Elmira Forner Greg Greenstreet Gabriella Uhlar-Heffner Anne Biteman, absent Carol Stoner, excused Raymond Ward, excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Dan Stroh, Senior Planner Stephen Clifton, Planner Lauri Anderson, Planner Janet Shull , Planner Scott Williams, Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 19 , 1989 Commissioner Forner MOVED that the minutes of the June 19 , 1989 Planning Commission meeting be approved as printed. Commissioner Greenstreet SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Mr. Satterstrom announced that the City Council approved unanimously the public notice board amendment and that it should be in effect within six weeks. WEST HILL ZONING IMPLEMENTATION CPZ 89-2 (Verbatim Transcript) Chair Martinez: I would like to open the public hearing on the area housing study. I just want to make a couple of remarks so both the audience and the Commission are very clear about what we are doing tonight. Tonight we are hearing the first in a series of proposals to reduce the multifamily zoning in undeveloped and underdeveloped areas in the City of Kent. Tonight we are hearing testimony on the West Hill. When the deliberations are completed Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 on the West Hill, we will move to the East Hill, and then to the Valley Floor. We will do them in sequence. I want to mention to those of you in the audience the we are looking at large areas within each one of these individual planning areas, rather than looking plot by plot at what is going on there. You'd help us a lot if you would make your comments. . . I know many of you may be interested in plot by plot comments, but if you would also address yourselves to us on the larger areas. For those of you who do not have a study proposal, they are on the table over here. Please help yourself. If anyone thinks they might want to speak, please be sure you are on the sign-up list which is. . .thank you. . . in the back of the room. You don't have to speak, but if you think you might, please do sign. Tonight we are convened in a quasi- judicial body, and as such I have asked the Kent Legal Department to spend three to five minutes discussing with us and with those in the audience the rules that we must abide by. We have a lot of people here that I assume most of you will want to speak, so I ask that each of you keep your remarks as brief as possible while giving us as much of the information that you want to communicate to us. I will ask you at the end of ten minutes to stop talking so that everyone gets an opportunity. Those of us on the Commission will be considering the proposals in the following light. We will be looking very closely at the new housing element that has just been passed by the City Council and we will be looking at the fulfillment of the City Council objectives of a good housing mix for the City, adherence to the Comprehensive Plan and to the regional plans. Another thing we will be looking at is. . .does the proposal make good planning sense in the light of transportation, schools and other parts of the infrasystem. Also, we are looking at how does it affect the surrounding neighborhood and the transition from one use to another. If the speakers can address any or all of these considerations, it will assist the Commission in our deliberations. Finally, we will end for tonight at 9: 30, and from 9: 30 to 9 :40 we will make sure that we have all the questions before us that we need to go back and get answers to. From 9 :40 to 10: 00 we do have a regulatory review. If people have not had the opportunity to speak by 9 : 30, if there are just a couple of people left we will go on. Otherwise there will be a continuation of this meeting, and we will discuss here tonight when that will be so that you all will know about it. Thank you. And with that I would like to ask Sandra Driscoll to advise us. Sandra Driscoll: Thank you. I am going to be extremely brief. You have had the opportunity to hear this before anyway, but talk very briefly about what the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine is. Technically, the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, which is established by state law applies to just quasi-judicial proceedings. The Commission is actually considering area-wide plans, so technically it is not a quasi-judicial, it will be a 2 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24 , 1989 legislative proceeding; however, the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine is such that it is advisable to follow the doctrine even though technically it applies to quasi-judicial proceedings, so that indeed the individuals involved in this not only feel that they know that they had a fair hearing, that every appearance of the hearing was fair, and that appearance is the conduct of the Commission members. Basically what it provides as I said is that not only fair proceeding takes place, that it appears to be fair, and it will apply to the Commission members. It specifically applies to land use quasi-judicial actions. What it specifically talks about what is called ex-party contacts. Contacts by individuals with the individual members of the Commission that are not in the hearing setting. The doctrine provides that those contacts should not occur, and that if they do occur, the Commission members must come back the Commission hearings, this would be assuming that it is quasi judicial, place on the record the fact that the comment occurred, who made it, the contents of the comment and ensure that happens at every single hearing on this matter, and give the opportunity then for anyone who wants to rebut the information that was brought out in that communication. That is reason alone for the contacts with regard to this to occur better at these hearings so that you don't spend your time rebutting comments that were made in other settings other than the hearing. That is basically what the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides. Again, since you are doing area-wide work, yt is a legislative action. Technically the doctrine does not a 1 but it is a real sound policy to follow it anyway. Chair Martinez : Thank you. Commission members do you have any questions? Thank you, Sandra. Appreciate it. Dan Stroh. Dan Stroh: Dan Stroh, Senior Planner. Just like to make a very brief remark. One thing is that we have a sign-up sheet that has been going around. It is an opportunity to sign up, get on the mailing list for this so that any information about this as it developed subsequent to this meeting you will have a chance to get mailings. If you haven't had a chance to get on the sign-up sheet, raise your hand and we will get that to you. Also, there is a place on there to check off your name as someone who would like to speak tonight so that the Chair can call on people and make sure that everybody has a chance to be heard. Two other comments very briefly here. There are two particularly important objectives of the study that we have been embarking on for the last several months. One is to try to correct some of the perceived imbalance in the multifamily and single family housing. The Council has asked us to take a look site by site at all areas within the city to do this. They have also asked us to achieve in this an average 20 percent reduction in multifamily housing. Another very important objective that we've looked at is how to encourage 3 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24 , 1989 additional single family development. So these are themes that really come across in the report and in the actions that we are looking at tonight. They come across a number of different ways. We are looking forward to the public input we will receive tonight to let us know just how well we've done that. That is the major purpose of the meeting here is to get the public's input. With that I ' ll pass the podium over to Stephen Clifton. He is the person who has done most of the work on this particular West Hill area. He will be keeping his remarks to about 15 to 20 minutes. We don't want to take too much of your time. We want to hear what the people have to say tonight. Thank you. Stephen Clifton: Hi my name is. . .can you hear me all right? Hi! My name is Stephen Clifton and I 'm a planner with the Kent Planning Department. I am here specifically tonight to address the issues of the West Hill planning area as part of a larger whole. East Hill and the Valley Floor will be coming later. The major reason we are here tonight is the result of Resolution 1123 and 1172 . Resolution 1123 was passed in 1986. It was passed with the intention of reducing multifamily density by 20 percent. In 1988 Resolution 1172 was directed to the Planning Department and we are to conduct a two-phase study. The first phase was conducted late last year and early this year and was passed earlier this year. What that is was an update of the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. The second phase which Dan had mentioned is an area-by- area analysis of residential densities for the three planning areas. Now what I 'd like to do is show some objectives of the proposal itself. One is to retain existing residential areas as liveable and attractive neighborhoods, promotion of a community and neighborhood spirit, recognition of the relationships between housing density and circulation, public facilities and services, and emphasis on the importance of preserving the natural features of the land, and recognition of the need to provide housing opportunities for all persons in the community. Two additional objectives which came out of Resolution 1172 were that we were to explore ways to encourage new single family residential development and to maintain existing single family neighborhoods. Currently multifamily outnumbers single family in the number of units by two to one in the City of Kent. . .though the City Council directed us to reduce the total multifamily densities by 20 percent, find ways to encourage new single family development, and try to offset that perceived imbalance which exists. The second phase of the housing study was initiated with a public meeting held at Sunnycrest Elementary in January of this year. The Planning staff addressed issues such as land supply, transportation, existing housing, environmental suitability, both citywide and in the West Hill planning area. We also solicited concerns of the West Hill citizens. Their primary concerns were those dealing with transportation and pedestrian circulation, substandard roadways, 4 Kent Planning commission Minutes July 24, 1989 lack of sidewalks in high-density or high-pedestrian circulation areas, and also setbacks of new development from areas sensitive to development, such as the top of banks, wetlands or any kind of water body which may exist. The Planning Department next began an analysis of residential densities for single family and multifamily zoned land. Using a geographic information system, what we did was have the computer generate all the parcels of land which existed both vacant and underdeveloped. What we did then was the visual survey to verify the map itself in case it did not locate any of the vacant or underdeveloped parcels, We visually looked at those and found any that may have existed. And then what we did was we followed that up with a personal site visit of all the vacant parcels within Kent. I myself specifically looked at all the parcels in the West HIll planning area. Parcels were assessed on the basis of citizen concerns from the first meeting and other criteria which included proximity to overburdened traffic, corridors and intersections, proximity to overcrowded schools, surrounding uses, existing development, availability of services, zoning history, and compliance with comprehensive plans, goals and policies, specifically those which were a result of the recent update of the housing element. Right now what I would like to do is show you some of the goals and objectives of the updated housing element to show you what we looked at when doing our analysis or what we based some of our recommendations off of. The ones highlighted I felt were some of the more important ones. Policy 2 was through development of area and functional of plans, assure the provision of adequate circulation and utility services for city neighborhoods, including street improvements, water, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, lighting and power. Another was to protect existing single-family neighborhoods from incompatible uses and other intrusions, through open space buffers, fencing, extensive landscaping, density gradations and other appropriate means. More objectives included permitting new residential development on the East and West Hills as the necessary facilities and services are available. One of the more important ones is to encourage development of new single family housing by creating neighborhood environments attractive to single family builders and homeowners, and to limit opportunities for multifamily development. The quantity, or how much we were to limit it is not specified in the goals, objectives or policies of the updated housing element. It just says to limit the opportunities. One of the objectives was also to guide new residential growth so that it occurs in responsible manner consistent with neighborhood objectives. Limit opportunities for high-density multifamily development where appropriate. Also provide opportunities for low and medium density multifamily development nodes near commercial centers. And to provide for increased single family residential densities as a transition between more intensive and less intensive residential areas. You will want to pay particular interest to that policy in 5 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 relationship to how we came about our proposed R1-5 zoning which I will explain later. Our next procedure was to develop maps with analysis areas for each planning area. And for the West Hill we developed ten areas, three multifamily and seven single family. I should point that within all the three planning areas there are more parcels which exist than which are included in the areas for analysis. For instance, the option areas which exist for the West Hill planning area. . .the potential exists, I believe, for 186 to 190 multifamily units; however, the potential exists for 228 multifamily units within the area. What we did was look at parcels that had a substantial development potential or parcels that were contiguous to one another. For instance, four or five parcels, and so what we did was analyzed those as a whole and drew a boundary around those areas. You' ll see that in some of the areas I describe. The three multifamily areas . . . one is along Military Road South, just north of 224th Street. To the South of Multifamily Area One exists and a park and zoning for R9600, that is King County zoning or 9 , 600 square foot single family lots. Multifamily area Two is adjacent to the northwest area of the Kent Highland Landfill. It is south of the park and R9600 zoning. The third area is adjacent to I-5 just east of Military Road or 30th Avenue South. Chair Martinez : Excuse me. If you are going to address anyone, please address me and in your turn. Stephen Clifton: The single family areas, and there were five, the first one was a mobile home park which was adjacent to 30th Avenue South and between 30th Avenue South and that was Multifamily Area Three which I explained to you. The second one was along Kent Des Moines road which is just north of the King County island. Single Family Area Three was located just west of 42nd Avenue and east of 36th Avenue South, south of South 250th Street. Single Family Area Five is north of South 252nd Street and west of Pacific Highway South. Area Four, I don't have that colored in here right now, but it is at the intersection and there are three parcels surrounding the intersection of Reith Road and Military Road. And Single Family Area Six is north of 272nd Street just west of 46th Avenue South. And the Single Family Area. . .Seventh one is along Lake Fenwick Road and it is just north of 272nd Street. Chair Martinez : Is there a better description for the folks in the audience for where these areas are? Do we have a map so that they can look very closely at it? Stephen Clifton: There is a map in the Overview Section. It is small. 6 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Chair Martinez: It is very small. Do you have a large one so that folks can look at it. Stephen Clifton: There are larger maps back here if anyone wants to wander back and look at those maps. We lined those up against the wall so that they could see those more clearly. Then what we did was. . .using the goals of the study and goals of the policies and the housing element of the Comp Plan and West Hill Land Use Plan we traded options which were developed for each area. And some of those options actually exist and are placed on the maps which are located back there. And, these were then presented at a second public meeting at Sunnycrest Elementary and was held in a four-hour open house forum. Examples of the options for each area included no action, retaining existing zoning- for each site. Another was . . . for example, on all three of the multifamily areas is that recommending change in density from Medium Density, which is 23 units per acre, to Garden Density, which is 16 units per acre or a difference of around eight units per acre. This was the sight specific recommendation. And another option for those areas was just a continuation of the current 20 percent interim zoning reduction on all multifamily-zoned land. So those were presented at the meeting. Chair Martinez : So that is what you are calling the text reduction. Is that correct? Stephen Clifton: That is correct. Text reduction in the overall matrix at the end of the Overview Section. The comments which we received at the open house paralled those of the first meeting. Concerns about traffic, circulation, substandard roads, etc. , and we also handed out questionnaires and the response both verbally and responses of the questionnaires were in favor of the multifamily reduction, but they were mixed. For the recommendations of the two sides, Single Family Area Four and Single Family Area Six. Some were in favor of them, some were indifferent, and some did not want them at all. The more favorable responses, or actually I should say an overwhelming response in favor of the single family designated area concept, which I ' ll explain a little later. After all this was over, first what I would like to do, however, is just describe some examples of some of the rationale and how we came up with the recommendations which we did. This is Multifamily Area Two, as you can see, zoning to the north is 9600 square foot lots, zoning to the west is RA, or Residential Agricultural, one unit per acre. That is also known as Kent Highlands Landfill. And to the east it is zoned GC or General Commercial. And so if people want to turn to page West Hill-22 , some of the factors favoring the proposed change include. . .and our change is recommended to go from MRM zoning to MRG zoning. It reduces potential city-wide total of 7 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 multifamily units by an estimated 20 units or . 37 percent. The percentage here is very insignificant in relationship to the over- all objectives of the entire study, but it is significant by West Hill standards. West Hill Land Use Plan currently designates this land as MF-22 or 12-24 units per acre, and MRG zoning falls within this category. Area Two is adjacent to RA, Residential Agricultural, zoning. Density gradations should occur along the east border of the site for transition between low density single family and MRM, Multifamily. Site has moderate slopes along the west and north edges which may limit MRM development. Decreased density in an area which lacks real availability of community facilities, services and infrastructure, no sidewalks, substandard roadways, inadequate street lighting and lack of crosswalks. Highlands Landfill may constrain higher density development. And it reduces potential vehicle trips by an estimated 122 per day in an area currently at or near capacity. Three intersections along Kent-Des Moines Road, Military Road, Kent-Des Moines Road, Pac Highway Kent-Des Moines Road. . .three of those intersections are at Level E or F, so any kind of additional development in that area is going to overburden those intersections. And so that kind of explains some of the reasons why we recommended a reduction to MRG zoning. What that does also. . . it would be more of a transition zone, or be a less intensive use, so it would be a more appropriate density gradation between General Commercial and RA than what is currently zoned now MRM. What I 'd like to do now is also show an example of Single Family Area Four. What we are recommending here. . . it' s currently zoned R1-7 . 2 , 7200 square foot lots. We are recommending that it be rezoned to R1-5 zoning, single family residential around eight units per acre versus five units per acre. Factors favoring this recommendation includes. . .encourages potential development of an additional 16 single family units versus no action at all, which would help to improve the balance of housing types city wide. I should note that the 16 units an acre, Areas Four and Five, have been corrected to show the actual number, and that revision can be found in the addendum at the beginning of the table, so if anyone wants to pick that up when they leave, it does show the true number. It is actually less than we have in the report. Chair Martinez: Excuse me, are you on two or four. Stephen Clifton: I 'm on Area Four. Also, what it does is it helps to create a potential buffer between roadways and housing areas, yet allowing the same or increased density. One of our goals and objectives was to create density gradation. In other words, from an intensive use, which is Reith Road and Military Road, to a less intensive use beyond the borders of this site, which is 7200 square feet. So those are some examples of some of the rational we used to come up with these recommendations. 8 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24 , 1989 Commissioner Greenstreet: Buffer. . .can you clarify what you mean by what a buffer will be doing. Stephen Clifton: Some of the goals and policies in the recommended housing element ask that we try to concentrate more intense land uses adjacent to nodes and transportation corridors for increased transportation efficiency. These are busy roads and what R1-5 would do would is allow the owners of this site here to potentially put a buffer along those roads and perhaps a ten-foot landscape strip and still achieve the same density which is existing under 7 . 2 . Whether that happens or not is unknown at this time, but that can be addressed when you go through short plat hearings which would have to take place if they were to develop these parcels as single family homes. Basically, what we did then is after we looked at all three areas. . . if you will turn to the matrix on the back of your overview Section, we developed four alternatives for the three planning areas, and they were very similar to the ones we had created for each option area for each planning area for every meeting. These include no action, or retaining of existing zoning, sight specific recommendation, text reduction and East Hill reductions. I should note that the overall traffic impacts for the study would reduce vehicle trips per day on the West Hill area by 182 . Actually, what I 'd like to do next is discuss some. . . Chair Martinez : That' s potential trips. Stephen Clifton: Potential, right. In other words if the land is never developed, then those trips will never occur. But if the zoning were developed or if the property were developed under existing zoning versus the proposed zoning, then we would have the difference of a reduction of 182 vehicle trips per day. What I 'd like to do now is show some slides of. . .because we are asking for recommendations to R1-5 zoning I 'd like to show some slides of some examples of how builders are building homes today on lots from anywhere from 4 , 000 6, 000 square feet. The reason I took these slides is because we have received a lot of phone calls and many people think that this R1-5 zone is a new invention or is something that is just coming about, or we are just creating it to increase the density. But in reality R1-5 or even smaller lots have been in existence for about 100 years. These are just homes. . .which have been developed recently in Issaquah and they show. . . they are pretty representative of what is being built on small lots now, and it' s a shame we can't see them. I ' ll try to fix it while people are giving comments I ' ll try to fix this machine and show people, because the homes in the slides are much more pleasant than I am sure what a lot of people envision. But, I just wanted to explain that these homes have been around for a long time, these size of lots as well. And so, anyway. 9 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24 , 1989 Chair Martinez: What. . .these are single family homes that. . .can you describe them a little to us. Stephen Clifton: Yes. What it is that I went up to Klahanie up in Issaquah, a recent 900-acre development, and the lot sizes up there range anywhere from 3500 square feet to lots as big as 9000 square feet. The lots or the houses we took pictures of are very representative of what R1-5 would end up like, because they are anywhere between 4500 and 6000 square feet. They are all new homes and I wanted to show people what new homes are going to look like on these lots. A lot of phone calls which I 've received. . .people are afraid of these homes being low income. These homes in Issaquah are currently. . .they sold three years ago for $105, 000 to $110, 000. The are currently at an asking price of $140, 000. So, I would say in today' s market it is very unlikely that these are going to be low-income homes. Anyway, I do have kind of a back- up. . .I brought two examples that I can pass around showing lots which are 4500 to 6000 square feet and the homes were actually done in California and they were landscaped quite nicely. It is important to understand that without substantial landscaping these homes would probably not look as well, so these are good examples of that. Commissioner Forner: I have a question. Do you have any of the lots that are being changed that have height restrictions? Stephen Clifton: Height Restrictions. Actually, with R1-5 zoning we are recommending the same height limits, same side-yard setbacks, and the only difference would be an increase from the site coverage which is currently around 30 to 35 percent to 40 percent, meaning you would have more of your lot covered by your home, but it is not a substantial increase. Commissioner Forner: I was referring more to view lots. A view lot that would have a height restriction. Stephen Clifton: Well, actually, the sites that I am recommending are not on any steep slopes, and their views would not be impeded as far as being like on the West Hill embankment. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: In your proposal for the new R1-5 zone you said that the standards would meet the requirements of other single family residential zoning with the exception with solar access setback regulations. Stephen Clifton: That's right. 10 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Commissioner Unlar-Heffner: Can that be remediated in any way so that solar access can be taken into account as far as the clustering of the houses. Stephen Clifton: Yes. Actually it depends on how the developer lays the site out or what kind of home he puts in. Currently we have a committee happening. . .going on right now which is discussing single family opportunities. It depends on how the roof lines are constructed with the homes and things like that as to how much solar radiation is going to hit the adjacent homes. But with this kind of housing it will be more difficult to administer something like that. Okay. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioners do you have any questions before we go on? May I have the sign-up sheet, please. Fred Satterstrom: Did everyone get on the sign-up sheet that has been circulating around. Chair Martinez: There are some people on the list that did not sign up to speak, but I am going to call your name anyway and you can just turn me down, okay, just in case you have heard something you want to speak to. For those of you who are speakers, please step to the mike, please identify yourself, give your name and - address for the record. Jacob Beltz. Pass. Claude Asquith. Pass. Mike Larson. Mike Larson. My name is Mike Larson. I represent the owners of MF2 and are privileged enough to be next to the Kent Highlands Landfill. My address is 18th Floor Pacific Building, 720 Third Avenue. My first comment on this hearing tonight is it appears from a review of the Kent City Code that this analysis of this particular plan should be before a Hearing Examiner rather than the Planning Commission, and we would like the opportunity to present evidence in that forum and just don't believe this is the right forum to hear this particular plan. We have a second concern. I 'm going to hand you up a letter and I 'm not going to go through all the details of it. This is an original and nine copies so each of the members of the Commission can have a copy. Our second concern we have is just on the timing of this. We've had very little notice of this particular hearing and the materials handed out tonight are very lengthy. We haven't had a chance to go through them and take a look at them, give you comments. I know you want to make the most informed decision with a much input as possible as you can, and we would appreciate the opportunity to look through these materials and present comments later. Will we be able to present comments at a later time? 11 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Fred Satterstrom: Depends whether or not the Planning Commission gets through it, really. The public notice went out as required by law, and so it really depends on whether the Planning Commission is poised to act this evening. It's up to you. Mike Larson: If the Planning Commission decides to act tonight, there are lots of materials here, you will have a chance to look at them, of course we haven't. We'd like to have a chance to go through it and give informed opinion on the plan. Our third concern is loss of the opportunity to build affordable housing for many of the people in this area by reducing the housing opportunities for many of the disadvantaged in this area, that is a significant concern. It's housing concerns and housing pressures because of the inflation in this area and the increase in housing costs that are severely impacting a large portion of our community. We would like the opportunity to serve those people. There is a need for it, and we would certainly like the opportunity to serve those people. There was a comment about landfill being adjacent to MF2 . It would be nice to build a large enough development in the area to mitigate some of the landfill effects; otherwise, it' s likely that some of the parcels near the landfill will not be developed. There will not be the incentive to stop some of the problems with the landfill, such as migration of landfill gas. . .that type of thing. You' ll have a tendency to go to other parcels if that is not developed, and by having opportunity to develop enough units in that area, you can enough capital to address those types of concerns. Those are all the statements I have now. Of course I haven't had a chance to go through your materials completely, and I thank you all for your comments. Commissioner Forner: One question before you go about the landfill. Can you hear me? Did you say that the absence of housing would allow more gasses to go into a residential area? Mike Larson: In absence of housing and people to be concerned about in those areas will allow the current conditions to continue to exist as the migration of landfill gas through these areas. There is no incentive for the City of Seattle to put gas curtains to prevent that migration, and if we are going to develop in that area, you need to have enough units to spread those costs across so you can stop the gas from migrating across those properties. Otherwise the property will stay undeveloped, and it is likely that the underground gravel ravines and those type of problems will allow these problems to spread out farther in the neighborhood. The opportunity to develop those areas, of course any development permit, those types of things, are going to have to be mitigated and it will help be an incentive to combine those problems. 12 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Commissioner Forner: I guess the question that I asked is that the residents' or King County's responsibility to vent the gasses on the landfill? I know in others it is King county' s responsibility to vent the gasses in the landfill. Mike Larson: Whose responsibility is it to take care of that problem? Commissioner Forner: Right. Mike Larson: Well, it' s going to be whoever has control of that property. This is in the City of Kent, and right now the person who is responsible for that problem is responsible to take care of it. Whether they do or not in the future is a question that no one can resolve. Until someone takes a look at that problem and the particular parcels in that area through a development process, it is likely that some of those problems may never be identified and the problem may continue to exist for neighbors farther away. Chairman Martinez: Before you go, Fred would you like to address why we are hearing this instead of the Hearing Examiner. Fred Satterstrom: The reason why the Planning commission is hearing it and not the Hearing Examiner is because the City Council by resolution or ordinance, I forget which, designated the Planning Commission to in fact hold the hearings. They have done that in the past with other studies dealing with zoning and comprehensive planning, chose that method this time so that we could approach it from an overall, more generalized approach. Chairman Martinez: Thank you. Dion and Rachel Baldus. Pass. Jim Flewelling. Jim Flewelling: I 'm Jim Flewelling. I live at 26724 51st Place South in Kent, actually outside Kent. I 'll make my comments very brief. I fully agree with the goals of the Planning Department and of this study to reduce the ratios of multifamily to single family housing. Whether it is possible or not it would be nice to also see the rate of growth come to a slower level. What we are seeing on the West Hill right now is a very adverse effect on the schools. The classrooms are getting overcrowded. They have run out of busses. Elementary schools are going to be running an hour late this year, and it is to the point that I have made a personal decision that I am pulling my boy out of the public school for a couple of years. And I just moved here five years ago because I liked the ratio I was seeing in terms of single family houses to multifamily houses, and I think that it is getting out of line and I am really glad that you are doing something about it. Thank you. 13 Kent Planning commission Minutes July 24, 1989 _ Chairman Martinez: Kathlene Hensley. William Sharick. Leona Orr. Pass. Is there any other comment from the audience? Yes, would you please step to the microphone and identify yourself, please. Frank Lee: My name is Frank Lee and I own approximately 80 acres, on the West Valley, excuse me, up on West Hill and I think that the little bit I 've read and seen, I think you guys are on the right track. I 'm a real witness to the traffic congestion up there. For my people to get out of my operation sometimes it takes them 10 to 15 minutes because of the traffic. I think that until we get that traffic handled up there, we should stop all growth. Chair Martinez : I saw another hand. Okay. Voices: There is a number of us that you haven't called. There are crosses in front of some of the names. Mine is one and mine wasn't called. Chair Martinez: Is there another page? I apologize. I did not see this. . . I was thinking that you were awfully quiet. Walter Griffin. Pass. Donald Knapp. Donald Knapp: My name is Don Knapp. I live at 25046 38th South, and we will accept your apology. My first comment is the fact that one of my neighbors called me today who has been up there on the West Hill not far from me for over 30 years and she had no notice of this at all. I can't understand why she was passed over. Chair Martinez: May we have her name and address please. Donald Knapp: Her name. . .Sunstead. I don't know her address. Chair Martinez: Stead. Voice: Sundstedt. Chair Martinez : Thank you. Voice: Do you want an address? Chair Martinez: I think we can get that. Thank you. Donald Knapp: I received this on July 14th, a notice to inform you about upcoming public hearing at which the Kent Planning Commission will discuss comprehensive plan and zoning changes in your neighborhood. My question is this. . .while your property is not among those under consideration for rezoning, you are situated within a 200-foot radius of one or more properties included in the proposal. I don't know where that would be. . . within a 200-foot 14 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 radius. And I can't locate that. . .I don't know where that would be. Fred Satterstrom: Can I take a shot at answering that. By law and by city ordinance and by state law we are required to notify people of pending rezone actions that have property that lie within 200 feet. And generally we draw a circle around that property. It may be a little bit more than 200 feet, but never under that, and then we send a notice to the property owners. The only thing I can think of in this case, perhaps if you attended any meetings on the West Hill or any open houses, you would have been on our mailing list and you would have gotten, and perhaps you got a generic notice such as that. But we sent two kinds of different notices out. One to people that did not own property but were generally within a certain distance of the property that was being proposed for rezone, and then we sent a notice to the property owners themselves with a little bit different information, excuse me, the same information but a different introduction. Donald Knapp: I 've attended practically all these meetings and I have had no notice about this radius. That's what bothers me . . . up there on the West Hill, that's on 38th. I don't know what you can do about it. Maybe somebody can inform me what it is about, because I have some neighbors across the street from me who are also concerned about it, and we don't know what is going on. I do know that we own some property on the. . .close to 38th on the west part of our property that is zoned for three lots. They were condemned through the methane. . .and the City of Seattle had to buy them. Now they have a sold sign on there and a man who was building next to me put an offer up and the City of Seattle turned it down, and then he found that they took a lower offer. I was trying to find out. . .This is why I am concerned about it. I want to know what is going on in that radius, because it is short platted for three houses. We had it short platted a number of years ago, and I want to know what this 200-foot radius is. Fred Satterstrom: Again, if you got a notice that you were within a 20-foot radius, it means that you must own property approximately. . .either adjacent to or within. . . Donald Knapp: No I don't. Seattle does. Fred Satterstrom: Okay. You no longer own this land. Is that a recent sale? Donald Knapp: Approximately, not for Seattle but for somebody else it has been. 15 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Fred Satterstrom: We work with tax records that could be up to a year old. In order to find property owners we rely on the county's tax rolls. Would they have still had you as an owner within the last year? Donald Knapp: No, because we got the money from Seattle. Fred Satterstrom: I guess that at this point there is no more need for me to answer, because I don't know why you got a notice. Chair Martinez : But I think it is obvious in that the 200-foot radius is simply a radius for allowing people to be alerted to actions that they might care about. But if you got that notice as opposed to one that says that your property is affected, that would be a different notice. This is just something that you might be interested in because something might be happening. . . Donald Knapp: That' s right. That' s what I 'm concerned about. Chair Martinez : You might want to check the maps in the back and come back and talk to us after you have looked at them to see if indeed your property is affected by any of these actions. And you might want to. . . Donald Knapp: You know, I get concerned about this because of the garbage dumps, and we have fought that. The wife and I have been down here and fought that garbage dump for many years and it went through anyway. And this underhanded stuff gets me. Stephen Clifton: Could you have him repeat his address. Chair Martinez: Would you repeat your address, please. Donald Knapp: 25406 38th South. I believe that's all. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Chester Spurgeon. Donald Boross. Pass. Barbara Boross. Pass. Floyd Bacon. Floyd Bacon: Chairman, Lady Chairman. This is Floyd Bacon. I 'm at 24311 35th Avenue South, Kent resident 25 years. I want to say that from the first meeting that I attended with these good people here that gave the dissertation, that they did real fine on their work. The only thing is that, all due respects to him, I didn't quite get one portion of it here, so this may answer a question for right now. It is under the multiple family housing. . . let me find my map here. I 'd like to know where 1, 2, and 3. . .my glasses are very poor or the print is quite small. . . I 'd like to hear that again, because I 'm in the area of 24311 35th Avenue South and I don't see 240th on there or 248th so. . .that was what I was 16 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 concerned about. While he is looking for that, I want to say this was well-prepared information. A lot of work was put out on this. I 'm glad to see that we've got a lot of things in study and going to do for the single residents of the West Hill that have been here for quite a few years. While we are here and when he finds it I want to thank the Planning Commission for at least looking around. We've got a lot of new pavement that we can get the cars with their greasy things off the streets and some of the places. . .we can get the place built up now. Chair Martinez: Thank you. I think we probably don't deserve the credit, but we' ll take whatever we can get. Have you finished your remarks or would you like to come back in a moment? Floyd Bacon: On the next phase, on the recreation vehicles. . . Chair Martinez: Okay, fine. Joanne Sundstedt. Pass. Patricia Roemich. Pass. Sharon Gehring. Pass. Cindy McReynolds. Cindy McReynolds: I 'm Cindy McReynolds, 4334 South 272nd, Kent. We've been residents for two years and our children go to the Federal Way School District. My question is. . .the area we live in they want to reduce the lot sizes and put more homes, and I want to know if the Kent School District is planning to build a school there for our children. Chair Martinez : Don't we have that on one of our maps. . .where the proposed school is going to be. Commissioner Greenstreet: That is going to be a different school district, I believe. Chair Martinez: Yeah. Fred Satterstrom: Most of that area up there is indeed Federal Way School District. And I 'm not aware of what their plans are. Cindy McReynolds: Adding more homes and more people and you don't have any awareness of . . . that Federal Way is already overloaded. Chair Martinez : No Fred Satterstrom: No. In the City of Kent we have obviously the same problems as Federal Way area has with the expanding population base and also expanding school base. Try our best to keep up. This study here on the one hand, the two objectives of trying to reduce multifamily density on the one hand, and then trying to do what we can in terms of incentives for single family. I don't think we've looked at it in terms of what the net effect would be 17 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24 , 1989 in terms of children. But in terms of population we've looked at it in terms of the net effect on population. Cindy McReynolds: . . (unclear) and there•are a lot of them and the schools are overloaded. And I think if you plan to do this, you should have plans for a school. I don't see why the Kent Schools shouldn't take care of the Kent children. Commissioner Forner: If you give me your phone number, I can give you a call and find that information out for you. I do work for the State also, and I could find that out very easily for you and give you a call tomorrow. Cindy McReynolds: 859-9348 Commissioner Forner: And you want to know if there is any proposed building of houses. . .or schools in the 4334 South 272nd area. Cindy McReynolds: Yeah. We got to have schools for those kids. You keep adding people, you've got to have schools period. Chair Martinez: Stephen McReynolds. Stephen McReynolds: I 'm Steve McReynolds, 4334 South 272nd Street. We have a lot of overcrowding the schools up there already, as you have heard. Also, I 've dealt with the school district here in the past and discussed this with the principal of the school and he was not happy with the housing already going in in the area because he has difficulty serving the number of students that are already there. In addition the water system is not really up to serving any more there now. You are currently buying water from Water District 75 and boosting it through an expensive booster station to serve the West Hill area already. The SF6 area that I am concerned with and, by the way, we did not get a notice. . .the property is adjoining mine. . .the sewer lines are not at an elevation that can serve the property without installing pumps. We have a statement here saying that they can put in nice houses on these 5000 square foot lots and not have any kind of an impact as far as aesthetics. When I built my house two years ago, I had to have a 43-foot setback. Okay. I live right next door to this property that we are talking about. I don't see how you are going to get a 43-foot setback on a 50-foot lot. It's not going to be easy. The streets for these areas that we are talking about I 'm concerned with, South 272nd is an extremely busy road. You don't have any access for some of the property on that street to begin with. It has to go through residential neighborhoods that are already trying to maintain a nice area with some open area without the houses being packed closely together. Our lots are all 15 and 16, 000 square foot up in the area we are talking about. 18 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Approximately 10 acres to the east of this area that we are speaking about and all Cambridge is 7200 and up. The areas in this area. . .Cambridge as well as ours have ordinances. . .not ordinances but covenants to prevent parking on the streets and control where things are done. You can't do that on a 4000 square foot lot, especially increasing the house size to put on the lot. I haven't heard anything where anybody has been talking about how they are going to service this area with utilities. I talked to the police who patrol the street on South 272nd. They can't even pull out and patrol that with a car on a week day. They have to have motor cycles that can accelerate enough to get into the traffic. And I don't see how making more of a traffic load on this area is going to improve things for us at all. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: One question, which area are you adjacent to. Stephen Reynolds: SF6. Chairman Martinez: Any questions. Thank you. Kurt Lay. Kurt Lay: My name is Kurt Lay and I am a next-door neighbor of Steve's 4330 272nd SF6. I look into the adjacent lot that they want to switch to 5000 square feet, and since he showed you pictures of a nice looking house, I want to show you a picture of the house that I am building on my lot that is a 14 , 000 square foot lot. Putting these types of houses next to mine is. . .you know he said that he is making the whole area look nice. So I just wanted to show you a house that is typical around that area. That' s a standard home around that area. And with 5000 square foot lots there is no way that they could put a house like that on that lot. Reading the plan that he has it says that they are switching the back yards to eight feet, and if this is going to be for family housing, I don't see how kids can play in a eight-foot area. There is no way. Commissioner Greenstreet: It looks like a nice home. Kurt Lay: I 've put all my money in this home and I 'd hate to devaluate it. Thank you very much. Commissioner Greenstreet: I have one question. Have you ever heard of the owner of this property in the area or rumors of development previous to this. . . like building four or six houses. Kurt Lay: I know that the one that is adjacent to us is being sold at this time. And Puget Power owns the lot next to that. That's a five-acre tract and there are supposed to put a substation on that, but if you switch that to 5000, they will probably want to 19 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 sell that and put 5000 square foot lots on that too. Traffic is horrendous on 272nd. I don't see how you are going to change the traffic flow by switching 7200 square foot lots down to 5000 square foot lots. That is just going to add more traffic. I have a deaf child in my neighborhood. Luckily I have a private road, but if 272nd gets any busier. . .you know she can't hear any cars. And you are just going to add more people there and cause more trouble. Thank you. Stephen Clifton: Would you repeat your name again? Kurt Lay: Kurt Lay. Chair Martinez: Thank you Mr. Lay. Donald Hinderliter. Donald Hinderliter: My name is Don Hinderliter and I live at 4224 South 272nd. I have a five-acre parcel there that is underdeveloped if you may. I have approximately three acres of that which is being sold to a developer right now. We received tentative planning approval for 7200 square foot lots. There were 12 lots put in that two and three-quarters acres. My question is what would any rezoning do to that. My belief is that you have already decided to make those R7 lots and that you should continue on with that. Now I suppose that I could make more money with an R5 zone, I could withdraw from this sale for cause and I could subdivide and sell more lots, but I live there and I 'm keeping the front two acres for myself and it will be my home for the rest of my life and I don't really want to change the flavor of the neighborhood that has been established. It's a beautiful neighborhood. Cambridge, Star Lake Elementary School is nearby. The high school is nearby, and I do not feel that I am willing to take on the risk of someone coming in and building beautiful homes on 5000 square foot lots. My personal experience with 5000 square foot lots is that they do not make neighborhoods like the neighborhood that is there now. I would like to see the flavor of neighborhood preserved. Now this gentlemen also made a comment that it might be necessary to put a ten-foot buffer strip along 272nd Avenue to properly landscape this area being changed to R1- 5 zoning. Well, I happen to own that land along 272nd Street and I intend to keep it and I don't see how a ten-foot-wide buffer strip of trees and bushes there on my property because I don't plan to sell it. I am extremely pleased with your efforts to subdue the multifamily housing. I think it is a great idea. Any person who tries to get anywhere on the West Hill and Federal Way on Saturday morning can attest to. It' s really jam packed. And we don't need to end run this multifamily housing restriction by rezoning the lots from R7 to R5. I think what we need to do is preserve the beauty of the neighborhood, preserve the general architectural 20 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24 , 1989 flavor that is there now. I 'm dead set against rezoning SF6 to R5. I 'd like it to be kept R7 . Thank you. Chairman Martinez: Thank you. Barbara Beltz. Pass. Lorraine Asquith. Now is there anyone that I have missed this time around. Leona. Leona Orr: My name is Leona Orr. I live at 24909 114th Avenue South SE. I happen to live on the East Hill, but I came down tonight and the reason I didn't speak earlier was because I thought there were so few comments that I thought there wasn't going to be any. I am currently serving on a committee that the mayor put together to find ways to attract single family development to our community. I wish more people had spoken tonight so that I 'd have a better feel for even more of the persons that are here from the West Hill. But I would urge anyone who is here that would like to contact me later. I would like to get their ideas to take back to the committee, because we are under a lot of pressure for smaller lots and attached single-family type development, and I really would like to know from the community what their feeling is so that our committee can make a sound recommendation. And I would like to say to the Planning staff that I think they've done a great job on the efforts they've put in and the information that they have provided us. Thank you. Chair Martinez : Did I see someone else that has not spoken before? Yes sir. Yes please. This is a verbatim report so we have to have it on the mike. Donald Knapp: My name is Don Knapp. I live at 25046 38th Avenue South. I only have two comments to make. One is on the zoning you want. . .the 5000 square feet. Our three lots, as I explained earlier that we have there, are 7200 square feet. I would like to have the Planning Commission come up if they don't know what 7200 square lots look like. Come up and take a look at them and see how small they are. They are not very big. The other comment I want to make is on the map you have that you sent out. You can't tell anything by looking at it. Even with a magnifying glass you can't tell where the streets are or anything. It is the poorest excuse for a map I ever saw. Thank you. Commissioner Greenstreet: Excuse me. We do have blow ups of each area, like SF4, you know. So we do have blow ups. I know you have a very general map there, but when you are speaking about 38th, it shows 38th real big there. So we really have a pretty good idea of where you are speaking. Voice: What page. 21 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Commissioner Greenstreet: 40 Chair Martinez: Yes sir. Claude Asquith: I turned you down a little while ago. Chair Martinez: Claude Asquith. Claude Asquith: Claude Asquith and I live at 3813 South 250th. It is a cul-de-sac street. If you take a 200 foot radius from my place and a 200-foot radius from Mr. Knapp's shack, we ain't going to make it. So I 'm interested in what this 200-foot radius is. Where are you picking the point that you are telling people that is a 200-foot radius? There is no 200-foot radius that you can get both of us at the same time. Again, I live on a street that is a cul-de-sac. There are 12 houses on it. As far as I know, three people on the street have received letters. I 've talked to two other people that don't even know what I 'm talking about. You mentioned that. . . if I 'm within a 200-foot radius of wherever, I 'm sure the rest of these people will be. Another thing I like about the City of Kent is that when we moved in, my lot was nice and flat. It would drain right into the street. City of Kent came along and put in a sidewalk which is very nice. Because it starts over here, goes up, goes around the cul-de-sac, comes back. . . it doesn't hook to anything. It' s there. I mean, we have nice sidewalk. One ends up one lot short of 38th Street. The one end that is there is two and one-half feet in the air. I don't know what you would hook it to if you did connect it to a sidewalk somewhere. I now have the bottom of a swimming pool, because in order to put in the sidewalk they have to raise it three inches or four inches for every foot back from the street. So now I have a six-inch drop from the sidewalk into my front yard. And a lot of these little things like Mr. Knapp says they push them through somehow. I never heard about the sidewalk when it went in. If I had, I 'd of been here. But we are interested. . .I 'd like to know. . . I can look at your map in here and I finally figured out where 250th was. I go back to your big map back here and there is nothing on there that shows the shaded area that you have here. There's nothing outlining it like a little piece of red tape or something like that where you could see. The only area that would fit into the vacant lot theory or whatever it is. . . is right behind me is Herb Brevick. He's got one of these long lots. His house is up on the end. Mr. Knapp has got one. There are two in between there and there are three south of there. From there on it is already built. So I don't know where you are coming up with the theory that you are going to put in a bunch of single family dwellings in there. And like Mr. Knapp says, I don't have 5000 feet in my lot, I don't believe. Like I say, you have 12 houses 22 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 on one street. . .so they got to be kind of small up in that area. 3813 South 250th. Commissioner Forner: I have a question. Are you concerned that you got a notice inadvertently and you shouldn't be here, or are you concerned that there are other people out there that should have gotten a notice that didn't. Claude Asquith: I 'm glad I got the notice. Commissioner Forner: I 'm trying to qualify your concern. Claude Asquith: I enjoy these little social functions. This way I can find out what is going on. If I got one and Mr. Belz got one, he lives right next door to me. The people up at the corner I 'd say probably within 200 feet didn't get one. Commissioner Forner: But have you been attending meetings also and had your name on a list for some reason or other. Claude Ascruith: No m'am. I 've never gotten anything that says come down and join us and have fun. Commissioner Forner: Have you owned property in other places. Claude Asquith: Ma 'am I 've owned the lot I 'm on for thirty years. Dan Stroh: Mr. Asquith is within the radius of SF3 . So he got his notice because he's within the 200-foot radius of Single Family 3 . Claude Asquith: How about the man across the street. This is the thing. I got one, my neighbors. . . I go talk to them and when I said are you going to the meeting they said what meeting. Mrs. Sunstedt lives, well, they got to be within 200 feet. Dan Stroh: Would you like me to address that? Chair Martinez: I think we really need to, because I 'm strongly confused at this moment. Claude Asquith: Welcome. We are happy to have you with us. We are all confused as to why some people get them and some people don't. Dan Stroh: I 'm Dan Stroh and I was partially responsible for the mailing so let me explain how it was done. In the West Hill planning area we looked at ten option areas, and within those ten option areas there are approximately 50 parcels that are actually effective parcels, and that the shaded area is actually divided up 23 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 into fifty different property segments. So those people all received the legal notice about the action. Because we notified the 200-foot radius properties as well from whatever the boundaries of the properties happen to be within the shaded area as we go out 200 feet and pick up all the other parcels that any portion of them might touch within a 200-foot circle. . .because the property boundaries are real irregular, it is hard to say exactly if you live on 250th. . .the gentlemen here is talking about this area approximately in here, this is 250th. . .and it is hard to say for any given parcel on 250th just looking at the map like this whether or not that would fall within a 200-foot radius of one of these parcels. I do have a map in the file upstairs where we actually have a computer printout of all the parcels that were within the 200-foot radius. It shows . . . (unclear) regular parcel boundaries. For example there might be a parcel here that might be a long, irregularly-shaped parcel and it goes 1200 feet down south. But if a little piece of it touches within that 200-foot radius, that whole parcel will be picked up. Then that owner would receive notice. Of course, again, his property is not one of the affected properties but it is within the 200-foot radius and that is considered to be reasonable for notifying people who might be within the area of the affected parcel. This is the same procedure we follow for Hearing Examiner rezones, and rezones that are done through site specific, site-by-site process through permit processing. And having looked at the map that resulted from this and seeing the properties actually printed out and if anyone wants to come by and see that map and see where the parcels are, I 'd be happy to show it to you. But I am convinced that the people within the 200-foot radius were notified. We may have picked up a few extra because, if anything, we like to err on the conservative side and pick up extra people to notify rather than miss people who are within the 200-foot radius. Now there was one other thing. We send one to the property owner, but in some cases we don't have the correct name of the property owner. We do the best we can. It comes off, as Mr. Satterstrom mentioned, the King County tax rolls and they get updated right off the county computer tapes several times a year. But sometimes the county computer tapes are wrong and all we have is the name of the taxpayer. This is the standard procedure and is the best we can do as far as an owner goes without doing a title search on each property. We notified in excess of 400 properties for this particular action, plus the people who were on the mailing list for coming to the open houses or public meetings we have had earlier. So, that may help to clear up what the 200-foot radius is. Some people may in fact have received notice that our irregularly-shaped parcels where just a pinch of the property happens to touch within that 200-foot circle. Chair Martinez : At the mike. Yes you do sir. One at a time please. You need to say your name again. 24 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Claude Asquith: My name is still Claude Asquith and I still live at 3813 South 250th. Assuming that you are going from the northern boundary of your shaded-in area, I don't know exactly where it is. I know where 250th is. I can see the dot where the cul-de-sac is, but all those lots have back yards or the back property lines are all in a straight line. There are no irregularities until you get up to the cul-de-sac where it bulges out slightly. So you would pick up each and every one of those. Now my other question is suppose I was Mr. Knapp. He bought a piece of property that goes from 38th Street to 42nd. Am I correct in that? Okay. It goes on out here. Now 42nd being down over the bluff. If he cannot utilize the property that drops down into nothingness, so his house as it shows back there is situated back from the eastern property line. He has property here that is vacant. Now this is what you are saying is not. . .or what you would like to take and make single family dwellings out of. So do you go in and take. . .say that this is my property, would you come in and condemn that property and then tell me that you are going to take it and rezone it so that people can build on it? Dan Stroh: For the SF3 area we are proposing no change. So what you can do today, in terms of the current zoning, is what you would be able to do if this proposal goes through. We've looked at the area, recognized that it had development potential, but we are not recommending any changes for the area. So the action tonight would not affect what you can do if you walked into the counter today and applied for a development permit. Claude Asquith: Your eastern boundary up there is about where the bluff is. Then most of those people have their houses right up on the bluff. So that is where I am wondering where you are coming up with that this is an area that is available to you, because it is all privately owned as it is at the present time. Commissioner Forner: I have a question for you. I understand that you are upset about the process of notification and perhaps it is the best we can do. It's not perfect. But do you have concerns about what we are trying to determine. . .and that is the rezoning. Does that affect you personally. Do you have some comments on that. I would like to hear your comments on that now that you are here. If it does affect you, what are your comments on our proposal . Claude Asquith: There is nothing you can do to my property. It is small enough as it is, so you can't make it any smaller. What I am concerned about is that all of a sudden I get a notice that I am within a property that is going to be transformed into single family dwellings. . . is the way I interpret your letter. 25 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Commissioner Forner: And what is your reaction to that. I guess that is what I 'd want to hear. Claude Asquith: I don't want any more single family dwellings up here. We came down to the City of Kent and asked them to slow down people on 38th and they put in a couple of little bumps which you guys come up and get on them and they dig out a rip them all to pieces. Berne Biteman lived right behind us. We asked Berne about it and he said give their numbers, give me the car type and I ' ll do things about it. We did and he didn't. I'm concerned as the people are on 272nd because I drove all the way down to whatever it is that goes down to Auburn for years and years and years, and they put in 272nd and I got a ticket on it going down the hill. And I know what is going on on 272nd. And it does not get any better any day of the week. Chair Martinez: Excuse me. I 'd like to interrupt. We have some more people that are willing to talk. Thank you. Claude Asquith: Thank you. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Stephen McReynolds: Steve McReynolds again. The notification on this. . .I 'm sure somebody did make an effort to send out notification. The only reason that I heard about it was that one of the other houses near me did get a letter and came over and told me. I am within the area that is marked here. Not in a 200-foot area. The shaded-in area. You've got my house on the map. The other neighbors. . .a lot of them are on vacation today and didn't make it. Some of them did not get notified as well. One of them that got notified got notified the day before he was leaving, which was last Thursday. Maybe they made an effort but they weren't very efficient about it. I go down to the county and look up the tax records on my own as part of my job occasionally. I 've been on the tax records of King County for several years now as owning my property, as has Kurt Lay. I 've looked them all up. They are all there. Chair Martinez : Thank you. Mr. Lay. . .you have closing remarks. Kurt Lay: John McLoughlin lives about 200 feet from me, and I live about 150 from the adjacent property change that you have on SF6. I didn't get a notice change of this thing. He did and he is 350 feet away. I didn't get one. I 've owned my property for two and one-half years and I have been paying the taxes. I can bring you the receipts if you want them. I didn't get any notification. So this thing about. . .they sent notifications out 200 feet from any 26 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24 , 1989 change is not true, because I live 150 feet away from the change and I didn't get one. My next-door neighbor lives 10 feet away and he didn't get one. I think maybe you should adjourn this meeting and start all over. Commissioner Greenstreet: Excuse me. I live on the West Hill. I 've been there since 163. I went to Star Lake, Totem. I've seen the changes. I lived in Cambridge, sold, I lived by Lake Fenwick. I worked to stop the shopping development there where the fire station is going in. Good neighborhood. Good PTA and all that. The City of Kent has been very responsive to the West Hill needs. A lot of the people here I 'm seeing for the first time. I would not blame the City of Kent. This has been an ongoing process for a couple of years. These hearings have been going on, these studies. . .this is a review of what has been going on. It is getting right down to crunch time and there are some people panicking. Don't lash out on people that have worked very hard, thought it out, and looked at it as an alternative to some other problems. Town meetings and that. They are trying to change the ratio of multifamily to single family. You might not agree with the solution, and that's why we want you here. Heck I wish there were 50 more of you saying the same thing. I want to hear that, but the procedure and the solutions. . .people are coming out and saying they are tired of the density multifamily. We want more single family homes to buy. There aren't enough around. The builders should be building more. There are all kinds of people saying. . .a different solution than you have. You have your specific problems and you are saying what you would like. We have been for two years hearing a lot of people speak just like Leona was saying. They have committees. We've been going to different committees. . .so what I am saying is that I'm hearing a lot of people here and they are kind of saying sarcastic remarks about the city. I think you are missing the point, people. We are doing our best. We are just volunteers up here, but we have listened to a lot. We are concerned about your goals, your kids. They are my goals and my kids, too. You same people should be out addressing this 272nd expansion to East Hill . If you think that traffic is bad now, wait until they link up with Highway 18 . But are you guys at those meetings? I don't see your faces there. Kurt Lay: May I speak to that, sir. Commissioner Greenstreet: Just a minute. I 'm not done. I ' ll give you your turn. What I am saying is that before your anger gets there, get involved with the community, protect your home, your kids well being. . .by all that traffic on 272nd and this housing plan. We are glad to listen. But when you guys are making fun, you are making fun of me, and you are really making fun or your own community. We are all a part of it. Thank you. 27 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24 , 1989 Kurt Lay: I know your concerns and I am not trying to be sarcastic up here, but one of my next-door neighbors. . . (unclear) sign that had the development and subplotted the property. He called in the City of Kent and asked them. . .said we never heard anything about these hearings about how you were going to change. And they told him that by law they had to put it in the local newspaper. That was Kent Valley. Now most people. . . if you are concerned about getting people's participation, maybe you should put it in the Seattle Times or the PI that most people take. This is the first time I 've ever heard about Planning change. Read the Seattle Times every day. I work for them. I read the hearing notices all the time and I 've never seen anything in the Seattle Times stating that there is notification that we are having a hearing of the changes. Maybe something can be done about notifying the people that live in the area. There might be some changes. But. . .that's why you have people up here that are scared as they are because this is the first time we ever heard anything about changes. Because most people don't read the Kent Valley General. They read Seattle Times, the Post Intelligencer and maybe that can be changed so more people are notified. . .that we can take part in what's going on. Commissioner Greenstreet: Like the Wednesday edition, South Times edition. Kurt Lay: Right. Commissioner Greenstreet: That's a good point. Chair Martinez : Thank you. There's a woman standing in line. Would you like to speak? Okay. Would you come to the mike please. Patricia Munson: My name is Patricia Munson. I live at 4326 South 272nd. It sounds kind of like a tape recording here, whatever. . . I didn't receive any notice and I live in the same area. I just returned from vacation today. We bought our lot hoping that all of the other lots next door, because we are right on the line there. . . Chairman Martinez : Are you talking about Single Family 6? Patricia Munson: Yes, SR6. We are right on that land. . .right next door. All the land there was zoned 7200 when we bought and we were hoping that. . .we were considering that that was how it was going to be. We built a larger house and we stuck to the covenants within that area, and now if we have smaller houses, it will lower the value of our house and what not. Plus, since I moved there. . .I 've always lived in Seattle or whatever, and then I moved out this way about four years ago. It was in the landfill area. I sold my house there, moved down to 272nd because I still didn't 28 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 want to move out any farther. I buy this land and now this happens. Anyway, the traffic in the last four years has really changed. It used to take me ten minutes to get to work and now it is a half an hour. And it is just going down Military to Kent- Des Moines Road, going over to Pacific Highway. And the traffic is terrible. And now that we have that new apartment building down there on 272nd by Lake Fenwick that is opening, there is going to be more traffic there. That's all I have to say. I don't usually get up and talk, but I just wanted you to know. Usually I am very involved. We just moved in here and I haven't got as involved as I have always been. Thank you. Commissioner Forner: I would just like to make a comment. I have sat on Sea-Tac, which is a citizen advisory group to METRO, I have also worked with a subcommittee on transportation for the Puget Sound Council of Governments, and I am presently a legislative aid for a state legislator, and I do understand about the problems. And although it is down to some specifics, I don't think that any of us can deny. . . in fact I was doing some research today on the growth in this area, and King County, South King County in particular, is the fastest growing area in the nation and the fastest in Washington State. I think you have probably seen those statistics around. They have been in economic development reports, they've been in Chamber of Commerce reports. . .everywhere you go you can see. . .Boeing is building up. We are starting to use a Pacific Rim. . .using import export. . .Everything's saying it. . .we get it at the state level, county level, local level. And the reason we are doing this is to try to alleviate some of the exact problems that you are concerned about. . . the traffic, the housing, where are we going to put people, and I know when it hits you personally, it takes on a whole different slant. But we have to look at the big picture. I want you to know that we are not sitting up here totally ignorant of what is going on and how it affects you. Our mission and our job is to look at the big picture and try and do something about the big area. I just wanted to pass that comment on to you. Chair Martinez: I think you are in line. Your name please. Dale Dodrill: Dale Dodrill, and I live at 25019 38th which is a border to the SF3 , and I appreciate the fact that you have not changed the zoning and that it is still R1-7.2 and because. . .as it was alluded to by several other people that the 38th Avenue South that runs north and south, it does have a lot of traffic and people want to speed through there. The bumps have been put in to try to help that problem, so I appreciate the fact that you have not proposed to increase the number of people that will be living on 38th. Also I 'd like to say along with the other comments, like on Military Road there is a lot of traffic that we have talked about. 29 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24 , 1989 Also, you alluded to the fact that you were tied in with the school district or the state, and. . .this is an extra kind of question that has to do with why isn't this West Hill area part of the Kent School District. I think that if we live in the City of Kent, we ought to be a part of the Kent School District and not part of Federal Way. Commissioner Forner: If you give me your phone number, I 'll try to find that out for you tomorrow. Dale Dodrill: Yeah. I 'd sure appreciate that. 839-7474. Also like the other gentlemen mentioned, it does seem like they should have received a notice along the 250th Avenue there. But the bottom line is that there is no change in the zoning proposed here. I think we should try to cooperate with you people just a little bit. Chair Martinez : Is there anybody else? Chester Spurgeon: My name is Chester Spurgeon. I live at 23624 41st Avenue South on the West Hill. Just for you, Greg, and the rest of you who are pretty young to know it, but about 25 years ago I went through a series of meetings similar to this and watched people just like you tell me . . . patting me on the shoulder and telling me how good the Kent Highlands Sanitary Landfill was going to be. And I watched a massive garbage dump develop and suffered with it for 25 years. So don't feel offended if people like me and these people get a little irate when this kind of proceeding goes on. Be that as it may, for those of you who would like to see a 5000 square foot residential lot develop in a large application, you should take a trip down to San Francisco and take a look at some of the residential developments they have down there that are built on 4 or 5000 square feet. I assure you that if you take a trip like that, you will not be proposing 5000 square foot lots in this area. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Sir. Tell me what you mean by that. Chester Spurgeon: What I mean is that the 5000 square foot lot is not a lot. It is a postage stamp with a house on it and no lot. There is nothing there. Five thousand square feet. . .what have you got in here. . .a thousand. It' s not there. Commissioner Forner: I guess I ask you then if we don't do that, how do we look after the masses of people that are coming by the year. . . Chester Spurgeon: Let the masses go on out. 30 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24 , 1989 Commissioner Forner: They won't go out. They will be here. Chester Spurgeon: Not if you don't rezone it for multifamily housing, they won't. Commissioner Forner: Then we aren't doing our job of providing housing for the people. They will be living. . . Chester Spurgeon: Let it be somebody else's job. Why should we put up with it under our elbows. If I wanted to live in San Francisco, I 'd go to San Francisco to live. Commissioner Forner: But we cannot stop people from coming here. Chester Spurgeon: If they don't have a place to live, they won't come here. I mean. . .you can be all things to all people, but you. . . or the other way around. You can't provide something for everybody. It is just not possible. No matter how hard you try, you're trying hard, but no matter how hard you try, you're not going to be able to provide for everybody. It just cannot be done. Chair Martinez : Thank you. There are two people in the queue. Okay. The person standing up has not spoken yet. So let him go first. Dion Baldus: My name is Dion Baldus and I live at 26520 Lake Fenwick Road. My area of interest is S7 . I 'm a little confused here tonight, so I guess I 'd just like to ask some questions. It is currently zoned R1-7. 2, I 'm wondering if that is a ball park number or is that absolute minimum number that the lot can be. Chair Martinez: Yes Dion Baldus: Then I see Option A which is a site-specific alternative, and then I see Option B is the same thing, so you aren't doing anything with the property. Chair Martinez: That is correct. Dion Baldus: Okay, but under the site-specific alternative you have two objectives you are trying to accomplish by leaving it alone. Can you define to me what you mean by preserving the low density character of the Lake Fenwick area. Because in my mind 7200 square feet is not low density. I currently have a 20, 000 plus square foot lot. To me that is low density. Chair Martinez: Very low density. 31 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Dion Baldus: Well, in the Mid West anything under an acre is low density. Just depends on your point of reference. I am trying to understand what your point of reference is. Chair Martinez : I think. . .the Planning Department should correct me but I think that as long as it is single family residence, we have defined that as relatively low density as opposed to multifamily housing which is high density. . . from duplex on up. Dion Baldus: It is an environmentally sensitive area. When I built my house in that area I had to. . .there is no water or sewer in the region, I had to add an additional 100 feet to my drain field. That drain field darn near takes up the entire half acre Of lot with the exception of the house. As I see it, I don't see how one could put a well point and a septic tank on a 7200 square foot lot. Unless the plans are in the future to provide water and sewer to that area, I 'm not aware of any plans in that arena. The other question I had was that 50-foot minimum. . . is that in fact a minimum. Chair Martinez: Yes. Dion Baldus: It is a minimum. Chair Martinez : Yes. Dion Baldus: Because some of those lots in that region are only 40 foot in width. Chair Martinez: That's from the front. It is 50 feet now. It would be 50 feet. Right. Dion Baldus: So that would then require that whoever owns that property purchase two lots side by side. Stephen Clifton: (unclear) Single Family Area 7 because that is recommended for no change. They need a (unclear) R1-7.2. Dion Baldus: I guess I 'm still confused, but based on your objectives here for Option A, I 'd like to propose that you consider changing the zoning to R1-12 . That in my mind would require a minimum of two lots, sufficient room for a well point and septic system if necessary, plus it is more attuned to the rest of the houses in the area. Floyd Bacon: I 'm Floyd Bacon again, 24311 35th Avenue South, Kent. My first question is back again. I was mistaken on 3 . We were on the other side. This is multiple housing. Three shows low density housing. I was misinformed by my colleague here. We are talking 32 ~ Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 about Map Number WH-4 . Okay, that's low density housing he explained to me when I had a question which is fine. That was WH- 4, page 11. Sorry about that. We show low density housing. Now turn it over to page 12 and we show single family dwelling. Is that just so close together. . .the map. . . it doesn't show. Are they that close together? Both of them together. Stephen Clifton: They are touching. One is mobile home park. Floyd Bacon: That's the one I could not hear about. Fine. I have something to say tonight. I have been here for 25 years myself. I am speaking to the gentlemen, Mr. Greenstreet. Commissioner Greenstreet: Yes. Floyd Bacon: And I 've raised a daughter. Went through grade school, through junior high and high school. I 've been here a long time. . .resident of Kent. Some of the old timers around here. We participated. . .we say the City of Kent. Well, I 've found that I 've got a lot of support from the employees of this City. And these employees of this City, they are only doing what they are told. I think that a lot of times we fail to put responsibility of who are representatives are, and that is the City Council. I think this is where these types of things should be brought to the City Council, not to these people here. They are only doing what they are told. They are employees of the City of Kent. I say in all sincerity that you people are doing a fine job, but I think that things are not just right, and I think this why we are here. But I would like to see a lot of people address this problem that we have to the Council of this city. That is all that I have to say. Chair Martinez : Thank you, and you will have the opportunity. You have more. Can I respond just one more minute. The process is that the Planning Commission receives the study of the Planning Department. We make a recommendation to accept whatever we choose and we send a recommendation to the City Council with our reasons for choosing those recommendations. And then they do in fact enact the final judgment on what is to take place. However, the better the input at this point, the better the recommendations that go the Council. We appreciate your being here. Stephen Clifton: I received a call on July 20, 1989 from a John Olaughlin, 4408 South 272nd. He mentioned to me that he is opposed to the R1-5 designation for the following reasons: the area is almost suburban-rural; large lots surround this area; and he wants to see existing character maintained. So I signed my name on the bottom and I 'd like to submit that for him. He's on vacation right now. 33 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Chair Martinez: Fine. Thank you very much. Yes sir. Mike Larson: Mike Larson. I spoke earlier. I would like that letter I submitted included as part of the record. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Yes, it will be. Are there any other speakers? I would entertain a motion to close the hearing. Commissioner Forner: So moved. Commissioner Greenstreet: Second. Chair Martinez: Is there any discussion. commissioner-For ner: I move that we. . . Chair Martinez: Will you speak into the mike clearly. Commissioner Greenstreet: I just want to say thank you for every one that spoke. I wish there were more people that came. Like I said, it has been an ongoing process for quite a while and I appreciate all your input. Commissioner Forner: I also want to thank you for coming. I wonder if there is anybody here who would require more background as to why we are dealing with this 20 percent reduction in the City of Kent. Have you had background. . . like two and three years ago we had hearings on traffic counts and population and what we were going to do with it. The percentage of multifamily housing to single family housing and how Kent could not keep up with the services to serve those types of people. I think if you look at the background of why we are doing what you're doing, it may not make your individual piece of property any more palatable, the fact that you are going to have to live with that, but it may make you understand why we are doing what we are doing. I am sure if you let the city staff know, that they can come up some of the background on why this study is before you today. It is not just something that come out of the blue. They've been working on it for a long, long time. It was the citizens input. We have done several surveys on whether they wanted to have a reduction in the growth in the City of Kent. And the citizens said yes. And this is a result of those citizens asking for a reduction in the growth in the City of Kent. Thank you. Chair Martinez: There is a motion on the floor to close the public hearing. All in favor. Aye. Opposed. Thank you. I would entertain a motion for action on the result of the hearing. 34 . Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Commissioner Greenstreet: I move that we go through item by item. I feel we've studied. We've taken the input. I 'm comfortable with working on each piece of property and deciding. . . Chair Martinez: Are we going to have time to do that this evening? Commissioner Greenstreet: Well, I could. . . I don't think it will take that long. Depends how comfortable the rest of the Commission is. Chair Martinez: Have you had the opportunity. . .we could take a five-minute break while people take the opportunity to read that we have (unclear) received. Commissioner Forner: I 'm not ready to make a deliberation. Fred Satterstrom: I think that if I can offer some kind of advice here, you may wish a written record of what has gone on here this evening. In a couple of weeks we could have the verbatim transcript ready for you. You could review that, and as well you might wish to be a little bit more refreshed when you tackle all of these sites and some additional time to consider the testimony may be in order. I guess what I am suggesting is that you reconvene possibly on August 14th in regular session again to go over the results of this hearing. Chair Martinez : What is the (unclear) of the Commission. Commissioner Forner: I certainly have some questions that I wrote down that I would like some answers to before I made a deliberation on. . .and I don't think that is possible to do that this evening. If we have time to do that at a later date, I 'd prefer to postpone the deliberations on the hearings. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: I would second that. I think I would prefer to postpone it until the 14th and take it up again at that time. Chair Martinez: I would entertain a motion then to continue the. . . Fred Satterstrom: To continue the meeting of the Planning Commission on this. Chair Martinez: I would entertain a motion to continue the meeting of the Planning Commission on the West Hill Area Housing Study. Commissioner Forner: I move we continue this meeting on August 14th. 35 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Chair Martinez : Is there a second? Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: I second. Chair Martinez: Is there discussion? All in favor Commissioners: Aye Chair Martinez: Opposed. For those of you in the audience, on August 14th at 7: 30 we will be meeting in this room. We will be continuing our deliberations, and you are certainly welcome, and we encourage you and your neighbors to attend. (Unclear voices) Chair Martinez: For clarification can if there is additional testimony, can we have. . .we have closed the hearing. . .can it be reopened. Okay, fine. If there is new input to be had from the community, we can reopen the hearings and listen to whatever you have to say, and we would be happy to receive written testimony as well. There will be a verbatim report available on what has gone on today, and I am hoping that some of the issues can be addressed from the staff when you come to make the presentation so that people are clear about any of the questions that they have raised here. Yes, Dan. Dan Stroh: Also, I 'd really appreciate getting the addresses of people who didn't receive notification who feel that they ought to have received it so we can figure out what went wrong with the notification process. . .help us on down the road as we do others of these meetings. I 'd really appreciate if you could give that to me tonight. Thank you. Chair Martinez : We have two more areas, and if we have made a mistake, we don't want to repeat it. Okay. That' s it. (End of verbatim minutes) RECREATIONAL VEHICLE CABIN PROPOSAL ZCA-89-2 Scott Williams presented the KOA, Kampgrounds of America, proposal for one or two movable wooden camping cabins to be allowed in the KOA campground. He stated that the Kent Zoning Code allows permanent structures only for a residence for the manager and/or owner of the park, and for structures to house laundry and shower facilities. Staff recommends denial of this regulatory review for the following reasons: (1) the intent of the Recreational Vehicle Park Code is to provide areas for recreational vehicles and their 36 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24 , 1989 users and these cabins clearly do not fit the definition of a recreational vehicle; (2) This type of request has not been considered in the code. There is concern that there could be an increase in the number of cabins in the future, and that the cabins could encourage long-term stays. Chairman Martinez commented that we do not have a campground designation. She felt there should be either a new designation entitled Campground, or the Recreational Vehicle Park Code should be amended. Beth Garrett, applicant, 5801 South 212th, stated that the City of Kent allowed KOA, which has 700 campgrounds in the United States, to come into the City of Kent. At that time KOA had sites for trailers, motor homes, and a tenting area. After travelling in Australia, New Zealand and Europe, the applicants brought back to KOA in Billings, Montana the concept of camping for those who did not have the big car or big tents. People in those other countries can throw sleeping bags and cooking utensils into their cars and camp without the tent. KOA now has instigated this concept, and hundreds of its campgrounds now have the camping cabins. Last year KOA asked all of its campgrounds to include a cabin or two so that those who wished to camp in cabins could camp without a tent. The structures in question are one-room cabins with a double bed, two bunks, an electric light in the ceiling and a smoke alarm. Campers cook and eat outside like other tenters. The cabin is like a hard- sided tent. Tenting is open only during June, July, August, and September, depending on the weather. The camping area is roped off and unused during the winter months. The cabins would be in the tenting area and also would be closed all winter. They have a second building which houses the shower, laundry, etc. Since the buildings are closed all winter, she did not feel that anyone would want to live in a cabin in the winter that has no heat, no water or plumbing. She emphasized that the proposed cabins would not be permanent structures. The cabins would be put on blocks so that they could be moved. She stated that 40, 000 campers use the KOA campground in Kent during the year. These campers use the services of the City of Kent. She expressed disappointment that the planners did not realize that this was not a permanent structure. She pointed out that San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Antonio, and Salt Lake City have these structures in the KOA campgrounds. She requested that since this type of structure is part of the entire KOA system, KOA in Kent should be allowed to have these structures. When KOA was allowed to locate in Kent, they were told that the site would be in a recreational area. Now they are nearly surrounded by warehouses. 37 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Commissioner Greenstreet stated that he has known persons who had gone to Denmark and Norway and had utilized this type of camping structure as they travelled. He felt that this structure would fit better in North Bend or Green Water than in our urban area. Ms. Garrett added that they provide a Gray Line Tour bus tour for 65 passengers on a seven-hour tour of the Seattle area. The bus tour is filled with people from all over the world. Kent's KOA is the nearest campground to Seattle, and KOA refers campers to other locations able to accommodate them. Their campers usually stay at least three or four days to see this area. Commissioner Forner explained that under the present zoning there are regulations which include only people-maintained vehicles or tents. She asked how the facility would be kept clean. Ms. Garrett responded that the campground employs a professional cleaning crew on a daily basis. Commissioner Forner responded that current zoning does not regulate movable cabins. Ms. Garrett did not feel that this site should be classified under Recreational Vehicle Park. KOA parks are inspected frequently and must meet the KOA standards, and she felt that Kent should be able to provide the same services as other campgrounds in the KOA franchise. When foreigners come to the US, they buy or rent very small cars and carry the minimum of equipment because they sell everything when they leave. Chair Martinez responded that this type of activity may be appropriate, but if the code is changed for KOA, it would pertain to all facilities of this type. She has camped in KOA campgrounds in a tent and felt they were good places for families, but she was concerned about opening up the city to the unknown. Commissioner Forner asked how many other camping facilities are under this zoning at the present time. Mr. Satterstrom responded that currently there are no others. There is a permit out for one that may be built south of the Green River. Discussions followed regarding the effect a change of regulations might have on future campgrounds in Kent. Commissioner Forner had concern about making an exception to the code for this structure. She wondered how other jurisdictions had dealt with this type of situation. She was concerned that this be allowed, but not at the risk of future situations. Mr. Williams responded that there had been insufficient time to complete a study of other jurisdictions. 38 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24 , 1989 Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner expressed concern about future recreational camping parks. Chair Martinez felt that even though there is only one campground in Kent at the present time, the exception should be clearly stated that it would be for KOA and regulated by KOA. Mr. Satterstrom added that if the Commission denied the regulatory review request to change the code which would affect all businesses of this nature, there are two other avenues of appeal. One would be to go to the City Council Planning Committee, and the other would be to apply for a variance. This would be site specific, would deal specifically with the KOA Campground, and would not change the code. Chair Martinez asked how long it would take to obtain a variance. Mr. Satterstrom responded that it would take approximately 45 to 100 days. Chair Martinez asked what kind of conditions would be considered for a variance. Mr. Satterstrom explained that strict criteria have been developed by the state dealing with hardship, reasonableness, unique circumstances, and any possible adverse effect to the public welfare. The Board of Adjustment would ascertain if this grant of special privilege would have any negative effects on adjacent property. Much of the evidence that had been supplied at this hearing in terms of the image, number of visitors and revenue generated for the city would not be part of the criteria that would be considered by the Board of Adjustment. Commissioner Greenstreet MOVED to deny this request for a zoning code amendment which would allow cabins in this campground. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Forner MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Greenstreet SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10: 25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, *sP. arris, Secretary 39 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF KENT AREA HOUSING STUDY - WEST HILL INTRODUCTION After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Planning Department and all evidence elicited during the public hearing, the Planning Commission enters the following findings and conclusions as a basis for its recommendation on the Area Housing Study for West Hill. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The City Council passed Resolution 1123 in December 1986, establishing its intention to reduce potential multifamily densities by 20% throughout the City of Kent, Washington. 2 . Resolution 1172, passed by the City Council in July 1988, directed the Kent Planning Department to conduct an area-by- area analysis of multifamily residential densities for the West Hill, East Hill, and Valley Floor Planning Areas. 3 . The Planning Department prepared a report on residential densities entitled "Area Housing Studies Project Overview and West Hill" . This full staff report is incorporated herein by reference. 4. Three multifamily areas were analyzed within the West Hill Planning Area (MF-01, MF-02 , MF-03) . These areas are identified in the above-referenced staff report. 5. The City's overall Comprehensive Plan Map designates areas MF- 01 Mas(MMHP f and y MF MF-02 as(Mob le M Home ltParklland and MultifamIly respectively) . 6. The West Hill Subarea Plan Map designates areas MF-01 as MF- 24 (Multifamily Residential 12-24 units per acre) ; MF-02 as MF-24 (Multifamily Residential 12-24 units per acre) ; and MF- 03 as MHP and MF-40 (Mobile Home Park and Multifamily Residential, 24-40 units per acre respectively) . 7 . Areas MF-01 and 02 are zoned MRM (Medium Density Multifamily) and Area MF-03 is zoned MRH (High Density Multifamily) . 8 . MF-01 and MF-02 areas are vacant while a building exists at the northern tip of area MF-03 . Area MF-02 has been partially graded. West Hill Area Housing Findings and Conclusions 9. Levels of Service (LOS) at the controlled intersections in the vicinity of the three areas are currently at or near capacity, E or F. (A is the best of intersection conditions and F is the worst or failing. ) These intersections include: LIST Military Road and SR 516 LOS E / F Southbound off Ramp (I-5) and Kent Des Moines Rd LOS E / F Pacific Highway South and Kent Des Moines Road LOS E / F 10. Ready availability of community facilities, services and infrastructure is lacking (i.e. no sidewalks, substandard roadways, inadequate street lighting, lack of crosswalks, and lack of public transportation to services) in all three areas. 11. A 30-foot easement along the north boundary of Area MF-01 limits development potential. 12 . Area MF-02 is adjacent to RA, Residential Agricultural zoning. Density gradation as a result of change in density would serve as a transition zone between lowest density single family and GC-General Commercial, and R1-9 . 6-Single-Family Residential, 9600 square foot lots. 13 . Area MF-02 has moderate slopes along north and west edges which may limit MRM development. 14 . The Kent Highlands Landfill (now closed) may constrain higher density development of Area MF-02 . 15. Area MF-03 would serve as a transition use between intensive (Interstate 5) and less intensive (mobile home parks) uses. 16. Four alternatives were presented by the Kent Planning Department. These included: 1) a site-specific reduction; 2) an East Hill reduction (combines West Hill and Valley Floor site-specific alternatives with 100% East Hill reduction) ; 3) a text reduction (formalization of the interim policy currently in effect) ; and 4) no change (hence no density reduction) . 17 . A Site-Specific density change to MRG (Garden Density Multifamily Residential) has been recommended for Multifamily Areas MF-01, 02, and 03 . 2 West Hill Area Housing Findings and Conclusions 18. Site-Specific Alternative recommended density changes would result in an estimated total reduction of 90.97 multifamily units for all three areas. (Figure calculated from estimated development under current zoning less estimated density reductions from recommendations) . The following table lists reductions in multifamily units for each area: Reductions in Area Multifamily Units MF-01 4 .99 MF-02 23 . 28 MF-03 62 . 7 Total 90.97 19. Site-specific recommended density changes would result in a decrease in estimated vehicle trips by 535.47 per day. The following chart lists reductions in vehicle trips per day: Reductions in Area Vehicle Trips Per Day MF-01 30 MF-02 122 MF-03 383 Total 535 CONCLUSIONS 1. The recommendations addressed in the Area Housing Study-West Hill report are consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the City-wide Comprehensive Plan Housing Element and West Hill Land Use Plan Housing, Transportation, Public Facilities and Services, and Human Environment/Resources elements (see Phase 2 Housing Study-West Hill pp. WH-15-18) 2 . As described in the Area Housing Study-West Hill report, the following actions are recommended actions for the West Hill Planning Area: 1) Amend the West Hill Subarea Plan Text as follows: Housing Element Goal 2 : Policy 2: The West Hill Plan Land Use map will serve as a general guide for future development of the West Hill . 3 West Hill Area Housing Findings and Conclusions Public Facilities Goal 1: Objective 2: Add Policy 2: Restrict residential densities in areas unconnected to City Sewer. This change in text for the West Hill Land Use Plan is necessary to provide consistency with the recently amended comprehensive Plan Housing Element, and Council Resolutions 1123 and 1172 . 2) Amend the West Hill Plan Map for implementation of the site-specific recommendation in Multifamily area MF-03 . The West Hill Land Use Plan Map designates the northern half of Area MF-03 as MHP, Mobile Home Park, while the southern portion of the site is mapped as MF-401 24-40 multifamily units per acre. To bring the West Hill Land Use Plan Map into compliance with the recommendation of MRG Zoning for this site, a land use designation of MF-24, 12-24 multifamily units per acre is required. 3) Amend the Zoning Map for Multifamily Areas MF-01, -02, and -03 , designating all sites as MRG zoning. Area MF-011 -02 , and -03 are currently zoned MRM, MRM and MRH respectively, and are recommended for change to MRG. 4) Amend the West Hill Plan Map creating a "Single-Family Designated Area" overlay. The "Single-Family Designated Area" Overlay for West Hill encompasses large areas of contiguous, existing single-family development. The largest area includes a small existing neighborhood commercial site which serves the single-family neighborhood. The initial proposal includes only those areas now located within city limits. The goals of this overlay area are to: a) conserve existing single-family neighborhoods, b) to protect single-family neighborhoods from incompatible uses, and c) to promote new single-family development. The area boundaries are shown in the above-referenced staff report. The "Single-Family Designated Area" Overlay district is consistent with the recently adopted Housing Element of the City-Wide Comprehensive Plan. 8/21/89 4 Kent City Council Meeting Date September 19 1989 Category Bids 1. SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS SEWER AND WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening was August 25, 1989 with four bids received. The low bid was submitted by R. W. Scott in the amount of $301, 653 . 34, the Engineer's estimate was $200,701. 07. The bids have been reviewed and it is recommended by the Director of Public Works that the bids be rejected and the project be modified and rebid at a later date. � - 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Director of Public Works 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Don Wickstrom (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds That the bids be rejected anc.1modified and the miscellaneous sewer and water improvements be rebid at a later date. DISCUSSION: ACTION: - Council Agenda Item No. 5A �A DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS September 19, 1989 TO: Mayor Kelleher & City Council FROM: Don Wickstrom RE: Miscellaneous Sewer and Watermain Improvement Bid opening was August 25, 1989 with four bids received. The low bid was submitted by R. W. Scott in the amount of $301, 653 .34. The Engineers Estimate was $200,701. 07. The bids have been reviewed and it is recommended by the Director of Public Works that the bids be rejected and the project be re-bid at a later date. R. W. Scott Construction $301, 653 .34 Gary Merlino Construction $333 , 730.21 Volker Stevin Pacific $355, 363 .93 Westwater Construction $381, 946.44 Engineer' s Estimate $200, 701.07 Councilmember moves, councilmember seconds that the bids be rejected and the Miscellaneous Sewer and Watermain Improvement project be re-bid at a later 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 G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS